1967-02-15

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
First report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the national anthem and the royal anthem, in both French and English-Mr. Ryan.
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of special joint committee on consumer credit and cost of living-Mr. Basford.
[Note: Text of above reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the assurance I gave this house some weeks ago and reiterated yesterday, I should like to table two copies of a condensed report dealing with applications for deferment and suspension and action taken thereon under part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Godin: What were the estimated damages, and what was the cause of the C.N.R. derailment that occurred in the Rivifere-4-Pierre area, Portneuf county, during the last week of December 1966?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: About 8:05 a.m. on December 29th, 1966, train No. 814 (427) had 25 cars derailed near Linton, Quebec. The accident was caused by a broken rail. There were no personal injuries but damage to equipment and contents. Total cost of the accident is still being assembled.


CHIEF OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SECTION, INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who is the chief of the federal-provincial relations section of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	How long has he held the position?
3.	What are his academic qualifications?
4.	What is his previous experience in working with Indians either in the department or elsewhere?
5.	What are his duties and responsibilities and to whom does he report?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Mr. Leonard Lisgar Brown.
2.	Since January 20, 1964.
3.	Academic qualifications: (a) Queens University, B.A., (b) Osgoode Hall, barrister at law.
4.	During a period of 27 years Mr. Brown has held responsible positions in headquarters which required him to work closely with individual Indians, band councils, Indian associations, regional Indian advisory councils and the national Indian advisory board located in all provinces.
5.	His duties and responsibilities are: To be responsible for the co-ordination of the activities of the branch in the area of federal-provincial relations; to act as consultant and adviser to the director, Indian affairs on policy and planning in connection with federal-provincial relations pertaining to Indians; to perform the liaison function between the branch and regional federal-provincial coordinating committees; to co-ordinate the function and activities of regional Indian advisory councils; to conduct related correspondence and prepare reports and other narrative material; to undertake special assignments involving major problems at the request of the director. Mr. Brown reports to the director of Indian Affairs branch.


DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE. INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who is the director of the development directorate of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	How long has he held the position?

February 15, 1967
Questions
3.	What are his academic qualifications?
4.	What is his previous experience in working with Indians either in the department or elsewhere?
5.	What are his duties and responsibilities and to whom does he report?


Arthur Laing: 1. Mr. Archibald Gregory Leslie is the acting director of the development directorate.
2.	Since October 24, 1966.
3.	Academic qualifications: (a) High school graduation, 1st class professional teacher's certificate, (b) University of Manitoba, course in anthropology.
4.	Mr. Leslie was a teacher in an Indian residential school from 1936 to 1940. Since he joined the Indian affairs branch in 1940 he has held frequent discussions and meetings with the Indian people and conducted numerous field trips while occupying headquarters positions from 1940 to 1955 and from 1964 to 1966; while occupying field positions from 1955 to 1964, Mr. Leslie was in continuous contact and meetings with individual Indians and band councils.
5.	His duties and responsibilities are: Directing the formulation of co-ordinated programs of social, economic and community development; ensuring optimum utilization of all available human and material resources; providing technical direction to and control over field officers to implement programs; collaborating with other directors within the branch in the formulation of policy; ensuring that headquarters and field staff are suitably trained and developed and are making effective contributions to the programs; attending and addressing meetings, preparing reports and conducting correspondence. Mr. Leslie reports to the director of Indian affairs.


CHIEF OF EDUCATION DIRECTORATE, INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,486
Mr. Orlikow:: 1.	Who is the director of the education directorate of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	How long has he held the position?
3.	What are his academic qualifications?
4.	What is his previous experience in working with Indians either in the department or elsewhere?
5.	What are his duties and responsibilities and to whom does he report?


Arthur Laing: 1. Mr. Robert Frederick Davey.
2.	Since January 1, 1954.
[Mr. Orlikow.)
3.	Academic qualifications: (a) Victoria normal school, teacher's certificate; (b) University of British Columbia, B.A.; (c) Post graduate courses in the education field at the University of British Columbia.
4.	Since joining the branch in 1933, Mr. Davey spent two years as a teacher at an Indian day school and five years as superintendent of Indian schools for British Columbia. Since 1952, he has been assistant superintendent of the education division and director of the education directorate in the branch. He has had a direct and close association with and responsibility for the education of Indians therefore for 34 years.
5.	His duties and responsibilities are: To have over-all responsibility and authority for the provision of education services and programs to over 60,000 Indian children; for the development and co-ordination of educational policy, the direction and planning of operating procedures, the provision of educational services in 560 Indian communities, the recruitment and supervision of a staff of over 1,800 professional educationists; negotiation of agreements with the provinces for the admission of Indian children to joint schools; the development and implementation of a comprehensive vocational training program and the placement of graduates in employment; for the operation of hostels and residential schools for Indian children requiring special services. Mr. Davey reports to the director of Indian affairs.


CHIEF OF ENGINEERING DIVISION, INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who Is the chief of the engineering and construction division of the development directorate of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	How long has he held the position?
3.	What are his academic qualifications?
4.	What is his previous experience in working with Indians either in the department or elsewhere?
5.	What are his duties and responsibilities and to whom does he report?


Arthur Laing: 1. Mr. George Johnston Bowen.
2.	Since April 2, 1964.
3.	Academic qualifications: (a) University of Manitoba, B. Sc. (C.E.); (b) Registered professional engineer, Association of Professional Engineers (Ontario); Association of Professional Engineers (British Columbia).
February 15, 1967

4.	After joining the Indian Affairs branch in 1949, Mr. Bowen spent first five years as resident engineer for field projects on various reserves in British Columbia. During this time, he hired and supervised Indian workers and lived among them on reserves. Afterwards, Mr. Bowen was a regional engineer for British Columbia for six years and a supervising engineer at headquarters for four years; during this time, he had meetings and discussions with band councils and inspected reserves throughout Canada.
5.	His duties and responsibilities are: Direction, supervision and development of a staff of engineers, architects, planners, technical personnel and administrators engaged in the planning, design, construction, maintenance and implementation of the Indian affairs branch construction and development program, involving all aspects of municipal engineering such as community planning, schools, water systems, bridges, electrical distribution systems, roads, housing, community halls and staff residences; direction and review of engineering, architectural and planning studies and surveys to ensure costs, methods and materials are proper; arranges for the invitation of tenders and the award of contracts; ensures proper supervision of construction projects and the implementation of satisfactory maintenance and repair programs; advises and provides technical information on all matters related to engineering, architecture and community planning; conducts special investigations in construction matters as required and prepares comprehensive reports and correspondence." Mr. Bowen reports to the director of development.


TENDERS FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the amount of the contract for the construction of two chapels, an industrial building, a garage and a stores building at the Young Offender's Penal Institution at Springhill, Nova Scotia, and who was the successful tenderer?
2.	How many additional tenders were submitted, by whom, and in what amounts?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Contract awarded in the amount of $1,894,000, to Simpson Construction Ltd., Fredericton, N.B.
2.	Six: 1-Foundation Company of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, $1,928,000; 2-Kenney Construction Co. Ltd., Yarmouth, N.S., $1,948,000; 3-Fundy Construction Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.,
Questions
$1,996,550; 4-Modern Construction Limited, Moncton, N.B., $2,025,451; 5-Eastern Contracting Limited, New Glasgow, N.S., $2,174,500; 6-Diamond Construction 1961 Ltd., Fredericton, N.B., $2,488,000.


BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION OVER OTTAWA RIVER
Mr. Davis: How many bridges have been built with financial assistance from the federal government over the Ottawa river since 1950, and where are these bridges located and what was the percentage and total amount of the federal contribution in each case?


George James McIlraith: So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: the number of bridges is three. Between Ottawa, Ont. and Hull, Que., 33J per cent; $3,281,979. *Between Alu-mette Island, Que. and Pembroke, Ont., 100 per cent of centre bridge; $894,173. Between Portage du Fort, Que. and highway 17, Ont. (under construction), 50 per cent; $382,628. (est).
*This is a system of three bridges. Quebec contributed 100 per cent of the cost of the bridge on the Quebec side. Ontario contributed 100 per cent of the cost of the bridge on the Ontario side.


PROVISION OF COLOUR TELEVISION SETS TO C.B.C. STAFF
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the chosen officials and/or employees of the C.B.C. who are to be the recipients of and have free use of the coloured T.V. sets recently purchased by the C.B.C.?
2.	From what companies and/or individuals were such coloured T.V. sets purchased?
3.	Was such purchase preceded by a resolution passed by the C.B.C., and, if so, on what date was such resolution passed?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secrelary of Siale):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the C.B.C. that:
1.	Colour television receivers are assigned according to requirements of senior positions and remain with these positions in the event of the departure of present incumbents. They are used by those whose duties require program viewing.
2.	Sets were purchased mainly from RCA Victor, Canadian General Electric, Canadian Admiral and Philips Electronics and, in a few cases where delivery from these companies

February 15, 1967
Questions
was not available, from Clairtone, Fleetwood,	'suicide attempts in Quebec
Zenith, Philco and Electrohome.	penitentiaries
3- No.	
Question No. 2,525-Mr. Howard:


NURSING SERVICE, WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: 1.	How many registered nurses are employed at Westminster hospital, London, Ontario?
2.	How many nursing assistants are employed at the above hospital?
3.	How many practical or other classifications of nurses not listed above are employed at this hospital?
4.	In each category what are the (a) rates of pay (b) rates of overtime pay (c) number of work hours per week?
5.	Where their work calls for a 40-hour work week, do they always work five consecutive days and then have two days off duty and, if not, under what circumstances are any of them required to work more than five consecutive days?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 199 full time, 35 casuals.
2.	51.
3.	None.
4.	(a) Nurse 1: $4,500, $4,650, $4,800, $4,950, $5,100, 5,300. Nurse 2: $5,157, $5,326, $5,495, $5,665. Nurse 3: $5,686, $5,884, $6,085, $6,283. Nurse 4: $6,198, $6,466, $6,736, $7,004. Nurse 5: $7,335, $7,601, $7,868, $8,137. Nurse 6: $8,099, $8,433, $8,767, $9,167; or $20 per day for casuals. Hospital nursing assistants: $3,207, $3,339, $3,472, $3,604. (b) Time and one half, (c) 40.
5.	Nursing services in the hospital require staffing 24 hours a day, seven days a week and three eight hour shifts on a rotational basis are employed for this purpose. In order to vary the two days of rest and to provide a fair distribution of week ends off duty it is necessary that nurses periodically work more than five days in a row during the shift cycle. Between changes of shift the normal two days of rest per week are extended to balance out the 40 hour work week.


FOG SIGNAL, MALASPINA STRAIT, B.C.
Mr. Barnett: Was the fog signal, Westview, Malaspina strait, British Columbia, discontinued, as indicated in notices to mariners, January 13, 1967, page 10 and, if so, for what reason?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 
Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1. Since January 1, 1966, seven persons attempted to commit suicide.
2. (a) The reason for each such attempt appears to have been as follows: (i) personal problems of a sexual nature, two cases; (ii) depressive feeling of rejection by family or friends, two cases; (iii) mentally ill inmates suffering from schizophrenia and under treatment in the psychiatric ward of the penitentiary hospital, three cases.
(b)	These attempts were all made at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.
(c)	All these inmates were hospitalized in the psychiatric ward of the penitentiary hospital and treated with various medication. One of them was treated by electroshock therapy in addition to medication.
(d)	The results thereof were that one inmate was released from the psychiatric ward and transferred to another federal institution in another province in the hope that a change of environment would be beneficial; two inmates were released from the psychiatric ward and have resumed normal prison routine; two inmates are still hospitalized in the psychiatric ward but are allowed to work with the inmate population during the day, and two inmates are still under treatment in the psychiatric ward.


ANNIVERSARY OF CAPTURE OF VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	Has the government received letters from veterans of the Vimy ridge battle regarding observance on April 9 of the fiftieth anniversary of the ridge's capture?
2.	If so, have these letters indicated that a large number of the veterans wish to participate in the anniversary observance at the Vimy ridge memorial?
3.	Is the government considering the suggestion that a ship be provided for such a voyage overseas at excursion rates?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. Yes, the government has received a number of such letters.
February 15, 1967

2.	The writers of several letters have indicated a wish to attend the ceremony at Vimy to mark the 50th anniversary of the battle.
3.	No.


AFFILIATION OF CANADIAN UNIONS WITH AFL-CIO
Mr. £mard: On the basis of the latest figures available (a) how many unions affiliated with the CLC are also affiliated with AFL/CIO (b) what percentage of the total number of unions affiliated with the CLC are also affiliated with the AFL/CIO (c) what is the total membership of unions reporting CLC affiliation (d) what is the membership of unions reporting affiliation with the CLC, which at the same time are affiliated with the AFL/CIO in the United States (e) what is the total of dues and assessments from Canadian members of unions going to international headquarters outside of Canada?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: (a) As of January 1966 there were 112 international and national unions affiliated with the C.L.C. In addition, there were 160 local unions directly chartered by the C.L.C. Of the 112 international and national unions, affiliated with the C.L.C., 90 were also affiliated with the AFL-CIO. (b) The percentage of the total number of international and national unions affiliated with the C.L.C. that were also affiliated with the AFL-CIO was, as of January 1966, 80 per cent. If the number of directly chartered locals is added to the number of international and national unions affiliated with the C.L.C., making a total of 272, the percentage that AFL-CIO affiliated unions comprise of this total would be 33 per cent, (c) As of January 1966, the total membership of unions reporting affiliation with the C.L.C., including the membership of its directly chartered locals, was 1,282,039. Of this total, C.L.C. directly chartered local unions comprised 18,414 members. (d) As of January 1966, the membership of unions reporting affiliation with the C.L.C. which, at the same time were affiliated with the AFL-CIO in the United States, was 1,070,008. (e) Information is not available as to the total of dues and assessments from Canadian members of unions which actually goes to international headquarters outside of Canada. The report for 1964 under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act (table 24 on page 49 of Part II) indicates that the income of international unions from net dues and assessments from Canadian members amounted to $25,516,000. It does not indicate how much of this money actually left the
Questions
country, nor does it give complete information on the amount spent in Canada.


