1967-12-06

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. H. Pit Lessard.
[Editor's note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[English}


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago this morning occurred the Halifax explosion, one of the most awesome events in our Canadian history. About 1,600 were killed and another 6,000 injured, 10,000 were left homeless and property damage was estimated at more than $35 million.
The most sizeable donation to the stricken city, $18 million, came from the parliament of Canada, and to this day we have the Halifax relief commission, which reports to the Minister of Finance, as a reminder of the help all Canada gave at that critical time. It may interest hon. members to learn that approximately 80 pensioners still receive eye disability pensions and another dozen to two dozen receive general disability pensions from the funds, partly provided by that earlier parliament, still administered by the commission.
On this fiftieth anniversary my colleague and I should like to thank Canada on behalf of the area we serve.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Souiham: 1.	How many post offices will be constructed in Saskatchewan in the 1967-68 winter season under the federal winter works program?
2.	Where will these post offices be built?
3.	Are any other public buildings such as R.C.MP. barracks planned for construction in Saskatchewan this winter under the winter works program and, if any, where will they be constructed?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Four localities have been selected; however, whether or not post office buildings will be constructed will depend on the availability of suitable sites at reasonable prices, the nature of the response to the invitation for tenders, and other similar considerations.
2.	The four locations referred to above are Dubuc, Insinger, Mistatim, and Quinton.
3.	None under the winter works program.


REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	How many days did the members of the statute revision commission sit?
2.	Is it intended to replace the term "Statuts revises du Canada" by the term "Lois revisees du Canada"?
3.	Is it intended to remove the references to the laws of Great Britain from Canadian legislation?
4.	Is it intended to replace the terms "Puissance" and "Dominion" by the term "Canada"?
5.	Is a particular importance attached to the French version of the revised statutes of Canada?
6.	In the legislation section of the Department of Justice, how many English speaking and how many French speaking jurists are there?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: 1.	Formal sittings of the commission were held on four occasions. No records are kept of working sessions of members or groups of members.

December 6, 1967
Questions
2.	No. The legislative policy with respect to this nomenclature is set out in 1964-65, c. 48, s. 14.
3.	No, unless the reference is spent, or has been repealed or replaced by later legislation.
4.	The expression "Dominion" would not be changed to "Canada" if it involved a change in the title given by parliament to an act, a body corporate or other body or to a profession. The expression "Dominion" in other contexts to describe the parliament or government of Canada would normally be altered in accordance with 1964-65, c. 48, s. 5, which empowers the statute revision commission to make such alterations as are necessary to preserve a uniform mode of expression, and to make such minor amendments as are necessary to bring out more clearly what it deems to be the intention of parliament.
5.	Yes.
6.	At the present time there are 7 English speaking and 4 French speaking lawyers in
the legislation section of the Department of Justice.


FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How much money did the federal government pay to each of the provinces for the fiscal year 1965-1966 under (a) conditional grants (b) unconditional grants (c) unemployment insurance benefits (d) old age security (e) family allowances (f) other payments?
2.	What was the total amount of all these payments for the said fiscal year?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to the first part of the question is very long, may I ask for leave to have the answer printed as read?


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: Here is the answer in question.]
Payments to Provincial Governments and to Individuals in the Provinces (1965-66)
(millions of dollars)
	(a)	(b)
Province	Conditional	Unconditional
	Grants to	Grants to
	Provincial	Provincial
	Governments'	Governments8
NFLD	53.0	43.8P.E.I.	7.6	10.4N.S.	40.3	50.5N.B.	44.6	44.9Que.	379.0	142.7Ont.	313.1	22.8Man.	53.4	30.5Sask.	45.1	31.2Alta.	78.0	11.5B.C.	102.0	3.0
'Payments under the programmes covered by the Established Programmes (Interim Arrangements) Act have been adjusted to indicate the total federal contribution (i.e. tax abatements, equalization and operating cost adjustment).
'Includes statutory subsidies, equalization grants, Atlantic provinces adjustment grants, Newfoundland additional grant, share of fed-
(c)	(d)	(e)	(f)Unem- ployment Insurance Benefits	Old Age Security Pensions	Family Allow- ances	Others17.4	17.6	16.9	6.73.0	7.4	3.2	3.616.1	42.0	21.6	21.415.9	31.0	19.0	14.797.8	201.0	165.0	51.181.9	337.2	182.4	125.212.8	55.5	25.9	20.58.8	56.8	27.0	15.213.6	62.8	42.4	24.130.6	115.3	47.0	51.7
eral estate tax and share of income tax paid by certain public utility corporations.
"Includes Youth Allowances and War Veterans pensions and allowances. (The amount indicated for Quebec includes the value of the special abatement in lieu of Youth Allowances as per the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 1964.)
With regard to the second part of the question, the total amount was $3,616.5 million.
December 6, 1967


BLUEWATER BRIDGE COMMISSION
Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert): Has the federal government jurisdiction over the commission that administers the Bluewater bridge between Sarnia and Port Huron, U.S.A. and, if so (a) who are the officers of said commission, with their duties and terms of appointment and remuneration (b) how many regular employees are there (c) are there any other appointees, either part or full-time, and what are their names and salaries (d) how many meetings of the said commission were held in 1966 and what was the total revenue and expenses?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Yes, under the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act:	(a) there are four
Canadian members of the authority. The present incumbents are Messrs. Gregory A. Hogan; John S. Blunt; Thomas Mil way; and John D. George, each appointed by the governor in council. Mr. George was appointed on September 9, 1966 for a term of three years. Messrs. Hogan, Blunt and Milway were appointed on September 18, 1967 for terms of three, four and five years respectively. The members hold office during the pleasure of the appointing authority and serve without remuneration but are entitled to be reimbursed out of the revenues of the authority for travel, living and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of the duties of the bridge authority under the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act; (b) as of November 30, 1967, the authority employed 38 persons on a regular basis; (c) there are no other appointees; (d) in the
1966-67 fiscal year (September 1, 1966 to August 31, 1967) the gross revenue of the authority was $588,430.62 and the gross expenses were $509,279.28. There were four formal meetings of the authority during the 1966 calendar year. The members also meet informally from time to time as the business of the authority requires.


GRANTS IN AID TO WEST INDIES
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What were the total grants in aid made to the West Indies for each of the last five fiscal years?
2.	Is any increase contemplated in the scope of aid to be given to the West Indies?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. During the past five years Canadian bilateral aid made available to the Commonwealth Caribbean has totalled
Questions
$51.9 million.	This aid	has been made	available in the	form of	grants and long term	loans in each	year in	the following amounts.	(in $ millions)	Grants	: Loans	Total1963-64	2.1	0	2.11964-65	4.0	5.5	9.51965-66	4.5	5.5	10.01966-67	6.1	7.0	13.11967-68	9.2	8.7	17.22. During the Commonwealth Caribbean-	
Canada conference in Ottawa in July, 1966, I announced to the representatives of the Caribbean countries that it is "the intention of the Canadian government to expand thu level of its aid to developing countries in the light of economic and other relevant circumstances. Commonwealth Caribbean countries have been among the major recipients of Canadian aid in the past and I am in a position to assure you today that you will continue to receive on appropriate terms in future years, a very significant portion of Canada's expanding resources... To give you a more precise idea of Canadian intentions I would like to say here that we would expect our total annual aid effort in the Caribbean over each of the next five years to reach at least the level of our aid in the current fiscal year or a total for the period of more than $65 million... If, as we are confident can be done, good and practicable projects can be worked up for a still larger amount, the Canadian government will be prepared to increase its aid substantially above that figure during these five years". This statement continues to embody the government's intentions with respect to the Caribbean aid program.


APPROVAL OF NON-PAYLIST ALLOTMENTS
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Were the treasury board decisions listed in the first column of sessional paper No. 41A dealing with non-paylist allotments from finance vote 15 during 1966-67 approved by the governor in council?
2.	If so (a) on what dates (b) what are the numbers of the orders in council so approving the decisions?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. No.
2.	N/A.