ORIGIN OF DRUG INGREDIENTS
Mr. Isabelle: From what country or what countries do the basic ingredients come that are used in the manufacture of drugs by each of the following companies (Group 1)	(a) Hoffmann-La Roche Limited (b)
Smith Kline & French Inter-American Corporation (c) Charles E. Frosst & Company (d) Cyanamid of Canada Limited (e) Ayerst Laboratories (McKenna & Harrison Limited) (f) Parke, Davis & Company Limited (Group 2) (a) Empire Laboratories Limited (b) Barlow-Cote Limited (c) Generic Drugs Limited (d) Nova Drugs Limited (e) Fleur de Lys Drugs Limited (f) Laboratories Franca?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: This information is not available in the Food and Drug Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare. It is not a requirement of the Food and Drugs Act or Regulations that manufacturers provide such information.


CENOTAPH OR REMEMBRANCE SHRINE AS CENTENNIAL PROJECT
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a national cenotaph in centennial year aa a centennial project?
2.	Is it the intention to erect in centennial year as a centennial project a national shrine of remembrance ?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. No.
2. No.


* TENDERS FOR SALE OF GRAIN ELEVATORS, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Ricard: In what publications, and how many times, has the notice calling for tenders appeared for the sale or lease of the grain elevators in the harbour of the city of Quebec?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: Le Soleil, Chronicle-Telegraph, La Presse, Montreal Star, the Gazette, The Financial Post, Daily Commercial News, Winnipeg Free Press, Vancouver Sun. In one issue on January 27, 1967.

February 15, 1967
Questions


INTRODUCTION OF POSTAL ZIP CODE IN CANADA
Mr. Ryan: Is the government considering the introduction of the zip code system for bulk mailings in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: Yes. The development of a national postal coding system is under study.


C.M.H.C. FINANCING OF PREFABRICATED HOUSES
Mr. Laprise: Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation agreed to finance the purchase of prefabricated houses which the Aluminum Company of Canada (Alcan) plans to build, and have studies been made with a view to determining whether these houses meet Canada's housing standards?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The prefabricated system of house construction utilized by Alcan design homes meets the requirements of the residential standards (supplement No. 5 to the national building code of Canada) and consequently is acceptable for use in N.H.A. financed construction. This acceptance is subject to the same conditions of loan which would apply to houses constructed in the traditional manner.


HOUSING PROJECT, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation intend to grant loans for the housing project at Lebel-sur-Quevillin in the county of Chapleau?
2.	If so, who will be the notary employed by the corporation to draw up contracts?
3.	What fee will this notary charge for each of these deeds of sale?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1.	Yes, to qualified applicants.
2.	This will be determined when each loan is approved.
3.	The fee to be charged to the borrower will be in accord with the tariff applicable to notaries in the district for this type of work.


TRAVEL BUREAU PROMOTION OF CENTENNIAL AND EXPO
Mr. Prud'homme: Does the Canadian Government Travel Bureau literature feature the centennial celebrations and Expo '67?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: All main Canadian Government Travel Bureau promotion literature highlights the centennial celebrations and Expo '67. Other major centennial attractions such as the Pan American Games in Winnipeg, the Military Tattoo, etc., are also given prominent attention. The Travel Bureau also sends to enquirers, literature produced by the Centennial Commission and Expo '67.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Of the list of recommendations appearing from pages 325 to 355 of the report of Hon. Mr. Justice Andre Montpetit on working conditions in the post office department, how many (a) have been implemented, specifying which ones, (b) have been rejected, specifying which ones (c) have been partially implemented, specifying which ones and the extent of implementation (d) are under consideration, specifying which ones?
2.	Of those recommendations which are still under consideration, when is it to be expected that decisions may be reached, specifying an estimated date in respect of each?
3.	What consultations (a) have been held (b) are proposed to be held, with the various staff organizations or unions concerned in the problems to which these recommendations relate?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for papers No. 206 is acceptable to the government.
Notice of motion No. 204 is acceptable to the government, subject to the reservations concerning privileged papers.
Would Your Honour call notices of motions Nos. 191, 193, 203, 207 and 208?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motions stand.


C.B.C. APPLICATION FOR DEFERMENT OF LABOUR CODE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 191-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or any official thereof and any
February 15, 1967
[Stage Direction]
other person, group or organization, excepting any other department or agency of the government, relating to the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code or the deferment or suspension of any part thereof.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The house will recall with respect to this motion, which was dropped and replaced by my hon. friend, that as I told him at that time I was informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the only correspondence, telegrams or other documents in existence are internal papers and thus are considered by the C.B.C. to be privileged. Under the circumstances I would therefore ask my hon. friend whether he would withdraw the motion.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite agreeable to doing that, but some of the correspondence is between the C.B.C. and a particular local of the international alliance of theatrical and stage employees.
I do not see how this could be an internal matter since it involves the C.B.C. and a group outside the corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member proposing that the matter be transferred for debate?


Frank Howard: I am just suggesting that in my view the reason given by the minister is not factual. I think the only alternative would be to put it to a vote.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, although this is the only information I have received perhaps, in view of what my hon. friend has said, the matter might be allowed to stand for another week until I check with the corporation to make absolutely certain of what they told me.


Mr. Speaker:: Stood.


LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT AND C.B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 193-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Minister or Department of Labour and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation relating to the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code or the deferment or suspension of any part thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the Minister of Labour made some comments in the house with respect to this particular motion. In spite of the fact that it might be very desirable to have this information made public, in the light of all the circumstances
Motions for Papers
and the reluctance of the government to disclose the information it might be best to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.


RENTAL OR SALE GOVERNMENT LAND, LONGUEUIL, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 203-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence between any department or agency of the federal government and the city of Longueuil, Quebec, and any other individual or company concerning the rental or sale of government owned land in or near the city of Longueuil since July 1, 1963.
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam, and I would like to say that this motion is acceptable as it relates to a major piece of property, that is some 20 acres of dominion lands which were sold to the city of Longueuil and are now put to use as a commercial zone and a shopping centre.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, that would be agreeable if I could get some information whether other pieces of land are involved, and if there is other correspondence. If so, I can request that in a separate motion.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other small properties having to do with the realignment of roads.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 204-Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and any other documents exchanged between the Secretary of State, in particular the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and any other person, groups or organizations with respect to the program concerning New Brunswick which was televised on "This Week". Tuesday, January 17, 1967.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 206-Mr. Racine:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the correspondence exchanged between members of the federal electoral districts of Beauce
[Stage Direction]
February IS, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry and Megantic with the appropriate departments concerning winter works in Saint-Ephrem (Beauce), Saint-Rene (Beauce), and La Guadaloupe (Megantic) from 1962 to this date.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 207-Mr. Pritiie:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the minister or Department of Transport and the Department of Highways of British Columbia relating to the proposed construction of a bridge or tunnel across the north arm of the Fraser river from Vancouver, British Columbia to Sea Island, Richmond, British Columbia, site of the Vancouver international airport.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to oppose this motion if it can be understood that of course we would have to extend the usual courtesy to the provincial government and make sure they were agreeable to the correspondence being tabled, and if it could also be understood that any intermediate correspondence with respect to negotiations that are not completed would not be tabled until the conclusion of such negotiations, and then only the final documents.


Mr. Pritiie:: That is quite acceptable, in view of the fact that negotiations are still in progress.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether he is in a position to give the house and the country any report on the progress of negotiations in connection with Viet Nam.
Can he tell us also, in view of the admirable speech he made on Friday on the subject of Viet Nam, whether the secret plan being advanced by Prime Minister Wilson is the one which the Secretary of State for External Affairs could not reveal to the house, and understandably so?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thank my hon. friend for his kind words about what I said the other

day. With regard to the last question, I can only say that it is not so to my knowledge.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question. I wonder if I could ask the Secretary of State for External
Affairs whether, in the light of the statement by the British Prime Minister that peace in Viet Nam was within our grasp and a very small movement could put the whole machinery for peace keeping in motion the government would consider sending Mr. Ronning once again to Hanoi to see if he could remove the small obstacle that apparently remains to negotiations.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that the government will not hesitate to use this channel if, in the government's judgment, there is the slightest possible reason for using Mr. Ronning again. I was in communication with Mr. Ronning within the last few days and my hon. friend may be assured that the government, having established this contact, is fully conscious of its important potential value.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Speaker, regarding a statement he made in the house yesterday concerning Jeremy Akerman, who was dismissed by the minister's department. Yesterday, as recorded at page 13008 of Hansard, I asked the minister the following question:
May I ask the minister whether he has confirmed by examining the text of the alleged radio and television programs that such an attack was made by this man upon his superiors-
I received a telegram, a copy of which I have sent to the minister, in which Mr. Akerman denies categorically that he has ever appeared on radio and television attacking fortress officials as suggested by the minister. I want to ask the minister if he or his officials have checked to ascertain whether the basi3 upon which this man was dismissed, a television attack on his superiors, is true or whether it is based on hearsay.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, a report was made to me that such had been the case. I want to thank the hon.
February IS, 1967

member for having supplied me with a full account of the basis upon which his question was going to be asked. I draw his attention to the telegram Mr. Akerman sent, in which he stated he had never publicly criticized his superiors prior to the decision to terminate his contract.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Read the rest of it.


Arthur Laing: He says he never appeared on
radio and television attacking fortress officials. He says he had not done this prior to the termination of his contract. I would tell the hon. member that I have to be guided by the advice given me by my officials and not the advice tendered to the hon. member by Mr. Akerman. In both instances that I recited yesterday, I followed the advice of my officials. First, I was protecting Mr. Akerman and, second, confirming the termination of his contract.


Mr. Winkler:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely we have proceeded with this question sufficiently, and it is not of national importance today.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow one supplementary question. I ask the co-operation of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, because I do not believe this matter should be proceeded with much longer during the question period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say it is important if an injustice has been perpetrated upon this man.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order. Will the hon. member kindly ask his supplementary question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that this man categorically denies ever having appeared on television and radio attacking his superiors, will the minister ask for copies of the radio tape and investigate this matter, or have his departmental officials investigate it, so an injustice may not be done this man if his statements, as contained in the telegram are accurate?


Arthur Laing: I will certainly make these inquiries and endeavour to obtain the tape if it is available. The difficulty of Mr. Akerman is possibly no worse-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Minis'.ry [Translation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is it true that, according to a rumour that reached me this morning, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has been invited to act as mediator in the dispute involving the teachers, the school boards and the government of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Dser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would ask the Prime Minister whether reports are true that the July visit of the Queen Mother is going to be limited to the maritime provinces only. If this is so, why is it that during centennial year she is not visiting Ottawa and Expo?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Queen and Prince Philip, as my hon. friend knows, will be visiting Ottawa and Expo. The Queen Mother will be visiting the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Princess Alexandra will be visiting the western provinces. So the Queen and other members of the royal family will be visiting all parts of Canada during our centennial year.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is rather a supplementary question that I should like to put to the right hon. Prime Minister.
He made an announcement earlier that the royal family would come to Canada during 1967. Can the Prime Minister tell us if Prince Charles will be able to visit the Lotbini&re riding with the hon. member for that constituency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 15, 19G7
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



FISCAL POLICY CHANGE REQUESTED BY ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Norlhumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made yesterday in his budget speech by the treasurer of the province of Ontario that Ontario cannot reach its economic objectives unless the federal government switches to an expansive fiscal policy, does the minister have in mind the introduction of any measures to give the province this very obviously needed help?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the budget statement of the Ontario minister is directed more at political than at economic developments.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat the question which I addressed yesterday to the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the price of eggs, which has recently dropped by 20 cents per dozen. What are the intentions of the minister with regard to halting this decline in egg prices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether the hon. member does not think this is a question that could easily be considered at ten o'clock during the adjournment debate.


Reynold Rapp: Ten o'clock.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Considering the serious fluctuations in the prices of eggs, will the government not submit the operations of the agricultural stabilization board to the agriculture committee for study?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would like to join the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) and debate the matter at ten o'clock.


Edward Nasserden: I am sure the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale can take care of himself. My question is different altogether and relates to the study of an act which has

been in operation for eight or nine years without being reviewed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can take care of himself also.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiti (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I asked the minister a similar question yesterday which I believe he agreed to take as notice and answer today. My question is, is the minister's department planning any expenditures for research into tobacco in order to ascertain whether carcinogens and other substances that constrict the arteries can be removed?