December 6, 1967
Questions


SALE OF GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. No, but
salesmen will no longer be employed to solicit business.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	(a) September, 1908. (b) To encourage thrift and saving for old age. (c) Yes. Facilities for personal saving for old age are more numerous now than they were in 1908. There are also now in existence the old age security program and the Canada Pension Plan.
4.	(a) (i) 155,150 (ii) 1,416 (b) Total value at March 31, 1967 was $1,324,518,806 of which approximately $644,000,000 arises from group contracts. Separate accounts for individual and group annuities are not kept.
5.	Yes. Total net cost to March 31, 1967 is $26.3 million.
6.	(a) and (b):
Fiscal year ended March 31	Surplus transferred to consolidated revenue fund	Unclaimed annuities transferred1963	$ 417,000	$ 43,0001964	878,000	33,0001965	695,000	52,0001966	1,501,000	98,0001967	129,000	63,0007.	All existing contracts continue unchanged.8.	Head office establishment, 145. Sales offices, 52.9.	The decision to discontinue promotion of the sale of annuities will have little effect on the head office staff. The occupants of any head office positions which may become redundant can be absorbed elsewhere in the department.
Personnel in the sales offices are not public servants. Some will become public servants to staff seven regional service offices; some will be pensioned; and a few will have to seek other employment. Severance pay will be given to persons whose employment is terminated.


PENSIONS OF TEACHERS IN EXTERNAL AID PROGRAM
Mrs. MacXnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): Will the government adopt a policy of making a contribution to the pensions of teachers working in the government's external aid program?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Teachers serving overseas under the auspices of the external aid office are normally employed under direct contract with the government of Canada. In addition to regular salaries, teachers are paid an overseas allowance which is intended to be sufficiently generous to enable them to continue contributions to their regular superannuation plans in Canada.
Almost invariably teachers are on leaves of absence from their school boards while serving on assignments overseas and their pension rights are maintained.


MEETINGS TO CONSIDER McIVOR COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	Has the Minister of Fisheries arranged a meeting with representatives from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and the Northwest Territories to discuss the other aspects of the recommendations made by the Mclvor commission to determine which should be implemented besides the recommendation of establishing a fresh water fish marketing board?
2.	If so, has such a meeting taken place, who was in attendance and what recommendations of the Mclvor report will be implemented?


Mr. Richard Cashin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of this question
December 6, 1967

is no. With regard to the second part of the question, it is expected that the federal-provincial prairie fisheries committee will meet early in 1968, and that these questions will be considered at that time.


SPACE RESERVED IN PLACE DE VILLE
Mr. McCuicheon: 1.	(a) How much space has the government leased in the newly constructed Place de Ville (b) for what total annual rent (c) at what rate per square foot (d) for what purpose will the space be used (e) when was the lease negotiated?
2.	If no lease was signed, what undertaking has the Department of Public Works given to the owner?


George James McIlraith: 1. (a) In Tower "A", 215,163 square feet of office space. In Tower "B", 291,330 square feet of office accommodation and 4,858 square feet of storage space, (b) In Tower "A", the annual rental is $1,037,085.66, for office space. In Tower "B", the annual rental is $1,404,000 for office accommodation and $9,716 for storage space, (c) The rate per square foot is $4.82 per annum for office accommodation and $2.00 per square foot per annum for storage space, (d) The space will be used to house the following departments and agencies: In Tower "A": Office accommodation, The Public Service Commission. In Tower "B": Office accommodation, The National Energy Board; The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority; The Department of Trade and Commerce; The Department of Industry; Canadian Government Committee on Corrections. Storage space: Sergeant-At-Arms of House of Commons; Department of Industry; National Energy Board; Department of Trade and Commerce, (e) The lease for Tower "A" was negotiated in July, 1967, and for Tower "B", in January, 1967.
2.	In neither case has a lease been executed but, in both cases, the Department of Public Works has advised the owner of the approval of Treasury Board to enter into a lease.