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



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the hon. Secretary of State, who is responsible to the house for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Would the minister check with C.B.C authorities in order to find out why the C.B.C. granted an interview last week to Mr. Vachon on the program "Aujourd'hui", during which the ex-policeman said that he had decided to join the Communist party and that, in the future, he would endeavour to convince our youth to share his views on Marxism? Would the minister inquire-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair feels that the hon. member should put his question on the order paper.


Martial Asselin: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to
February 15, 1967

the Minister of Industry. In view of earlier statements made by the minister, would he advise the house when Canadian citizens might expect to buy a made in Canada car under the United States-Canada car pact at the same price as the identical car is sold in the United States to United States citizens?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the costs of producing cars and consequently the manufacturers sale prices of cars, manufactured in Canada, progressively will continue, as they have done over the past two years, toward parity. It would not be wise to try to put a date on the achievement of an equalization of these manufacturing costs. The cost to the consumer, as the house is aware, is affected not only from country to country but from province to province by a series of special considerations related to transport, taxes, methods and techniques of distribution and, indeed, methods of sale.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that the treaty has been in force for two years, does the minister not expect to announce something soon?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Rome was not built in one day.


An hon. Member:: Rome did not build cars.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is he in a position today to reply to the question asked a few days ago with respect to the relationship between war veterans allowances and other pensions legislation?
Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member refers to the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of the Prime Minister a few days ago. In arriving at an understanding between the two departments on how best to deal with this question, and to avoid the problem of overpayments in certain instances, the officials of both departments concluded that the best method to adopt was to send a letter directly to the recipients of war veterans allowances to make sure that before applications are made the veterans will consult with their welfare officers.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The feeling in the department is that this will adequately cover the situation and will, in the best manner possible, prevent the possibility of overpayments which can be difficult for veterans. My department tell me that they feel this is the best method. My department has supported the wording in the appropriate section in the application form. They are satisfied that this will make the situation as easy as possible.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Veterans Affairs not aware that on the application for the old age supplement, there is no warning that the war veterans allowance can be lost if the pension supplement is granted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is out of order.



AIR POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It involves the immediate problem of air pollution in our metropolitan and urban areas and the United States decision to put the clean air package in cars. Some time ago the minister informed the house that the Canadian government was studying the United States regulations to see whether the clean air package would be appropriate in Canadian cars. Have the studies been completed yet?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I ask this in very general terms. Would the minister inform the house why the studies were started, and what is their general purport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is much too general, as I am sure the hon. member will agree.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I address to the Minister of Industry. In examining Hansard I find that the minister undertook to contact the motor industry to see whether the clean air package would be included as standard equipment in Canadian cars. Has he kept this undertaking? Has he contacted the industry to see whether
Inquiries of the Ministry we shall get this feature as standard equipment? Can he inform the house about this?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The question of the so-called package will depend on the outcome of the studies now being carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare.


William Heward Grafftey: Has the minister contacted the industry? That is what I asked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is now a debate between the hon. member and the minister.



CONSIDERATION OF NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the serious and increasing menace to the health of the nation presented by air pollution will the government give the same consideration to prescribing the equipment and structural changes required for the control of air pollution as it is giving in the case of water pollution?


Hon. Jean Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I do not really know who should answer this question. I am responsible at the Federal level for the prevention of water pollution but my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare is responsible for the prevention of air pollution.


Mr. Starr:: You mean the whole thing is up in the air?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I will address the question, then, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I regret that I did not hear the question. I will read it in Hansard and provide an answer at the earliest possible moment.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell us whether his department has now received the special study on maritime transportation?
[Mr. Grafftey.1
February 15, 1967


John Whitney Pickersgill: The answer to that question is that the document has not yet been brought to my attention.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. K. Andras (Port Arthur):: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Can he tell us when he expects the final results of the vote by the members of the railway unions, the non-operating members, in connection with the Goldenberg mediation representations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the count was conducted over the week end. My information is that the leaders of the associated non-ops were to hold a press conference at 2.30 this afternoon, and in view of that I think it is in order for me to release the figures now. The vote is better than two to one in favour of settlement, being 19,042 for the settlement and 8,452 against settlement.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour based on his report of the voting result. Can he tell us whether that result means the approval of the Goldenberg report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My information is that the agreement, or rather the minutes of settlement now approved, came about as a result of the mediation by Mr. Goldenberg.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister would tell us now whether the report by Dean Woods in respect to management-labour strife affecting important industries in Canada, is ready for disclosure in the House of Commons.
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
No, Mr. Speaker, and it will not be ready for some time. This is a very important question. The terms of reference of the commission are very far reaching, and it will be some time before we receive their report.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Transport.

February 15, 1967

Can the minister inform the house when the hearings on regional air policy will take place in western Canada? Can he particularly assure the house that these will take place in time to implement the policy established last year, to assist in air traffic during centennial year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume the hon. gentleman is referring to the hearing with respect to TransAir. I would have to ascertain the date.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries arising out of the statement he made last Monday concerning the seal fishery. I ask the minister what arrangements he is making for independent observers to witness this year's fishery. In particular, what consideration has he given to the suggestion 1 made to him privately, that he facilitate arrangements for the members of the standing committee on fisheries to visit the seal fishery?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the hon. member that arrangements have been made to have four representatives of the S.P.C.A. attend the seal hunt and witness the operation. I remind the hon. member that our main responsibility, as requested by the general public, members of the house and S.P.C.A. societies, is to make sure there is proper supervision. All the transportation facilities we have available will be needed for that purpose.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, who appears to be relatively unemployed these days. Would the minister consider visiting Winnipeg airport and having placed in that airport the escalators which were specified in the original plans, in order that the airport may be ready for the great increase in the travelling public by the time of the Pan-Am games this summer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On balance I think that would be
Inquiries of the Ministry more fitting employment for a contractor than for the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask him if he would recommend to the Minister of Public Works the improvement of facilities at the Winnipeg airport and thus indicate some interest in western Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the Minister of Public Works would have any jurisdiction in the matter but I am seeking, as the minister responsible for the establishment, to make every improvement that it is possible to make there.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I should like to ask him whether the delay in tabling the report of the Woods Committee on veterans affairs is strictly due to a printing hold-up or whether it is due to a delay in getting it translated into French. If the latter is the case, could not the report be released in English in view of the concern felt by veterans about the results of this two year study?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I tried to get in touch with the chairman of the committee this morning but I was not able to reach him. I trust I shall be able to ask him directly what the situation is. I have received two pieces of information which do not coincide, so I should talk to him directly in order to get the information required.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister why he stated yesterday that the delay was due to the printing, when he now says he does not know the reason?


Some hon. Members:: Order.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: My
question arises out of an answer given to me by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in reply to a question on the order paper. The

February 15, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry answer given in French is not the same as the one which appeared in Hansard in English. For the sake of clarification I should like to ask the minister the following question. The English version says the total amount paid per student by way of external aid was $5,467.29 per annum. In the French version, which does not say "per annum", it is stated that the average amount paid is $5,467.29 per student. Could the minister clarify-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a proper question. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat and also take into account the fact that today there is a limited period of time available to hon. members. He is asking for clarification of a question which was ruled out of order yesterday afternoon. Certainly this is not the time to ask for an explanation about it.


Raymond Langlois: May I put my
question directly. Is this answer the amount per annum or per student?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Some time ago the hon. lady mentioned that she hoped to have information in her possession soon which would enable her to make an announcement with regard to the provision of C.B.C. network television service in northern Manitoba. I should like to ask the hon. lady whether she is now in a position to make such a statement.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thank the hon. member for the question. I have an answer I should like to give him in connection with this important matter. An announcement on this subject is also being made in the Manitoba legislature. Perhaps I might read it with the indulgence of the house; it is about a page and a half long.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the comment I made a moment ago I wonder whether the hon. lady would allow me to ask permission to revert to motions so this statement may be made.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am happy to be able to tell the house that I have now been advised by the C.B.C. that its board of directors last week approved the extension of live television service to northern Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The corporation has accepted the latest proposal of the Manitoba telephone system covering television network connections to Flin Flon and The Pas, where the C.B.C. now operates stations using delayed programming on film, and to Thompson and Snow Lake, where the corporation will be applying later this year for authority to build new stations.
Commencement of this service is, of course, dependent on completion of the construction schedule of the Manitoba telephone system. We are assured that this will be carried out as quickly as possible.
On this same subject, and to round out the picture I think I should note, Mr. Speaker, that the C.B.C. already has applied for permission to establish an outlet at Lynn Lake to be served by the corporation's new "Frontier Package" program of recordings. In addition the C.B.C. has provided and will continue to provide recorded program material to the privately operated station at Churchill to ensure that residents of this community continue to enjoy television service.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I can speak for the hon. member for Churchill as well as myself in welcoming this long sought step forward in C.B.C. television coverage.


Robert Simpson: I should like, first of all, to assure the Secretary of State that the people
of northern Manitoba who will benefit from this new service will be very pleased with the announcement she has just made. I was particularly pleased to learn that the service will include Flin Flon, The Pas, Snow Lake and Thompson.
The minister has mentioned that the C.B.C. is planning a "Frontier Package" program in the Lynn Lake area, and I know this will be well received. She has also announced that the corporation will continue to provide a programming service for the community owned station at Churchill. In this connection I would ask the minister whether as time goes by she would use her good offices with the C.B.C. to persuade the corporation eventually to put in a transmitter at this point. This is not a community antenna system; it is a station which is broadcasting to the public,
February 15, 19S7

it is operated solely by the people of Churchill, and I think the people there are entitled to some financial assistance.
Finally I should like to ask the minister whether she would again use her good offices with the members of the corporation to ensure that the completion of this project will not take as long as have our efforts in requesting it.


Mr. Speaker:: We were on motions. We are now returning to questions.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question which the hon. member for Churchill addressed to the Secretary of State and which resulted in your reverting to motions. Has the minister any idea when she will make an announcement in respect of those other areas of Canada which are not yet serviced by television and which, on a former occasion, she said would be serviced as soon as possible? Certainly the area I refer to is no more difficult than-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member realizes, this is up to the C.B.C. We can use all the moral or other kinds of suasion we like, but each decision has to be made by the board of governors and conveyed to me. As soon as they have done so I will advise the hon. member.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like also to direct a question along the same lines to the hon. Secretary of State.
For ten years now we have been asking for the same services of the C.B.C. in Chibouga-mau-Chapais.
Could the Secretary of State tell us what the projects are at the present time, and whether that area will soon be served by the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question, as worded, is in order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could use moral suasion as well as her charm and untiring efforts, and any other suasion she may deem necessary, to request the C.B.C. to give consideration to providing the same facility for those living in Gaspe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Gaspe is asking a question similar to that asked by the hon. member for Chapleau. I suggest that it is a representation rather than a question.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister whether the Premier of New Brunswick was announcing government policy when he said the other day there would definitely be no toll charge on the Prince Edward Island-New Brunwsick causeway.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am perhaps not as familiar with the subject matter as I should be, but I doubt whether the question should be asked at this time.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: have a question to ask the Minister of Labour arising out of the report he tabled today. Can he tell the house how many employees are covered by the 5,200 cases which have received deferment in respect to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for statistical information, and it seems to me the question cannot be asked at this time.


David Orlikow: On the same subject, I wonder whether I may ask the minister if he could tell the house when the applications which are still before him finally will be processed.
February 15, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of information along this line is contained in the report itself. It will be noted that among the applications which still are under review is one which relates to stevedoring and long-shoring operations in the St. Lawrence ports. I think it is only reasonable to assume that that application will not be dealt with until the Picard commission has submitted its report, unless it be unduly delayed. With regard to shipping, including ferries, there has been a request for a special inquiry in one part of Canada, and until a decision has been made on that request it is impossible to give a definite answer to the hon. member's questions. I think, however, most of the information he wishes is set out in the report. If he has specific questions I shall be glad to answer them outside the house, or inside the house if he prefers.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the same time I should like to congratulate him on his excellent appearance on the television show called "Sel de la semaine" last night, during which he seemed to say that he never refused a well-presented request. Here, then, is my question:
In view of the grievances and suggestions made by Mr. Antonio Barrette, former Canadian ambassador to Greece, would the hon. minister or the government immediately take the necessary steps to ensure that the personnel in Canadian embassies is bilingual?


Mr. Speaker:: This question, if in order, could be put on the order paper.