LOBSTER FISHERY, DISTRICT 8, P.E.I.
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	What was the total weight of lobsters landed In District 8 and the amount of revenue to fishermen in the years 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	How many persons were employed in lobster fishing and processing in District 8 in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
Questions
3.	What was the total amount expended in research having to do with the expansion of the lobster fishery in District 8 in 1962, 1963, 1964 1965, 1966 and 1967?
4.	How many persons were employed on a fulltime basis in research into the expansion of the lobster fishery in District 8 in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
5.	How much will be expended in research having to do with the expansion of the lobster fishery in District 8 in 1968?
6.	How many persons will be employed on a full time basis in research into the expansion of the lobster fishery in District 8 in 1968?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: L	Value to
Quantity landed fishermen
	'000 lb.	$'000
1962	7,761	3,2141963	6,511	3,1121964	5,976	3,6001965	4,401	2,4901966	3,921	2,0461967	3,338*	2,137*
*Preliminary
2.	No. of persons employed in lobster fishery: 1962, 2,964; 1963, 3,003; 1964, 2,923; 1965, 3,114; 1966, 2,858; 1967, not available. No information is available on the number of persons employed in lobster processing in District 8.
3.	1962, $58,000; 1963, $60,000; 1964, $64,000; 1965, $69,000; 1966, $90,000; 1967, $150,000.
4.	1962, 6; 1963, 7; 1964, 7; 1965, 7; 1966, 9; 1967, 9.
5.	$175,000.
6.	Nine.


TENDERS FOR STORAGE BUILDING, OTTAWA STATION
Mr. Code: 1.	Did the National Capital Commission call tenders for the construction of a salt and sand storage building at the Ottawa station complex?
2.	(a) On what date and at what hour were tenders opened (b) in whose presence were such tenders opened?
3.	(a) What were the names of all tenderers (b) what was the amount of each tender?
4.	Which tender was accepted?
5.	Did the specifications and general conditions of contract make any requirement that before a tender might be considered it must be accompanied by a bid bond from an approved company or a certified cheque for a percentage of the tender price or Canada bonds having a value of a percentage of the tender price?

December 6, 1967
Motions for Papers
6.	If so, what precisely was the nature of such requirement in the specifications and general conditions of contract?
7.	Did the successful tenderer comply with such requirement?
8.	If so, what was (a) the nature, and (b) the amount of the security which accompanied its tender?
9.	If not, what were the reasons for exempting the successful tenderer from this requirement?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2.	Tenders were opened in public on November 16, 1967, at 3:15 p.m., E.S.T., by the secretary of the commission in the presence of both the project officer of the commission and the representatives of the following companies: Fuller Construction Company (1958) Limited; Cooper-Ellis Limited; and Pillar Construction Limited.
3.	The tenders were as follows: Canadian National Railways, $10,700; D. W. Boldock, $11,747; J. R. Statham, $15,346; Fuller Construction (1958) Limited, $15,900; Cooper-Ellis Limited, $16,723; Pillar Construction Limited, $17,700.
4.	The tender of Canadian National Railways.
5.	No.
6.	In accordance with paragraph 28, section d, of government contract regulations no bid bond or other security was needed.
7.	Not applicable.
8.	Not applicable.
9.	Not applicable.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Salisman: What has the federal government spent in Cape Breton, in aggregate, in the seven fiscal years ending March 31, 1967, in the following expenditure categories (a) coal mining subsidies and subventions of all kinds (b) reconstruction of Louisburg (c) Cape Breton national park (d) roads to resources, including Cabot trail (e) unemployment insurance to fishermen (f) fishing industry subsidies generally (g) construction or reconstruction of docks, harbours, breakwaters and dredging (h) assistance to industries in designated areas?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motion Nos. 32, 34, 35 and 36 are 
acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization by the governmental authorities concerned, as the case may be.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motions Nos. 34, 32, 35, and 36 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SALE OR LEASE OF GRAIN ELEVATORS, QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Ricard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all documents, correspondence or communications exchanged between the Montreal Corn Exchange Association, the Cooperative Federee de Quebec (Federated Cooperative of Quebec), the Catholic Farmers Union, the government of Quebec and the government of Canada or any department, commission or agency thereof relating to the leasing or sale of grain elevators in the city of Quebec.
Motion agreed to.
URBAN RENEWAL, THETFORD MINES, QUE. Motion No. 34-Mr. Langlois (Meganiic):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all documents, correspondence, communications or reports exchanged by the council of Thetford Mines, the Asbestos Corporation at Thetford Mines, the government of Quebec or its representatives, the Thetford Mines chamber of commerce, Mr. Gaetan Theberge, chartered accountant for Thetford Mines and the federal departments or agencies which were consulted regarding the project of urban renewal for the city of Thetford Mines.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Clear Lake Cottage Owners' Association and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the current year.
Motion agreed to.
December 6, 1967