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



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since there is no national holiday between New Year's and 
spring, last year I asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider declaring February 15 national flag day and a national holiday. I received a written reply that the government was studying this matter. My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Has the Prime Minister completed his homework, and is he now ready to announce February 15 as a national holiday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it seems that this is a very appropriate question on this day which is the second anniversary of the raising of Canada's national flag. The matter is still under consideration. I hope to have an announcement regarding it before long.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the continuing rise in prices could the hon. minister say whether the government is considering what Professor H.C. Eastman of the University of Toronto, when speaking recently called an "obvious step" of providing "real dollar government bonds which individuals could buy, thus avoiding the loss of their investments through price increases"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While I acknowledge the question, I will recognize the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berihier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question
is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that his department has published the long awaited study showing the excessive mortality from heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema caused by cigarette smoking, is it the intention of the minister to implement my private bill, No. C-130, an act to amend the Tobacco Restraint Act, which would obligate cigarette manufacturers to specify on the packages of cigarettes
February 15, 1967

"Caution: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health" and also eliminate misleading advertising?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the question asked by the hon. member is similar to that asked by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I suggest that both questions should be placed on the order paper.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Resolved that it is expedient to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide that, effective January 1, 1967, the rate of the consumption or sales tax imposed under section 30 of the said act be increased from 8 per cent to 9 per cent with respect to all goods subject to the said tax, except articles enumerated in schedule V of the said act and building materials that were exempt from the said tax immediately prior to June 14, 1963.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, last night when the house adjourned, I was commenting the resolution providing for a 1 per cent increase of the indirect federal tax. In fact, the resolution mentions that the tax is increased from 8 to 9 per cent. However, we know full well that it is not an 8 per cent tax but an 11 per cent tax. We are dealing with an 11 per cent indirect sales tax, hidden in the cost price, and it is being raised to 12 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, recently the minister has been trying, at least according to his speeches, to check inflation, to check rising costs and the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. Still, through these increases in hidden taxes, the minister is the one who contributes the most to inflation and the devaluation of the Canadian dollar.
Yesterday, I explained that a 1 per cent increase in the federal sales tax could lead to a 4 per cent increase in the cost of living, because, as we know, the provincial sales tax of 6 per cent, for instance, applies to the total cost price, including the 11 per cent and, from here on, the 12 per cent. Consequently, when the total cost price of the manufacturer goes up by 1 per cent, the wholesaler, the retailer and all the middlemen will take their percentage oft that increase. I showed yesterday, with figures, how an article costing $10 would sell for far more today, due to the increase in 23033-827
Ways and Means
the sales tax, from the wholesaler to the consumer through the retailer and other middlemen. I added that we would witness, not a 1 per cent increase in prices but rather a 2 per cent increase.
Mr. Chairman, I say therefore to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) that, in times such as these, where prices are skyrocketing, and everyone complains continuously of the rising cost of living, the move he is now contemplating will lead to even greater inflation than any other decision did in the last year, whether they concerned increases in salaries, or anything else.
Mr. Chairman, I do not hesitate to say that the Minister of Finance is the first to do the opposite of what he preaches in his speeches. Even though he advocates price stability, he is the first to increase inflation by raising taxes as he is doing today.
In my opinion, there is another way to finance old age security pensions without increasing the sales tax. We did not complain, or at least, I did not, about the first resolution designed to provide part of the funds required to pay the $30 old age pension supplement to needy persons, because in that case, the maximum old age security tax on the personal taxable income was increased from $120 to $240, which meant that people with higher income were being taxed more while those in the lower income groups were not. That is why I did not object to that first resolution.
As for the second one designed to increase the sales tax by 1 per cent, I feel that such a decision will have repercussions on the whole economy and all the more as everything is on the increase nowadays.
One can read on the first page of today's La Presse that there will soon be a general increase in Quebec Hydro rates, when electricity rates were not supposed to increase but rather to decrease following the nationalization of Quebec power companies. However, hardly two years later, there is a general increase in electricity rates in Quebec. The construction of power stations is said to be costly. It is because the Minister of Finance imposed all those new taxes that all prices are going up, in the construction field as well. As a matter of fact, who pays for that, if not the small consumer, the small wage-earner who is constantly thrown off balance by the increased cost of living, inflation and the erosion of the Canadian dollar?
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say to the Minister of Finance that even though he

February 15, 1967
Ways and Means
makes eloquent speeches against inflation which presently prevails in Canada, he is the first person to blame because of his tax increases, and I vigorously object to this new increase which will create even more confusion and be the cause of more economic crises in Canada.


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I would feel remiss if I failed to speak to this resolution, because it strikes at the very heart of the Canadian people, I should like to ask the minister the reason for these tax increases, the valuation of Canadian dollar and the dissatisfaction all over Canada? The unions are dissatisfied as exemplified by strikes occurring throughout the country. Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is food for thought.
If we take a look at the economy of our country, then I submit to the hon. minister that it is unbalanced. Our economy is not balanced. And, as we go on applying the present system, we go on off-setting the economy, causing Canadians to be dissatisfied and making it more difficult for them to earn a living. Moreover a certain group of people are living off the fat of the land, taking advantage of the fruit and labour of other people; the system is fine for these individuals who succeed in monopolizing all interests and who keep all the profits to themselves. But this group is a minority in our society.
An important part of our population is happy today, Mr. Chairman, that its purchasing power has been increased by about $30 per month, or $1 a day. I am referring to the old people. For that, I extend my congratulations to the government and to all who forced the government to consider the essential needs of a small part of the Canadian people who are without other income.
It is something, Mr. Chairman, I realize it. It is better than nothing. And that is why I say "well done" to the government and to those who have helped in obtaining this increase of $30 per month for our senior citizens who well deserve a softer life in their declining years for. having gone through life financially harassed by a tax system that is unfair, inhuman, completely off kilter, inefficient and without any relation whatever with the financial facts of our national production, of our worthy population ever eager to do its best.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the old people receive a guaranteed minimum income of $105 per month, and they can start to live properly.

This is cause for rejoicing and calls for congratulations for the government that passed this measure. It was high time.
What is regrettable, Mr. Chairman, is the attitude of the government particularly of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada (Mr. Sharp) on the means required to raise the monies necessary to meet this additional guaranteed income of $30 per month for our older citizens. I may be blamed for repeating the same thing over again but it is due to the fact that the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada always repeats the same gestures.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
And when the minister needs money to administer the business of the country, he always turns hurriedly towards the small wage earners, toward the people to get it. You asked for a $30 a month increase, here in the bill.
And everybody finds that normal. Well-known newspapermen, editors, leading newspapers repeat that wonderful sentence "The people ask for bonuses, the minister grants them, asking them at the same time to foot the bill". And that results in a tax increase, and the people bow to that request and accept that inevitable solution. And the minister is the winner. He might have left the people with the impression that all the increases, all the bonuses granted to the poor subjects of the realm require a tax increase, so that the people say in the long run that what the government gives with one hand, it takes back with the other, even twice as much, according to established practices.
The government can no longer balance its yearly budget. Every year, it shows deficits and the more it taxes, the more it has to borrow in order to make both ends meet. And the people are paying more and more taxes in this country, more and more interest on debts that are forever accumulating.
And yet, it is being said that Canada is a prosperous country. It is the most prosperous country in the world, next to the United States, our neighbour country. If our country is prosperous, Mr. Chairman, how is it that it cannot make both ends meet, that it cannot finance at a profit, why is there always a deficit? When someone is prosperous, he usually can make both ends meet every year.
If there is prosperity in Canada, Mr. Chairman, where is it? Can we see or touch that prosperity? And where do we get the money required to finance the needs of the government?
February 15. 1967

No, Mr. Chairman, the only way we have of financing the current needs of the government, is to levy taxes, particularly on small incomes, on the purchasing power, on consumption, on small wage-earners, even on the under-fed.
In the bill before us we are being asked to add a further 1 per cent to the consumption tax. The sales tax will be increased to 12 per cent from 11 per cent. That is all there is to it. To summarize this whole transaction, if more purchasing power is given, approximately $30 more per month to our senior citizens, it must come out of the purchasing power of all other citizens in Canada. The purchasing power is increased on both sides, but it is lowered elsewhere. Thus the whole Canadian population is worse off than before.
Indeed, what this involves is the setting-up of a costly system to administer this $30-per-month guaranteed income supplement to people over 68 years of age. When we add about $280 million worth of purchasing power for our senior citizens, that same amount, plus the tremendous administrative costs, come out of the pockets of all other Canadian citizens.
The situation in which people, in general, find themselves is, or will be, worse than before. And who profits by this financing method of our government, of this method of taxation of our government?
Do you want to know who always benefits from the perpetual abuse of the purchasing power of the low income of the Canadian people?
Do you want to know how prosperous part of our population really is, when the rest suffer so much hardship and poverty?
My information comes from no less a source than our national statistics, the statistics of the Minister of Finance which could have shown him where to levy taxes, if he cannot find money elsewhere.
In 1966, Mr. Chairman, Canadian production reached the $56 billion mark but consumption only reached $38 billion. Therefore there was a surplus in Canada of $18 billion, and yet the minister does not know where to find the $280 million he needs.
The common people in Canada, the small tradesmen or the small manufacturers bene-fitted to the extent of $38 billion only while the other $18 billion went to a few large financial institutions.
Are those $18 billion which went-into the coffers of a small group of prosperous companies and individuals in Canada so sacred that 23033-827i
Ways and Means
this small amount of $280 million could not come out of this sum. Those $280 millions must come out of the limited purchasing power of the poor people instead of the $18 billion surplus earned by a few privileged individuals and companies in Canada.
Who governs in Canada? Are we living in a democracy elected by the people, for the people? Are we a plutocracy elected by financiers, by banks and company directors only? Whom does the Minister of Finance represent? Is he the representative of the whole people or of the rich, the powerful, the scholars only? When he needs $280 million for the administration of his department, he always spares the "big-earners" who capitalized $18 billion in 1966, and he squeezes the low wage-earners whose deficits and debts increase every year.
That is the topsy-turvy way in which the Department of Finance works, Mr. Chairman. The purchasing power of the low income groups is curtailed to increase the capitalization yield of millionaires.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we are not against millionaires, we are not against capitalization but, under the present system, if other means or sources of revenues cannot be found to obtain capital, the small wage-earner should not always be the one to be overtaxed and the protection of large corporations with billions of dollars hidden in their reserves should cease. Big businesses are allowed to hide all kinds of reserves and the people suffer hardship as a result. When new taxes or new credit restrictions are imposed, low income groups are always the ones who suffer, who pay and who are taxed.
The present sheep-shearing system, Mr. Chairman, is designed to fatten the hogs. Is there prosperity in Canada when 2,400,000 small wage-earners cannot support their families because of their low income or are not making enough money to even pay income tax? Yet the cost of living goes up for them through a taxation system which is crushing low income groups for the benefit of big businesses.
How long will this go on, Mr. Chairman? When will those who are getting fat on crumbs falling off the table of the Canadian poor be satisfied?
Mr. Chairman, for over three years now we have repeatedly asked the Minister of Finance to change his taxation methods. He does not seem to know what to do, so he

February 15, 1967
Ways and Means
carries on as heretofore. Is that all he can do, carry on as heretofore? It may be true that man is descended from the monkey, but judging from the minister's actions, some men may not have descended yet.
Mr. Chairman, Canada can no longer be administered as in the past. The past is gone. The past has done its work. The future is at our door-step now and the people to-day do not want yesterday's methods. A nation producing affluence will no longer be content to live in poverty, misery, need and insecurity.
Each year, compared with those citizens who deny themselves the necessities of life, others accumulate some 18 billion in capital. Is this what we call economic balance? Is this the result of what we call a sound administration? Is that what is called good currency circulation? Is that what is called equity among the different members of the same society, those who suffer and those who enjoy life, those who are increasingly suffering besides those with ever-increasing enjoyment and assets?
The proper solution to present conditions has been suggested. Drawers are full of data which are gathering dust and are not taken into consideration, because the situation is deemed satisfactory. Those who have provided slush funds must be repaid. This is the secret of the minister's unconcern before the confusion of the people, the deficit of the government and a $18 billion capitalization of a few individuals and private companies.
The minister has a free hand. Now that he is making up the supplementary guaranteed income of $30 per month with taxes levied on the small wage-earner, with increases of the cost of living and price increases on goods, he expects that the people will no longer ask him for any free services. But he must not rely so soon on his success. The old people are not the only ones who need a guaranteed income for a strict vital minimum, for the right of living in Canada.
This is only the beginning. The minister would do better to ascertain where to raise revenues and levy taxes. He should immediately collect them from the $18 billion of annual capitalization rather than from the low income of small wage-earners who must support their family on a salary insufficient even for an unmarried person, a salary which they do not And satisfactory, a salary which is not sufficient to provide for their normal needs.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, the people will never be satisfied as long as family allowances are not

increased, as long as family allowances are not adjusted according to the cost of living and as long as a salary has not been granted to students, to mothers, in short to all those who need it, in Canada.
In any case, what we need in Canada, Mr. Chairman, is consumers. We have them, but they do not have money to purchase products. The purchasing power is reduced by an increase in taxes, an increase in salaries, an increase in interests on capital. The purchasing power is reduced and so is the value of the Canadian dollar. Canadians have less and less purchasing power. The more Canadians produce, the less money they have to purchase those products.
That situation is not normal, Mr. Chairman.
This situation should be remedied. In such circumstances, one should take the advice of those who suggest solutions. If the minister cannot find better solutions, than those suggested to him, he should at least be gracious enough to accept the ones that are offered. In passing, I should like to tell the hon. minister that we do not seek power, but solutions. If the solutions proposed by the minister are not valid socially and do not satisfy the needs of the people, he should change his way of proceeding. If he cannot find other practical ways of stabilizing the national economy and balancing the budget of every family and individual, let him accept the solutions of those who have found some. Those who offer solutions to the minister are not irresponsible people. The problems have been studied for years, and the minister has not been able to find better solutions for them; he should at least accept those that are offered to him. One fine day he will see that he is able to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the unbalanced economic situation that we are experiencing at the present time.
We even want this guaranteed income for those without personal income to be taken from the fiscal and administrative privileges that are enjoyed by large companies and from people who are granted all kinds of tax reductions because their income tax is not deducted at the source.
We have nothing against the people whose income tax is not deducted at the source. We wish everybody could be like that. Once again, Mr. Chairman, if another formula cannot be found besides taxing at the source to get revenue, we should know at least that those who have money, those who make money, those who have capital, those who
February 15, 1987

have hidden reserves, those who benefit from the present system are also taxed.
With all the people, we want that guaranteed minimum income to come out of the capitalization of $18 billion of some people and companies which are the only ones to know prosperity in Canada, next to the governments which accumulate deficits each year, the large families, the many people who are in debt up to their ears, who cannot balance their budget, and much less pay their taxes.
As far as the small manufacturers and businessmen are concerned, they will soon have to give up, because they are so heavily taxed that they cannot make enough money to pay their taxes. They are unable to expand, to increase their production. They cannot do it because they need new capital and the government will get it through its taxes.
The small manufacturers and businessmen are on the brink of bankruptcy, not to mention those who go bankrupt. There will be a great number of business failures within a few months. As a matter of fact, a large number of small businesses, stores and industries are unable to expand, to balance their budget, to pay their provincial, municipal and school taxes or even their federal taxes.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, we should be most concerned. The situation is serious. If the free enterprise system is to be maintained and helped, if we do not want to be led into the arms of socialism, into the arms of absolute communism, into state socialism which controls and plans everything and where the state spends all the taxpayers' money for them, we must be concerned about the present situation, we must be practical and bring in legislation to balance the Canadian economy. In every sphere of society, in industry in business, in private families, there is a general lack of balance, and that is why there is cause for dissatisfaction across the country.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I shall say this to the minister: It is urgent that he open his eyes and ears and consider the deplorable state of our economy. Reforms must be implemented and they are badly needed because the people of Canada cannot and do not want to wait any longer. Families in need of food cannot wait any longer for food on credit because they have been using credit long enough and their credit rating is now nil. They cannot get any more credit. They must have money, "cash money", and it is our job to see to it that families and institutions are
Ways and Means
able to administer their own affairs, take advantage of the surplus of goods in Canada, even though one quarter or one third of the population are unemployed or non productive for some reason or other, receiving unemployment insurance or social welfare benefits. If our system enabled us to have a balanced economy, all those people would be working and this would increase productivity which would result in a better economy for Canada; at present they cannot even purchase goods since they do not have the money necessary to provide for their needs.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, everyone in the house must have wondered at the philosophy of the government in imposing two taxes on the Canadian public for the purpose, as the minister said, of balancing the budget as a result of the granting of the old age supplementary benefit. There must have been surprise and perhaps even shock when the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that we will have to provide all Canadians with at least a minimum standard of living. It is possible that many people in the Liberal party disagreed with that statement and I think one of them must have been the Minister of Finance. When he introduced the increase in the old age security payment he did not take the opportunity to eliminate the ceiling, something which has been recommended on many occasions and would have brought about the same result as raising the limitation on contributions from $120 to $240. Actually the minister has protected the upper level of taxpayers and therefore he has done exactly the reverse of what the Minister of National Health and Welfare intended in trying to establish a minimum income base. Certainly the sales tax affects all Canadians but it is highly detrimental to people with low incomes. The minister has said that such things as building materials will be exempted from this tax.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Food and rent, too.


William Arnold Peters: Food and rent were exempted before, so we are getting into a different field. Prior to 1963, of course, there were taxes applied on building materials, but we decided we were not going to increase the cost of building materials because the opportunity for house building in the low income groups has practically been eliminated. It is a fact that the poor people in every community in Canada are unable even to paint their houses

February 15, 1967
Ways and Means
let alone repair them because of this tax on building materials.
I asked one of my colleagues if I would be correct in assuming that an increase in the sales tax of 1 per cent would probably increase the cost of living by 2 per cent. Last night the hon. member for Lapointe indicated that he believes the cost of living would be increased by 5 per cent. I assume, therefore, I would not be incorrect in suggesting that the cost of living would be increased by 2 per cent. I believe the minister had no right to slap the wrists of the poorer people, whom we have been unable to help, by adding to their difficulties through an increase in the sales tax which is not going to do what the minister implied it would do, that is, balance the old age security fund. In my opinion the fund could have been balanced if the minister had removed entirely the ceiling on contributions to the old age security fund made by those in the higher income brackets. These moneys would have gone directly into the fund. The results achieved when we increased the ceiling on payments into the fund from $90 to $120 indicate that if we had long ago entirely removed the ceiling, which only applies to the upper one-third of income taxpayers, sufficient money would have been provided for a considerable length of time.
I feel that the sales tax is extremely detrimental. I believe that the Liberal party should look at the situation because one minister is trying to raise the standard of living of our people to a reasonable level by setting a minimum income of $105 while at the same time another minister is counteracting that proposal. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that eventually there should be a guaranteed minimum annual income for all Canadians, and with that I agree. I believe it is time we took a look at the protection that is necessary for crippled children, for those who are mentally defective and others who are handicapped through no fault of their own. They should be provided with a decent standard of living.
But what have we done? Every person who has to buy clothes, which in Canada are a necessity of life, is to be charged an extra 1 per cent. However, the 1 per cent will be multiplied by the effect of provincial taxes, profits and so on. The increase will probably amount to 5 per cent or 10 per cent finally. These people are not able to buy automobiles or luxury goods and they will find the cost of their ordinary needs increased by reason of the increase in the sales tax.

I suggest that in some cases the cost of goods will be 100 per cent higher. I suggest there are many members on the government side who recognize the fact that the 1 per cent increase will be multiplied four or five times and will bring undue hardship to all their constituents who are hard-pressed now. The increase will tend to discourage many constituents who are finding it difficult to make ends meet. I was watching a television program the other night on which it was suggested that one family had a bill of $240 for drugs for one child who has a permanent disability. I believe we would not be true to ourselves if we were to increase the burden of this family by 5 per cent or 10 per cent. I suggest this is the effect a sales tax increase will have.


Mitchell William Sharp: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would he make the same comments about the sales taxes in the provinces?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, I certainly would.


Mitchell William Sharp: Including the sales tax imposed by the province of Saskatchewan under a C.C.F. government?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, the same remarks apply to sales taxes across the board. This type of tax is a greater burden on the low income group than on others. I believe the Saskatchewan tax was for educational purposes in the municipal field where most provinces have difficulty. The individual with a low income is harder hit by educational taxes than by other taxes. I believe it is true in Saskatchewan, as it is in Ontario, that the sales tax has had a more prejudicial effect on the poor people than any other type of tax.
I think the minister will agree that the sales tax on commodities that have to be purchased by individuals is normally added on at the manufacturing level and is multiplied by provincial taxes and the profit that is taken. Eventually the consumer has to pay all this. The minister has mentioned that food is exempted, and that is true. However, when you walk into a grocery store you find that many commodities which the poorest people in the nation have to buy are taxable. It has always surprised me that a necessary item like soap is taxed. Toilet paper, cleaning fluid and many other commodities are also taxed. The increase in the sales tax will apply to such items and will work great hardship on the people.
February 15, 1967

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I suggest that the minister has been giving us a lecture. If the increase in the sales tax is a manifestation of his philosophy, perhaps the nation should be given this type of lecture. Perhaps we should be told to pay our way and to balance our budget. However, just because the minister is angry at the decision of some of his colleagues to provide a minimum supplementary benefit for needy old age pensioners, he should not tax those who are in desperate straits. This is particularly so in the case of the old age pensioners and those in the low income brackets.
I believe that the $155 million which will be added to the old age security fund may still not be enough to keep the fund stable, though I have never felt that it necessarily should be. I have always felt that most of the old age pensioners have worked hard during their lives, at times for as little as 25 cents an hour, and that our present gross national product has resulted from their earning power over the years. But because the cost of living is rising today, these people have been unable to prepare adequately for their retirement. If we are unable to work out some system to care for our elderly citizens through a fund to which they have contributed, then I think it is generally agreed by most Canadians, our gross national product being what it is, that some other means must be found to provide for them.
I believe that the application of this tax is wrong and that the minister will hurt those least able to pay it. In my area many people are applying for the disabled person's allowance, widow's allowance or mother's allowance, and they send me a list of their groceries with the prices they have to pay. Their budgets are very tight, and if the increase in the sales tax is applied to even half the items that they buy it will mean they will have to economize in the only way they can, on food. In this event the minister will to an extent be depriving these people of a commodity that is not even subject to the tax.
I suggest that most people will disagree with the minister's effort when he introduced this budget on December 19 to balance the old age security fund by collecting additional tax to help pay for the supplementary benefits. If we wanted the fund to be in a solvent position we would obviously have removed the $240 ceiling. This step would probably affect those in the $10,000 range who would be able to continue making payments to the fund above the amount of $240 and up to the
Ways and Means
maximum of their earning capacity. This would provide additional revenue to enable the minister to balance the fund. It is very difficult to say whether this would meet the entire cost. I have not looked up the figures to see how much we took out of the fund when we raised the levy from $90 to $120. Therefore I am only guessing that if we went beyond the $5,000 taxable level the fund would be balanced.
However, I suggest that the country is not necessarily interested in balancing the fund. Enough elections have been fought during the past five years on the old age pension issue to convince everybody in the country that all Canadian citizens want old age pensioners to have a decent standard of living. The people are willing to pay for this because they know they have to. No benefit can be provided unless somebody makes the contributions.
I suggest that many members of the Liberal party who applauded so loudly when the minister introduced this measure will have to wrestle with their consciences when they come to vote for the 1 per cent increase in the excise tax raising it to 12 per cent. They know that it will have a detrimental effect on all those in their ridings in need of welfare who do not now receive the old age supplement. If these members are honest with themselves they will realize that this tax will apply to many of the consumer products these people require.
Other hon. members have mentioned an aspect which will probably appeal to some members much more. I refer to the effect this tax will have on the manufacturing processes in Canada which enable us to trade with other countries. Having talked to officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce about trade with other countries, I believe that an increase of even 1 or 2 per cent in the price of our commodities will make the difference between whether or not Canadian manufacturers will be able to export their goods.
So, Mr. Chairman, for many reasons I am prepared to oppose the introduction of the 1 per cent increase in the sales tax. I might say to the minister that had I been a member of the Ontario legislature when that government took the retrograde step of increasing the sales tax in that province, I would likewise have been happy to oppose such a step as being, in my opinion, not the type of tax that is either good for the economy or good for the low income earners.

February 15, 1967
Ways and Means


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on this resolution. First of all, may I say that I think one of the bad features of this tax increase is that the cost of living will go up further. We are trying to help the lower income group, which includes the old age pensioners, by introducing a guaranteed income; yet we are increasing the price of many items that these elderly people need to buy.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but we are experiencing difficulty today in competing in the markets of the world. We are committing the folly of increasing our sales tax by 1 per cent, thus making it still more difficult for us to compete. I believe, that this principle is wrong and I am wondering just where we are going in the field of taxation.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, how necessary is this tax increase? As I understand it, there is a fund, though the Minister of Finance does not seem to know where that fund is. I have heard it said in the house that there is $350 million in the old age security fund. While the amount goes up and down, there ought to be some way to keep the fund in balance. That has not always been done. If there was money in the fund why was it necessary to increase the excise tax? Why could this money not have been used? [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The minister says that we must pay as we go, that we must keep things in balance. Why could he not have expended some of the $350 million before raising the sales tax by 1 per cent?


Mitchell William Sharp: May I answer the question? The fund is purely a bookkeeping entry. There were no funds available. They had been used for other purposes. The fund is merely an account of the amount of tax received and the disbursements paid out. I can assure the hon. member that to find $280 million I had to borrow or impose taxes. Under the circumstances I felt I should raise taxes.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I accept the minister's statement. I still cannot understand why then we do not operate on a pay as you go basis. If there was no money in the fund, it has been used for other purposes. Why could the minister not take the money he needed from the consolidated revenue fund, where it must have gone?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no cash available in that fund. It is simply a bookkeeping item covering the receipts and disbursements. I

can assure the hon. member that if I had had spare cash I would not have imposed these taxes. I imposed them purely to raise the cash necessary to make the payments. I have no other source except by borrowing from the public.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, in other words, that money has been used elsewhere. It went into general revenues and has been used.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I also add that the fund
was in deficit. The additional money came out of the consolidated revenue fund. If you look at the history of the fund you will see that it has been in an over-all deficit position since its beginning.


Philip Bernard Rynard: In effect we are paying for our past debts?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. It is bookkeeping.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Will the Minister of Finance not agree with me that it casts a reflection on the old people of this country to say that this tax has been imposed to give them money? I do not feel happy about that. We are saying to our old people, "We have increased taxes to provide you with money." I understand that raising the old age security tax ceiling from $120 to $240 Will bring in about $150 million.


Mitchell William Sharp: About $135 million.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Would this not have been adequate for a while at least without increasing the excise tax?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Chairman. I would still have had to raise money. I would have had to find the remaining $155 million and I found it by applying the 1 per cent increase in sales tax. I would have had to raise money in some way. I went over the various alternatives in my budget address and gave the reasons for selecting this alternative. One way or another money had to be raised; otherwise I would have had to go into the market and borrow the $155 million. It is as simple as that.


Philip Bernard Rynard: This high finance and bookkeeping are somewhat confusing. I would think that the $130 million odd would have covered us for some time in the foreseeable future. This may not be a fair question, but can the minister say how long it would take to use up the $130 million odd?