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the recommendations by the jury established to investigate the death of 14 month old Ramona Mae Crow Shoe on the Piegan Indian reserve, and all communications with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising therefrom.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask whether, in view of the apparent broadening of the proposed federal-provincial conference originally called to discuss a bill of rights, he would in fact characterize it as a full scale conference on the constitution rather than a conference on a bill of rights?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind considering the changing of the name of the conference. It is true that certain very important questions have been added to the agenda. However, this would require consultation with the premiers of the provinces. I will be glad to initiate that consultation.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the marked success of the confederation of tomorrow conference and the fact it was held in public, would the Prime Minister consider holding the coming federal-provincial conference "on camera", as prime minister Johnson put it, and not in camera?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I said, Mr. Speaker, that the maximum amount of publicity should be given to a conference of this kind but, as the chairman of the conference pointed out, it was a conference which was not negotiating or discussing any proposals but at which an exchange of views took place. It therefore particularly lent itself to maximum publicity. I think that kind of conference should be held in public.
27053-322,}

Inquiries of the Ministry NOVA SCOTIA
FEDERAL FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTINUED OPERATION OF STEEL mtt.t.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that legislation is now before the Nova Scotia legislature to validate an agreement between the government of that province and Dosco for the acquisition of the Sydney steel mill, and in view of the awesome financial obligations which will be involved, have there been any discussions between the government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia in which the federal government was asked to assume some of the financial responsibility for keeping the steel plant open beyond April 1968?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no discussion as yet on that particular point. I expect to hear from the premier of Nova Scotia as soon as the legislature has completed its discussion of this matter, and I have indicated to him I will be glad to see him at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Has the government of Nova Scotia asked for any financial assistance prior to introducing this legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government has asked to meet me and representatives of the federal government to discuss the whole situation as soon as the legislature has completed its work in Halifax.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last Monday I put a question to the minister on certain separatists who travel from Quebec to Cuba and the minister answered at that time that he would find out and advise me in a day or two on these comings and goings. Is the minister in a position to say something on this today?

December 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member the assurance that the government is watching this thing closely.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Could the minister make shot-guns available for those who would go witch-hunting?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence. Does Canada propose at the NATO ministerial meeting to be held next week to request any changes in its commitments under or contributions to NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not in its commitments, Mr. Speaker. We will be discussing force levels with other countries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister able to give any indication to the house of what change Canada may be asking so far as our force goals are concerned?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, and as I think he said on one occasion when he was asked a similar question, until this matter has been discussed with members of the alliance it is not possible at this stage to give an indication.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. When he takes part in the budget debate tomorrow, as he has stated it is his intention to do, does he intend to outline in detail the proposed reductions in the 1967-68 estimates?


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend will have to wait until I speak tomorrow night.
[Mr. Caouette.l


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware of the reply given to me by the Minister of Finance to a question I put to him in the house on November 15?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now starting an argument.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the fact that the Minister of Finance did assure the house that the Minister of National Revenue would give these details, is he not perhaps more disposed now to give us the assurance asked for by the hon. member for Northumberland?


Edgar John Benson: I will be pleased to give details tomorrow night.



REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION FOR CANADIAN RECIPIENTS OF U.K. PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I am asking this question at the request of two charming widows who represent a number of Canadian citizens who are in receipt of pensions from the British government and who find themselves suffering from the most recent devaluation of the pound. My question is, is there any legislation or are there any regulations that permit the government to compensate Canadian citizens who are in receipt of old age or disability pensions from the British government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I should like to reply to the charming member for Kootenay West by saying that I will take the question as notice and discuss it with my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as the minister reporting for the national capital area. Can the minister indicate today the approximate date it is intended to set up a parliamentary committee on the national capital area?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker; early next year.
December 6, 1967	COMMONS



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the premier of British Columbia has disregarded the legitimate interests of the people on the northwest coast of British Columbia by refusing for the time being to put back into service the ferry Queen of Prince Rupert, can the minister undertake to look into this question to ascertain whether his department can provide any means of transportation between the two areas formerly served by the Queen of Prince Rupert?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I will be glad to take this question under advisement.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: May I ask the
President of the Treasury Board if the Treasury Board and cabinet would not reconsider the decision to deny the public service the customary Boxing day holiday.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the public service have as holidays New Year's day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Victoria day, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving, Remembrance day, Christmas day and one other day chosen by the deputy head. This day may be Boxing day for some people in the public service. I should like to indicate that the extra day's holiday would cost between $4 million and $5 million, which I think is too much.
[Later:!