Mitchell William Sharp: In the budget address, Mr. Chairman, I believe I predicted that the fund
February 15, 1967



will remain in balance until 1970 when it will again begin to go sharply into deficit. I did not feel I had a responsibility to make provision beyond that date, by which time the age of recipients will have fallen to 65.


Philip Bernard Rynard: 1 thank the minister for that answer. This program is projected into the future. Some people in the old age group will not receive anything under the guaranteed income plan. Many will receive $1 or more up to $30 per month. The minister is taxing people who earn, say, $50 a month. People who have done a little work and have earned that much will be taxed $25 by the government. They will therefore obtain about $5 in guaranteed income.
It strikes me that somewhere there is unnecessary bookkeeping and bureaucracy. We are probably looking too far ahead. While nobody can predict exactly what future amounts of money will be required, I would have been happier had the minister used the $130 million and then said to the country, "We need more money; we shall have to impose a tax." This would have been a more common-sense approach, more fair to the old age pensioners. They would not have been reminded that a tax was imposed for them.
I can hear some old people saying, "It seems we must be reminded that we are causing increased taxes and raising the prices of goods everybody buys." The old people earned their money, money that some of them found hard to earn, when the dollar was worth one-third of today's dollar and their wages were less than one-fifth of today's wages. It would have been better had the minister or the government brought in a provision to pay something below $105 a month and utilized the Canada Assistance Plan for increases instead of adopting a plan offering up to $105 a month with a means test in conjunction with programs involving another means test administered by provincial governments. If the minister is as good at bookkeeping as he appears to be, why, especially in view of the deficits which have been mentioned, could he not have found other places to save this money instead of going into a field affecting everybody in this country?
To recapitulate, I say that raising the tax by 1 per cent will make competition more difficult. It will cost the people more money for the things they want. I am alarmed about this. Over one third of our gross national product today goes into taxes. The Minister of 23033-828
Ways and Means
Finance must be as alarmed about this as I am. Where does it stop? We are not relieving the municipal taxpayer who still has to pay educational taxes amounting to half of his municipal taxes. Yet we are talking about more taxation which will make it more difficult for people paying municipal taxes to make ends meet. Increasing the sales tax by 1 per cent means, in all probability, a 2 per cent increase at the retail level.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Again I express regret that this tax has been imposed. The minister should have used the $130 million he will collect, then used the consolidated revenue fund, and then proceeded on a pay as you go basis. Such a policy would have been better received and would have cast less reflection upon the old age pensioners who are only receiving what is their due.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not be very long. I cannot help rising when this new tax is imposed. My colleague, the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe) made a magnificent speech, and I support him fully when he objects to that new increase or to that new procedure of the government to get funds.
Be assured, Mr. Chairman, that we, in our party, are totally unable to support the government with regard to that legislation. We shall vote against it and we shall invite as many members as possible to object to such a procedure. We must denounce the misleading approach used by the government to impose again a new tax, and make the people believe that it is a gift for them. The legislation starts as follows:
That it is expedient to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide that, effective January 1, 1967, the rate of the consumption or sales tax imposed under section 30 of the said act be increased from 8 per cent to 9 per cent with respect to all goods subject to the said tax-
Now, Mr. Chairman, here in this expression "from 8 per cent to 9 per cent", it seems that the minister wants to soften the whipping that he is going to give once again to the poor taxpayer, to the small worker. The minister should tell him-at least, he should be frank -that the new tax of 1 per cent that he is imposing will actually increase the excise tax up to 12 per cent. Why not cease to play with words. From 8 per cent to 9 per cent? No, no. The tax actually stands at 11 per cent. Why does not the minister simply say that from now on, it will be 12 per cent, in order to

February 15, 1367
Ways and Means
show the people he is a little more frank, because when I hear such an announcement, I am wondering whether a minister can, in all seriousness, go back to the people without putting on at least a mask of sincerity.
That is partly what I do not like in practically all those pieces of legislation. On close study, one realizes that the final purpose of government measures is always to take more money from the taxpayers.
It is somewhat like fishing. The most attractive bait is put on the hook which is as small as possible to catch the whole thing. Successive governments have always proceeded in that manner. They weaken the worker, not enough to kill him but just enough to hold him and deprive him of any energy to revolt against governments.
Such is the rule of the game, because if the taxpayer becomes too strong, if he is given too much money and too much latitude, he would be very likely to revolt. Believe me, financiers secure in their position would not remain that way very long.
The people are weakened by taxes and their purchasing power is reduced all the time. Thus, it is possible to satisfy those who give orders.
Mind you, I am not criticizing the minister at all today. I duly noted his answer to the previous speaker who asked him whether he could not have found those $280 million elsewhere. The minister answered: there were only two things I could do, either borrow or impose a tax. Those were the only two methods, according to the minister: borrow or impose a tax.
I would have like the discussion to go on. because I understood the minister's words to mean that when a tax must be imposed, it always applies to the lower income groups.
I would like to hear the hon. minister say just for once if it would have been possible to get this money from those who can pay, the big financiers, whom he is constantly protecting, to whom he grants favours every day and who are permitted to have hidden reserves totalling two, three, four and five million dollars. We are told that there was no other alternative, that he was forced to introduce this tax. But to whom should it apply? We feel this tax should have been imposed on those who could pay.
I understand the hon. minister's position quite well. They could not act otherwise because they were elected precisely by those important financiers; they owe their seats to these people and they must watch over their

interests. It is well known that the two old parties are supported by financial interests. Someone was telling me the other day: "What can we do? They elected us, and we must work for them".
The minister is consistent. He was elected by financiers to protect them, to save them, to let them make money to the detriment of the people, as always and he fulfils his functions. What I do not like is when he tries to make the people believe that he is working in their best interest. This I like much less. Let him say it when he returns before the people: "I have fulfilled my function. I was elected by the financiers and I have worked on their behalf. If ever you want people to work for you, elect them. So far as I am concerned, I have worked for those who have elected me."
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is understandable, especially when it is realized how members of our group have been elected. They were elected with the pennies of the people, of the workers. We cannot put up with this sort of thing and that is why we insist on objecting. And we ask the people to open their eyes and to see how much they are being hoodwinked. If the people fail to open their eyes and if they keep on voting for these people every four years for $2, $3 or $5, I say that within two, three or four years, as the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac mentioned, in this democracy which is not a democracy at all but the worse monetary dictatorship ever in any country of the world, we will not hear anything more about private enterprise. To think that in our small towns the situation is such that certain businessmen are trying to sell their property because they are overtaxed.
There are municipal, school, provincial and federal taxes, and when all those taxes are paid, there is barely a livelihood left. And you have that 11 per cent tax on building materials which will increase by 1 per cent. If the government has no other means than to tax the worker, it should resign, for it has failed at its job.
It is undermining the foundations of this country in order to please a handful of big financiers. I believe the people will refuse to stand such a hoax any longer on thq part of financiers and especially of j governments which endlessly bait them in order to catch them and sell them to financiers.
Some of the older people will receive a maximum of $30; some others will get $20, $2, $3. In my area, a small group of people, about 15 per cent of the older people, will get a
February 15, 19G7

little more. Perhaps more older people will get a larger amount in large centres, but in my area most of them are going to get something, namely $3, $4, $5. Now in order to be able to give $4, $5, $10 or $15 more to older people they are taxing everybody. Yes, everybody, except the rich. When I; say everybody, I mean the people as a whole. Great care is taken so that the rich will not be taxed. They are taxing the people as a whole, in order to give crumbs to older people, to provide bureaucrats with a handsome pay or to snoop around in the homes of our older people and then they will go proclaiming throughout the country: See, we gave you $30.
No, Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the people's attention to the fact that it is only a masquerade like most of the welfare legislation adopted here, and we strongly object to all that trickery practiced against the people.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the criticism of this bill by the opposition. 1 should like to say a few words in joining with the critics of the government because I have many reasons for blaming the government today and would like to expose them to the house. First, I should like to blame the government for not paying salaries to all Canadians and for not paying 100 per cent of the educational costs of students up to age 30 or 35 or for all of their lives should they wish to continue to go to university. I should like to blame the government for not keeping the three services, the army, the navy and the air force, for not doubling the pay of each member of these forces, and for not tripling the enrolment if possible. I should like to blame the government for not increasing old age pensions to at least $100 week. I should like also to blame the government for not increasing family allowances to at least $25 a month for each child living at home.
I should like to blame the government for not building castles for prisoners and for not supplying them with doctors, psychiatrists, masseurs, secretaries and so on. I should also like to blame the government for forcing everybody to keep on working like hell in this prosperous country of ours. I should like to blame the government for not paying for all our medical, surgical and hospital services and for not paying for monthly vacations, check-ups and so on. I should like to blame the government for not firing thousands of civil servants or at least forcing them to work for the glory of our country.
Ways and Means
I should like to blame the government for not bawling out the United States and telling them that we do not need any of their money in this prosperous country of ours. I should like to blame the government for not abolishing the taxes which are sucking the life blood out of all Canadians. I should like to blame the government for not changing this stupid natural law by which man is condemned to work by the sweat of his brow. After all, why should this government which has been elected by the people not make of this country of ours an earthly paradise? Are we not the richest country in the word? Have we not the best government in the world? Have we not the most co-operative opposition in the world? Why should we be prevented from living like millionaires? I would even go further. If there is any Canadian who is well off after all these regulations are passed and is paying income tax at the rate of 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 60 per cent he should be made to pay 994 per cent.
When one listens to all the critics of the government one might be tempted to go to extremes. One might be led to believe that there can be in this world of ours a government which can provide an earthly paradise for the people without charging anybody any taxes. 1 suppose we could use our gold mines and perhaps print some paper money- greenbacks-to take care of the cost. I suppose we could work out some kind of a miracle. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not think some of us really are serious when we offer these many and perpetual criticisms, because they are not logical.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, while some members of the opposition blame the government for increasing the sales tax-which is perfectly normal, because we figure that at the present time inflation has spread so seriously that we must resort to any means to try and control it-the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) states the interests of his electors, those small wage earners, those small consumers and says: "That is fine. Why do some blame the government for increasing the sales tax?" Then he ridicules those who blame the government.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege because the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) put words in my mouth which I did not utter. According to him, I said that things were going well; on

February 15, 1967
Ways and Means
the contrary, I said that they were going badly.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, because the member for Trois-Rivieres delivered his whole which in English, maybe he did not understand it himself, but to anyone who can read between the lines, and judging from the applause of the Liberal members and the Minister of Finance, it is obvious that the speech of the member for Trois-Rivieres had no other object than to manifest once again his wish to join the Liberal party. Once again, he grovelled before the Liberal party. He told them: "Some people blame you, but not me." That is what the member for Trois-Rivieres meant.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The member for Lapointe says that I have a tendency to grovel. I want nothing in common with the member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I leave it to those who heard me, and especially those who will read the speech of the member for Trois-Rivieres, to judge which one is grovelling before the government.
While we are here to defend the interests of consumers, workers and small wage-earners, the member for Trois-Rivieres approves the tax increases; he is satisfied with that. To prove my case, anyone who will read his speech will conclude that he tried to be facetious; he tried to resort to a low form of wit-but he failed miserably-to prove that those who criticize the government for increasing taxes, are persons who criticize unceasingly.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that those who criticized the government for increasing taxes again were right in doing so, under the present situation. Moreover, I feel that when a member like the member for Trois-Rivieres approves such an increase, as is proved by the tone of his speech-I leave it to those who will read it to judge it-as I say, when a member like the member for Trois-Rivieres, who is supposed to represent the small wage-earners and consumers in this house, approves these tax increases, he gives precedence to his wish to belong to the Liberal party over the interests of his voters.
We have had proof of it time and time again. I admit the Liberal party may not be too eager to have him, because it already has, within its ranks, enough of those men who set aside their own opinions in order to respect

party policy. Having the proof that the member for Trois-Rivieres likes to tag along-a question of privilege? No. Well, the hon. member admits it then-I would ask the Minister of Finance to become his sponsor and recommend his admission to the ranks of his party. Then the member for Trois-Rivieres will be happy and content, he will have reached his goal, though at the expense of his voters, the consumers and the small wage-earners of the riding of Trois-Rivieres.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres rises on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, naturally I did not rise on a question of privilege every time I could have done so for then I should have risen repeatedly, but the member for Lapointe has said that the member for Trois-Rivieres likes to tag along. I want to object to that allegation. He said also that the member for Trois-Rivieres wanted his admission in the ranks of the Liberal party. This is at least one advantage I have over the hon. member for Lapointe, because I find no party, no colleague in the house who would like to be near him here in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: The hon. member for Lapointe blames me for favouring increased taxes. I should like to tell him that the Trois-Rivieres constituents have never been used to listening to demagogues. They have been accustomed to listening to, and electing, those who speak the language of common sense. That is the reason the hon. member for Lapointe will never be elected in the Trois-Rivieres area.


Gilles Grégoire: Which only goes to confirm what I said a while ago, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-Thomas Richard: ShaH
the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-268, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Old Age Security Act.
February 15, 1967	COMMONS


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we now proceed with the second reading of the bid?