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Frontenac):: 1
wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the minister has stated that the Boxing day holiday for civil servants will not be allowed because of the cost, I wish to ask him whether he has estimated the cost of the lush party that is to be held on parliament hill on Friday night, which will only affect a small segment of the Canadian people.


Edgar John Benson: I have not the details, but of course the matter falls within the purview of the Secretary of State. The amount of money
DEBATES	5107
Inquiries of the Ministry that is involved is very, very small when compared with the amount of money involved with respect to the first part of my hon. friend's question.


Edgar John Benson: I should like to complete my answer to the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac. I have been informed that the party being held Friday night is to encourage children in Canada to make gifts in kind and in money to assist international children's agencies, in the hope that similar meetings will be held across the country. I am sure the hon. member would be in favour of this objective.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the number of Canadians unemployed increased by 20 per cent during the last 12 months and increased by 14 per cent during the four weeks between October 15 and November 11-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman would put his question.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to that. Does the government intend to introduce, before the Christmas recess, measures which will stimulate employment and the economy of this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend, as sometimes happens, has his percentages wrong. The increase in question was referred to by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as relatively small. The increase is, of course, to be regretted, but my hon. friend, will I know, take some satisfaction from the fact that the figures are much lower than they were when he was minister of trade and commerce.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister read the release from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, "Labour force, employment and unemployment"-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman is now entering into an argument.

December 6, 1987
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: I am putting a supplementary question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have read it; I have it with me.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister intimated that I used incorrect figures. I wish to indicate to him that I have used the correct figures. In a government release which was available to all members of parliament-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now entering into an argument.


George Harris Hees: This is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I intend to show the Prime Minister that I used the correct figures. On page 2 of the release which was made available to members of parliament today the number of unemployed is listed as follows: on November 11, 1967, 289,000; on October 14, 1967, 254,000-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is well aware that a dispute over facts does not comprise a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Finally, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: [DOT]-on November 12, 1966 the figure was 238,000.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Northumberland to put his question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Does the right hon. Prime Minister not realize that, using the figures produced by the government today, the percentage increases in unemployment are exactly as I specified to him? I therefore ask what the government is going to do about meeting these conditions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-I gather that is what my hon. friend is speaking to-I should like to quote from the joint report of the manpower department and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics issued today. The report indicates that the increase in unemployment is relatively small, and that the November figure of unemployed represented 3.8 per cent of the labour force as compared with 3.3 per cent in October and 3.1 per cent a year ago. The report added that the non-farm employment rose by 40,000 between October and November, which it called an above average increase.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister to continue reading the report, for if he does so he will see the figures I mentioned a few moments ago. These figures show the increases in unemployment as I have outlined them. I want to know what the government is going to do about the seriously growing unemployment situation in this country, and I should like an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask the minister whether it is correct that the cabinet has decided to sign a further five year treaty in regard to Canada's participation in NORAD. If so, is the minister prepared to advise the house whether there are any policy changes in the contemplated new agreement in view of the decision of the United States to establish anti-missile stations along the Canadian border within 150 miles of major Canadian cities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there has been a preliminary meeting with the United States over this matter, but it would be inaccurate to say negotiations are really under way. Until such time as we have a clearer picture there is nothing I can say to my hon. friend's question.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister tell this house whether information is correct to the effect that the government of Canada has reached a decision to step out of NATO and NORAD and is contemplating signing an agreement to that effect?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add to what I have already said. There has been a preliminary meeting and discussion with the United States about NORAD. A great deal would depend on our discussions and negotiations before I could give any final response to my hon. friend's question.
December 6, 1967	COMMONS


Harold Edward Winch: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister answer that part of my question which had to do with NATO? Has there been any agreement by the cabinet that Canada will step out of NATO? Is that matter on the agenda next week and will it be discussed? Is Canada to step out of NATO? That is what I am asking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no terminal arrangement for membership in NATO. In 1969 countries may give notice of their intention not to participate. Canada is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and there is no change in policy in that regard.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. May I ask the minister whether the Bomarc missiles that are presently in Canada are in the process of being removed, or whether they have been removed and will be replaced by something else.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: There is no change in the situation with respect to Bomarc missiles at the present time.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MISSION FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to call your attention to the fact that in the Speaker's gallery today are the members of a good-will mission from developing countries who are here preparatory to the UNCTAD meeting to be held in Delhi some time in the next few months. There are distinguished representatives from Brazil, Ghana, Pakistan, Venezuela, Chile and Thailand. I am sure we are very glad to have them in our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General of Canada. I want to ask him if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been called in to investigate the
DEBATES	5109
Inquiries of the Ministry theft of shotguns which took place during the last week-end at Cap de la Madeleine?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, when we were discussing competition between Canadian Pacific Airlines and Air Canada the minister said, as reported on page 5060 of Hansard:
There are a lot of people who think a little bit of opposition is very healthy, both on international and domestic routes, and that it helps to keep air lines on their toes in providing the kind of services to which the travelling public is entitled.
I wish to ask the minister when competition will be offered to the monopoly taxi firms which operate out of Malton airport, Dorval airport and in Vancouver at the present time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am having these statements carefully analysed in order to determine the degree of consistency or otherwise in respect of the principle involved.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport having to do with the taxi service from airports and related to the question posed by the hon. member for York-Humber. Is the minister aware that passengers now have to wait in the limousines leaving Ottawa airport for as long as it takes to fly from Toronto to Ottawa? Does he think this is an attempt to drive people from the limousine service to the taxi service, in which the firm concerned also has a monopoly?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be pleased to receive details from the hon. member with regard to specific instances when he felt there was inadequate service, and consider them with a view to determining where the service could be improved.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?

December 6, 1987
Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the minister check at the same time whether it would be possible to organize a second flight from Montreal to Ottawa, Val-d'Or and Rouyn-Noranda?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I shall be glad to check on the level of traffic generated between those two points and determine whether it would justify an additional flight.



SHOES-ALLEGED DUMPING BY COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: In the
absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement by members of the shoe industry of Canada that they are unable to surmount the import situation because of lack of federal co-operation and action with respect to dumping by communist countries, what action does the government propose to take in order to relieve this most important industry, which employs many Canadians?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I might answer this question, Mr. Speaker. I have some correspondence about this matter on my desk, and I ask the hon. member's permission to take his question as notice. I shall try to answer tomorrow.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques-Carlier-La-salle):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the Canadian National thinking of discontinuing the mail train between Montreal and Toronto early next year. If so, why?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member's question might be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my ques-

tion to the Minister of Transport. In view of the telegrams that are continuing to come from trade unions that represent Canadian Pacific Railway shop workers, can the minister say whether he has yet had a reply from the Canadian Pacific Railway to his representations concerning the lay-offs between Christmas and New Year's?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reply in part reads as follows:
National and local union leaders were informed three to five days prior to the closure notices being posted in the three shops, in an effort to give as much advance notice as possible and to explain the reason for the closure.
The employees concerned have been assured that the temporary closure does not involve either the Christmas day holiday or the New Year's day holiday, and, as a result, holiday pay will be granted to all those who qualify.
To qualify for holiday pay under the Canada Labour Standards Code and the collective agreement which applies, an employee must have been in the service of the company for at least 30 calendar days and must have been entitled to wages for at least 15 days in the 30-day period preceding the holiday.
As a result, we believe that nearly all of the employees affected by the temporary shop closures should qualify to receive holiday pay for Christmas day and New Year's day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was there any reply to the representation that I assume the minister made with respect to the loss of the four days themselves?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So far as I know there has been no reaction to that. Something might have come to my office in the last few hours, but so far as I know I have received nothing directly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister follow up the matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I shall continue to monitor the situation. I might also add that 22 days' notice was given instead of the four days that are required by the contract. This amount of notice, too, was appreciated and helped to ameliorate the shock of having four days less pay at such a critical time of year.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister look into the complaints which are being made by many railway workers and determine whether it is a coincidence that the four day lay-off has come at the same time the workers are to receive their
December 6, 1967	COMMONS
retroactive pay? In other words, is the company saying to the workers that they have to toe the line?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, some questions do arise in my mind. Of course I shall be pleased to further investigate these allegations, but since this is a private company, which does not come within my administrative responsibility, I think there is some limit to the extent to which I can attempt to answer questions on its behalf. I shall of course be glad to pass on to the company any representations I receive, and I shall relay the answers to my hon. friend.