Mr. Monieilh:: Where are the bills, or is there just one?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is just one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it now agreed that we proceed with second reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of the biU.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill intended to carry out the two resolutions approved by the committee of the whole. I do not have any comment to make about them, but I will explain the various clauses when we reach the committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just said that this is a very simple bin based on the two budget resolutions which we have passed. I might point out that this was done on division in respect of the one relating to sales tax.
As hon. members are aware, the bill has just come into our hands so that I have not had time to read it. I note that it comprises five pages, four of which have reference to changes in the Excise Tax Act, commonly known as the sales tax. In terms of volume, the most significant effect of this bill is that it increases the general sales tax from 8 per cent to 9 per cent. This has the effect of increasing the total federal sales tax from 11 per cent to 12 per cent.
As we have indicated several times, both during the course of the debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair and during the consideration in the committee, this increase in sales tax is unnecessary and iniquitous. We also feel that the effect this tax has on the cost of living is particularly serious insofar as people in the lower income brackets are concerned, and that the minister is doing a disservice to the country by raising this tax at this time.
Excise Tax and Old Age Security Act
This bill does not sit well with the government's concern about the cost of living, expressed when it agreed that this should be a matter for committee study, and it does not sit well with the government's concern, as expressed at times by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), in repect of a guaranteed minimum income for citizens of this country. Therefore we want to register our unqualified opposition to the government's proposal to raise the general sales tax.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I want also to indicate, and 1 shall do it briefly because several of us dealt with this matter at other stages, that we think it is particularly unfair to the old age pensioners of this country that the increase in the sales tax is being brought in at this time. Argue as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) may, the impression created in the country is that this tax increase was made necessary because of the guaranteed income supplement being added to the old age security pension. The fact that the amount of money to be spent on that supplement in the first year is $280 million, and that the government is seeking by two tax changes to raise $290 million, certainly strengthens this impression in the minds of the people of this country. But it is very clear, and that clarity is underlined in the bill now before us, Bill C-268, that although the extra money to be raised by putting the ceiling on the old age security tax up to $240 will go into the old age security fund, the money to be raised by the increase in the sales tax win not go into that fund at all. Therefore, on all counts we are against the proposal to increase the sales tax at this time.
I regret that the minister has taken the course of putting these two propositions into one bill. There were two separate resolutions, one to the effect that the Old Age Security Act should be amended and the other to the effect that the Excise Tax Act should be amended. I think it would have been more proper for the minister to have presented two separate bills. However, for reasons of his own, whatever they may be, he has chosen to put them into the one bill. Despite that fact, we find the increase in the sales tax so objectionable, so iniquitous and so unfair that we want to register our objection to it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Barnett):
That Bill C-268 be not now read a second time, but that It be read a second time this day six months hence.
13092	COMMONS
Excise Tax and Old Age Security Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that we are heartily in accord with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I would also like to reiterate the hon. member's statement that there should have been two bills. We were presented with two separate resolutions and we think they should have been followed by two separate bills. However, I do not want to deal at length with our disagreement with the government on this particular bill. On several occasions in the past we have expressed our disagreement with the government's action in increasing the sales tax by 1 per cent. It will increase the cost of living and will most seriously affect those whom the minister has intimated are supposed to benefit.
I would also point out that the sales tax will go into general revenue. The thought that has gotten abroad, and I do not think it has been denied publicly by the government, is that both these additional taxes will benefit the recipients of old age security. This is not so. The old age security fund will only benefit by the amount of the increase in income tax; the money derived from the sales tax increase will go into general revenue.
It is a fallacy to believe that these additional taxes will benefit the recipients of old age security, because this is simply not true. I think the people of Canada should be made aware of this fact. Certain newspapers took from the minister's remarks of December 19 last that the two taxes were imposed in order to benefit the recipients of old age security. It must be understood that this is not so. I want to say again that the sales tax increase cannot help but increase the cost of living. It is another tax to be borne by the people of this country and will impose an additional burden on those in the lower income bracket. We feel it is an iniquitous increase and should not have been considered. As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, we heartily endorse the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the resolutions that were introduced, the principles of which are now incorporated in this bill, was allegedly to give the senior citizens of Canada what the minister termed last December a Christmas present. I think this is a rather shoddy way to introduce this measure, because it singled out a particular group of people as being responsible for this obnoxious increase in taxation.

DEBATES	February 15, 1967
This was very clearly set forth yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), and I do not propose to deal with the matter in detail. Nevertheless, I should like to emphasize the fact that the senior citizens of this country do not look with any degree of appreciation upon the fact that the measure was introduced in this way and, of course, neither do the people of Canada in general.
We all recognize the importance and necessity of an increase in the pensions of our senior citizens. I do not think we have to argue in favous of that principle; it is supported by all hon. members whether they sit on the opposition or government side. Nevertheless we take very strong exception to the principle that was enunciated in this instance which, as I have said, singled out this particular group of people and placed upon them, by implication at least, the burden of a further increase in the already onerous taxation which the people of Canada are called upon to bear.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We do not take too strong exception to the increase in the old age security tax assessment from $120 to $240 mainly because this affects people in the medium and high income brackets. However, we do take very strong exception to the increase in the sales tax which has been outlined in the resolution and is now in the legislation, because it contributes still further to the spiralling cost of living. We all know the strong stand that has been taken by various Canadian organizations with regard to the increase in the cost of living. We are aware of the steps that have been taken to try to discover the reasons for the cost of living spiral. Some of the provincial governments have appointed their own committees. A committee of both houses of this parliament was appointed to study this problem and it is still in the process of considering the factors which contribute to it.
While the joint committee is studying this matter the government has now introduced another measure which contributes to a further increase in the cost of living. I think that this is another example of the government working against its own policies, enunciating a policy and then turning around and frustrating the realization of the objectives which it has indicated it has in mind. The same thing has happened with regard to the emphasis which was put on home construction
February 15, 1967	COMMONS
and home ownership in that immediately after the government introduced policies diametrically opposed to the objectives it had stated were part of its policy. Here again we find that the government has expressed concern about the increased cost of living and then has turned around and adopted a policy which contribute to the aggravation of that very problem.
An increase in taxation does not always result in increased revenue. A point of diminishing return can be reached at which the revenue instead of increasing will decrease because of the effect of the policy upon the economy. Therefore I think that at this time we should impress upon the government the fact that taxation in Canada has pretty well reached the maximum level which the Canadian people can bear.
A few days ago my leader, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), pointed out that taxation takes more than 50 per cent of the income of Canadian people. Now that Canadians have to work six months of the year to cover the cost of government operations the situation has become serious and we must conclude that there is something drastically wrong with the economy. I believe that the time has come when the government should cut back on some of its unnecessary expenditures in order to meet its responsibility to the Canadian people without increasing the burden of taxation which Canadians have to bear. I understand that the government has given the go-ahead signal for quite a vast program of construction of public buildings in the capital area. Perhaps we could get along without some of those buildings and use some of the money to meet other commitments.
While we support legislation designed to give our senior citizens additional assistance we strenuously oppose and reject the manner in which this measure is being financed. We believe that the government should accept the responsibility and find some other way of discharging it without increasing taxation. We believe that the time has come when a decrease rather than an increase in taxation should be effected. We have stated many times that this should be done.
We have been told that the commission on taxation is studying the matter and will bring in recommendations, but goodness knows when they will be brought in. The minister is very noncommittal. Every time the question is asked he tells us that he does not wish to go out on a limb and commit himself to any
Excise Tax and Old Age Security Act particular time because he does not know. In view of the length of time which the commission has spent in studying this matter I suggest that the minister should know. We wish to impress upon the commission the necessity of bringing forth recommendations and tabling its report so that we can find out the results of its months of study. Although we support the increase in pensions we are opposed to the method by which the government proposes to finance this added responsibility.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak on this bill at any length but I feel that I cannot let it go by without voicing emphatically my opposition to it on the ground that it will raise the cost of living for those people in particular who are finding it most difficult to bear at the present time. This group consists to a very large degree of the old age pensioners of this country. When the legislation was announced just before Christmas manufacturers all across the country said quite definitely that an additional 1 per cent tax at the manufacturers' level would mean a minimum 2 per cent increase in the cost to the consumer. Only last fall we saw how hard pressed the consumers are, as expressed through housewives' boycotts all across the country. They did not particularly wish their protests to take this form but they were hard pressed to the point where they had to demonstrate.
It is all very well to speak in terms of averages. Last night I was given an excellent example of how the statistician's definition of average works out. It is like putting a man's head in the furnace and his feet on a block of ice and saying that he should be pretty comfortable, on the average. This is exactly what happens in regard to the average person in this country. The average person may be in a position to absorb this additional tax on top of the higher prices but people in the lower income groups are not in such a position.
I think that the government did the right thing last fall in referring the problem of the cost of living to the consumer credit committee for its study. I have been to a good many places all across this country and I know that people are looking forward hopefully to the results of the study of that committee. They are asking, when can we expect results? It is a good thing to look into the cost of living across the country, but people are waiting anxiously for results in the form of legislation.
13094	COMMONS
Excise Tax and Old Age Security Act [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I say to the government that these people are going to feel rather badly when they realize that while the government has established a committee to look into the various aspects of the cost of living it has at the same time introduced this measure which will increase the cost of living in so many fields. People are not going to be deceived too long by this sort of action. When they catch on they will definitely question the sincerity of a government which, on the one hand, establishes a committee to study the cost of living and, on the other hand, goes ahead with measures which raise the cost of living for people who can least bear it.
We feel very strongly that this type of tax should not be imposed as a means of helping people in the old age pension group because at the same time we say we are helping them we are making things more difficult for them by increasing the sales tax. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we in this group feel this is not a straightforward, honest way to meet the needs of this group. We are completely and thoroughly opposed to this measure of taxation.


Mr. Stewart:: Will the hon. lady permit a question?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes.


John B. Stewart: I should like to ask the hon. lady whether she agrees that, at least in the long run, the cost of this increase must be met? If her answer to that question is in the affirmative then what particular tax increases would she propose?


Winona Grace MacInnis: It is
not my job to propose particular tax increases. I am dealing with the measure before us upon which we are being asked for our opinion. There are other measures and we have mentioned them at various times.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill and about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Mr. Speaker, I will not have to make a long speech to say once again how strongly I object to sales taxes and especially to any increase. What I will do later will show that I am against those sales taxes.
Late in 1966 when the minister brought down the mini-budget, he asked us to approve that increase in taxes to assume the cost of

DEBATES	February 15, 1967
increasing the old age security pension or rather to assume the cost of the supplementary income.
Mr. Speaker, to accept this bill now would be to accept at the same time the principle that to give a little more to the old people it is necessary to take a little more from the young, from the people who work and others. I do not share that opinion, Mr. Speaker, because before granting an allowance to someone, the first thing to consider is whether the country's industrial or productive capacity can afford it.
It is somewhat the same thing as far as the increase in the old age security pension is concerned. The amount our senior citizens will receive at the end of March or April will be used to buy the things they need. Then, we must ask ourselves whether, the country can give them the things they need. If it can, well, let us see to it that they get them, without, however, taking away from others what they are entitled to according to their salary and income.
This is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to increasing this tax for I know that industry and production in general can afford to provide the elderly with the things they need. Then if the minister believes that they require a higher income, all he has to do is to request the Bank of Canada to create enough credit to permit the purchase of the goods already produced.
When the minister introduced his minibudget in December 1966, he said that he needed 290 million dollars, that he would raise this amount by means of this increased tax. However, a while ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) remarked that such a tax increase of 1 per cent, for instance, would not necessarily mean an increase in income, since with an increase in the cost of living people will buy less and the income will decrease accordingly.
To support what was said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, I shall call the minister's attention to another point. The raise of $30 that some elderly people will get will serve to increase the country's business, purchases, trade and taxes already included in the price of the : merchandise offered, including clothing and some consumer products. The higher amount that the older citizens will be able to spend by itself will increase income. Apparently, the Minister of Finance has not taken into account those millions of dollars in circulation during the next year, which will increase incomes.
February 15. 1967	COMMONS
Then, for all those considerations, I object to the 1 per cent tax increase and this is why I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Jean Chretien (Sainl-Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments following the speeches made in the house this afternoon on the budget resolutions or on the motion for second reading of his bill amending the Excise Tax Act and Old Age Security Act.
In the first place, and this is quite interesting, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned earlier that the bill, even if it was quite simple, included four pages dealing with the sales tax and only one paragraph concerning old age security.
However, I wish to point out to him that three of the four pages he mentioned contain nothing but exceptions; in other words, these are items to which the new 1 per cent sales tax will not apply. Therefore, I was rather surprised at the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He said that the bill was very significant because it was four pages long, but had he taken the time to read the bill, he would have realized that three of the four pages he mentioned listed nothing but items exempt from the new sales tax.
The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), who also took part in the debate did not quite seem to understand the budget resolution. He accused the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) of not telling the truth and of not giving the house all the information available because the budget resolution mentions an increase in the sales tax from 8 to 9 per cent.
I should simply like to point out to him that this is, of course, a question of terminology, and that the Minister of Finance did not at any time mention that he was raising the sales tax from 11 to 12 per cent. The budget speech which he made on December 19, 1966 clearly indicated that the sales tax would be increased from 11 to 12 per cent, except in a few cases. He did not at any time try to misinform the house, and if the budget resolution mentioned an increase in the tax from 8 to 9 per cent, it was because the sales tax is divided into two different sectors, one added to the general revenue fund and the other to the old age security fund. But at no time did the minister imply that the sales tax was only of 9 per cent.
One of the most remarkable interjections, both on account of its brevity and its logic,
Excise Tax and Old Age Security Act was, I think, that of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain).
It is about time, Mr. Speaker, for the members of this house, who have been elected by the people, to start talking sense. It is useless to try to make people believe that we find money on trees or that some obscure mechanism in the Bank of Canada can be used to solve all our problems. Money spent at any level of government comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
I think that it is quite logical that we should be able to say to our electors that if we increased the old age security, we are ready to pay for it. It is no use postponing that tax increase for six, eight or 12 months; it would only be lying to the electors.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres was perfectly right when he said that too many in this house are trying to make believe that by passing legislation we could solve the problems very easily or that through a single piece of legislation we could guarantee a maximum income to all the taxpayers and citizens of Canada. The system is not like that; there is not a single system in the world which works like that. In any country, when an administration decides to grant social or other benefits to the population, it is because they have decided to raise taxes or get the money from the taxpayers' pockets.
This budget shows our concern not to direct taxes against people with small incomes. There is no clearer illustration of this than the raise in the old age security tax. We raised the maximum from $120 to $240. By so doing, we reached only one third of the taxpayers, those in the top income bracket, so that the other two thirds with lower incomes might not contribute at this time to the tax increase required to pay for the increased old age security.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Would the hon. member permit a question? May I ask the parliamentary secretary why the government set the limit at $240? If the government was interested in collecting money from those best able to provide it, why did it not apply the 4 per cent across the board with no limit of $240, as the members of this party have proposed on many occasions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) should take the time to read the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on December 19. He will find the answer there.
13096	COMMONS DEBATES	February 15, 1967
Excise Tax and Old Age Security Act


William Arnold Peters: No, he will not.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The minister wanted to maintain the balance between those who receive the old age pension and those who pay for it, and it was a good step to take in that direction. I think the old age security fund was established in that spirit, and if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was in the house at the time he can probably testify to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You want the poor to pay for their own pensions.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back to what I was saying before the hon. member for Winnipeg North cut in, as far as the sales tax is concerned, we know that this tax is unpleasant. But let the hon. members name, if they can, one tax which is pleasant, one single field with regard to which everybody congratulates us and encourages us to increase taxes. There are none and taxes are always painful. However, in this case, we wanted, if possible, a tax without tears. And that is why the sales tax does not apply, for instance, to food, fuel and building supplies.
And if my hon. friends opposite will take time to read the bill, they will And three pages of exemptions and I could enumerate them, if I wanted to take the time of the house. But anybody can read them as well as I can.


Gérard Laprise: Would you allow me a question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.


Gérard Laprise: How can the hon. member say that those items on page 2, Schedule VI, Part 1 and 2, will not be increased by 1 per cent when other items, in the same stores, will be increased by 1 per cent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a tax raised at the manufacturer level, not at the retailer level. It will apply to the wholesaler and then, he will make the distinction because he will want to charge as little as possible. Naturally, he will not add the tax to the items which he is not compelled to tax, for he himself is answerable to the Minister of National Revenue in this regard.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on the mini-budget we made it clear to the people that all in all we are for social
security. No one on this side of the house
(Mr. Chretien.]
can take a more just pride than ourselves in having launched social security in Canada. We now probably have one of the best social security systems in the world. Many countries envy us in this regard.
However, due to the present state of our economy, we can not act irresponsibly. People expect more today, because they are better informed. Perhaps in 1910 or 1911, it was possible to get away with telling the people similar tales, but the information media being what they are today people are not easily taken in any more. I believe they can take their responsibilities and that is what we have been doing for several months.
It is interesting to note that last year, in the United States, newspapers and magazines were filled with articles criticizing the Johnson administration for refusing to accept its responsibilities, waiting until after the expected fall elections to raise the taxes. According to several economists, this delay caused excessive inflationary pressures throughout last spring and fall.
If the government had taken its responsibilities when the Canadian government did with the March 1966 budget, that is when we felt inflationary pressures in Canada; we took immediate action-the results would have been much better for the North American economy as a whole. And if Canada suffered from inflation during the last three months of 1966, it is perhaps mostly due to the fact that the Americans did not have the courage to act as the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) did here in Canada.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, after the minibudget was brought down the people said, as reported in the Canadian press: It is really painful and taxes are high, but there is a direct connection between government taxes and expenditures, and as the government had committed itself since March to maintain an almost balanced budget, there was nothing else to do than to levy a tax following the increase in old age security. And the advantage derived from this is that from now on, when we see electoral platforms, we might realize that there is a direct connection between the purse and the electoral program. And what is even more astonishing is that today we have heard, for the first time perhaps in 40 years in this house, the members of the New Democratic Party, for instance the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), say this: "It is true that the taxes should be raised when there is an increase in old age security."
February 15, 1967	COMMONS
I believe that if, by means of this minibudget, we have only succeeded in bringing home even to the members of the New Democratic Party that whenever money is spent, it has to come out of the taxpayers' pockets, then, this December mini-budget will prove to have been a useful measure, and I believe that the public at large will agree with me on this point
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, when any minister of the crown comes into the house, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) did with this bill, and says that the bill is a simple one, that statement should serve as a red warning light to all members of the house to have a good look at the measure. I incline to the well-worn phrase, beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Before dealing with the substance of the bill I wish to comment on its form. At the present time it seems that the Liberal government is showing a desire to lay all its eggs in one basket and then to scramble them thoroughly. I say this because yesterday the house concurred in a resolution preceding a money bill without any bill being introduced for first reading according to the normal procedure which we had expected would be followed. Now we find that we have before us a bill to amend two different acts.
There have been discussions in and outside the house among members about the desirability of moving toward a shortening of discussion on the resolution stage of bills. I suggest that if this trend continues we may find parliament faced one day with a situation where the government brings in all its resolutions at one time and at the end of the session introduces an omnibus bill with all the resolutions in one basket, so to speak. That would make it difficult indeed for members to determine what the principle of the bill was.
While what I have said so far may not be sufficient grounds for supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), nevertheless there are substantial grounds for agreeing that this bill should not be read a second time now. The proposal to increase taxes is open to argument and arguments have already been advanced in that regard. The subject, it seems to me, divides itself into two parts. I can argue, as other members have, that the proposal to increase taxes at this time is unjustified and unwarranted. I propose to say,
Excise Tax and Old Age Security Act however, that if in the minister's view a tax increase at this time is necessary the minister has gone about imposing the increase in the wrong way.
I noticed that when my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), was speaking, the canny Scottish instincts of the hon. member for Antigon-ish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) came to the fore. He raised the question of taxation and what we would propose to do. In that connection I say, not only about the proposal we have before us but also with respect to the levying of the federal sales tax in general, that I have long felt it is one of the most regressive forms of taxation in the country. Any proposal to increase such taxation should be resisted because it is regressive. Most of us know that this form of tax has a multiplier effect. The arguments advanced by hon. members such as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway about the unnecessary effect this tax has on the cost of living and its particular effect on the lower income groups are well justified.


John B. Stewart: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he answer the question that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway declined to answer? Would he tell the house what kind of tax increase he would prefer if in the long run he is prepared to concede that a tax increase will be necessary?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am coming to that, and if the hon. member will be patient I will suggest something that he and the Minister of Finance might consider. I was about to say that under our marketing system mark-ups are made in percentages. Goods pass from the manufacturer to the wholesaler or jobber and then to the retail level, and the result is that the tax paid indirectly by the consumer is much greater than the amount flowing into the federal treasury as the result of the imposition of taxes. This is a wrong principle of taxation, I submit, and one which we should go to considerable lengths to avoid.
I am prepared to suggest something that the hon. member and the Minister of Finance might consider. We are all aware that between the federal and provincial levels of governments at various times these have been tax rental arrangements whereby the federal government has acted as the agent to collect taxes for remission to the provincial authorities. The Minister of Finance might consider asking for some quid pro quo in this connection. In other words, if at the federal level we
13098	COMMONS
Excise Tax and Old Age Security Act collect taxes for the provincial authority, why should we not ask the provincial authority to do the same thing for us? If the Minister of Finance insists on using the sales tax approach to raise additional revenue I think it would be much less unfair to collect that tax at the retail level. Most of the provinces have arrangements for collecting sales tax and the people know how much they pay.
I offer this suggestion as my own idea. If the minister wants to discuss such a proposal at the next meeting of the federal and provincial finance ministers, and if he needs a 2 per cent sales tax increase, why could he not suggest to the provincial governments that instead of collecting 5 per cent they collect 7 per cent and remit the 2 per cent to the federal coffers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question arising out of his interesting suggestion? Is he in favour of a sales tax?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is always an easy answer, of course, and that is to say that we do not like any taxes. However, we all recognize realities. I see the Minister of Finance applauding. One can say that the minister has a special reason for liking taxes less than some of the rest of us. We all agree that he has a duty to propose the levying of taxes in some form.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about a capital gains tax? There is lots of room there.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As my leader suggests, a capital gains tax might be considered. That has been put forward from this quarter of the house many times. No minister of finance on the other side has ever seen fit to act on that suggestion. I am trying to suggest something a little different and I do so because, as I argued, the sales tax has a multiplier effect on the cost of goods at the retail level. It is a regressive form of taxation that we should seek to avoid and abolish.
On the general principle of having any sales tax there are arguments pro and con. If I entered into a discussion of that field I fear that Mr. Speaker might question whether my remarks were relevant to the principle of the bill before us. What I am prepared to argue is that a sales tax levied at the retail level is a much less unfair and, to that extent, more desirable form of taxation than the proposition the minister has put forward in this bill.

DEBATES	February 15. 1967
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I think the house might very well support the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre and put the measure on ice, as it were, at least long enough for the Minister of Finance to have an opportunity to explore the possibilities of the alternative I have brought to his attention.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will not be for very long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: I was moved to rise by the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, which I found to be both amusing and confusing. First of all, we object to any increase in the sales tax because we know from experience that an increase of 1 per cent amounts to a great deal more when it is passed on to the consumer. I can tell the minister and the parliamentary secretary that already the prices of a whole series of prescription drug items have increased not by 1 per cent but by 5 per cent and 10 per cent. If the minister does not know of this I will be glad to supply him with full information together with examples of what has happened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern is rising to ask a question if the hon. member will allow one.


Edward Nasserden: Speaking of detailed information, does the hon. member recall that when the C.C.F. party was in power in Saskatchewan it doubled the sales tax?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: I come from the province of Manitoba where only last week the Conservative provincial government introduced a sales tax. The provincial governments, whatever party they may represent, have found to their sorrow that the sales tax is one of the few sources from which they can raise revenue. I do not like it and they do not like it. I am suggesting that the federal government has a great deal more flexibility and that no federal government needs to increase a sales tax which is already too high.
In the few moments at my disposal I should like to deal with the rhetorical question asked by the parliamentary secretary. He knew the answer before he asked it. There are a number of ways in which the Minister of Finance could have raised the money he thought he needed to pay for the increases which will go
February IS, 1967	COMMONS
to the old age pensioners. Several members have already mentioned a capital gains tax. We have also suggested that the $1.5 billion being spent on national defence could be reduced substantially without greatly impairing the efficiency of our defence forces.
I wish to deal specifically, however, with one clause in the bill under which I suggest the minister might have raised a very substantial amount of money. I refer to the proposal in clause 5 under which the act is amended so that 4 per cent of a taxpayer's taxable income for the year is earmarked for his old age security contribution up to a maximum of $240 a year. I made a rough calculation to see how this affects me personally. I found that if there were no limitation of $240 I would be paying $360 or another 50 per cent. I suggest to the minister that members of parliament, cabinet ministers, who make even more money than ordinary members, and the business and professional people of this country who make $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 a year or more can afford to pay 4 per cent without a maximum of $240 a great deal more easily than the hundreds of thousands who will find that as a result of the sales tax the cost of every item they buy has been increased, save for the few exceptions listed in the bill.
Why has the minister not seen fit to abolish this limitation? He has not done so for a very simple reason. He believes it is wrong for the rich to pay much more than they will get from the pension when they receive it. There can be no other explanation.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member is attributing motives to me which I deny most forcefully. The reason I have done this is to follow the pattern which he and his party have endorsed over many years. The amount of the limiting figure has been increased in a series of steps-$90, $120, $240. I deny the implication that I am following my present course in order to protect anybody in the community.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising to close the debate?


David Orlikow: I was not imputing any motive to the minister. I read his speech on the
Business of the House
mini-budget carefully. I remember his budget speech of April last. I have tried to understand why the limitation is there. I want to tell him that the members of this group have never approved of the limitation. I remember that when the former minister of finance made a similar proposal-he seems to have come back now from the purgatory to which he was consigned-we contended then that the limitation should be removed and that the tax for that purpose should be applied to total income.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the business is to be for tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems that some hon. members wish to discuss forthcoming business. I think I should bring it to the attention of those concerned that if an announcement of business is to be made it should be done before the adjournment has been called by the Chair.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Can the Solicitor General tell us what the business will be tomorrow?


Lawrence T. Pennell: We will follow the order which was announced last evening with the addition of item 100, Bill C-252, for the expansion of scientific research and development.


Michael Starr: Are we changing the sequence set out by the leader of the house the other day?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I apologize to the hon. member if I did not make myself clear. We shall follow the order laid down by the leader of the house on Monday but should we finish the business outlined by him we would proceed to consider item 100.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 16, 1967