David Orlikow: May I direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Labour see whether this lay-off constitutes an unfair labour practice? I know that suggestion has been made to him.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to look into this matter. My first reaction would be that since 22 days' notice was given, there has been no unfair practice.



EXPO '67 STATEMENT ON GRANTING OF SEVERANCE PAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer two questions on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters). The first question, by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, had to do with severance pay at Expo '67.
I am advised by the corporation that provision was made in initial planning, in 1963, for continuity payments to employees who remained with the corporation throughout the time required, in excess of one year, to complete their respective tasks. The purpose of such provision was to avoid disruptions which might have occurred from lack of continuity of employment within the staff of the corporation.
The federal government's share will be 50 per cent of the total amount of payment, which has not as yet been determined.



STATEMENT ON SIGNING OF INTERNATIONAL GRAIN AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: The second question 27053-323
DEBATES	5111
Inquiries of the Ministry was from the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar and had to do with the number of countries which have signed the international grain agreement. As of now the number is 31. This number includes all the major wheat exporting countries and a significant number of major importing countries such as Britain, Japan and the European Economic Community.
It is not unusual for governments to accede to international agreements of this type after the deadline for signing and even after the agreement has come into effect. We have already received indications that some of the governments which did not sign for administrative or other reasons are giving consideration to acceding, and we are hopeful that the membership of the 1967 arrangement will reach or exceed the membership of the current international wheat agreement, which was 49 countries in November of this year.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is it correct that the minister intends to remove R.C.M.P. officers from traffic duties at Malton and other airports in order to save highly trained personnel for other purposes?


Lawrence T. Pennell: We
conduct studies from time to time to determine how the mounted police can be put to the best use. As the present moment there are no plans to move any of the constables from Malton airport. However, this is part of an over-all study.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is my understanding that the minister and his colleague the Minister of National Defence will be returning from the NATO meeting on December 15. May I ask whether it is the intention of both ministers to call a joint meeting of the external affairs committee and the defence committee to make a report immediately on their return, or will such a meeting be postponed until
5112	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Monteith after the Christmas recess? I ask this question because it is my understanding that both ministers feel there should be a joint meeting. Will a meeting be called prior to the recess, or will it be postponed possibly for a month or two months?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the chairman of the committees concerned will take notice of the question put by the hon. member. I think the suggestion implicit in the question is a good one.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government would consider publishing and making available to hon. members and to the public who pay for it the research material which led the B and B commission to make its recommendations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand the commission intends to make all its research material available when it is completed. I doubt whether research material is specially allocated to the particular volume which has just been made public, but I will be glad to look into that.



BUDGETARY PROPOSALS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 30, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Last Thursday evening I commented briefly on the budget and on what, in my opinion, had been the cause of it all. I said at that time that it all came down to one basic fact, that the government has been grossly overspending.
This whole sorry mess started with the profligate spending which got under way the moment this government took office in 1963. It was obvious to those of us who at that time had recently been on the treasury benches that there was a complete change of attitude. The taxpayers' money was no longer

DEBATES	December 6, 1967
considered to be of any consequence. It was a bureaucratic approach. Many of the ministers in that new cabinet had spent long years in bureaucracy and were accustomed to planning our lives as they saw fit, telling us what we should have and then taxing the Canadian citizens to pay for it. How many of those who sit on the government's front bench had ever stood behind a counter or run a farm or operated a small business or met a payroll?


George James McIlraith: Many have.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have. They were convinced they knew best, and that all the taxpayer had to do was pay for the government's plans, experiments and dreams.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Nightmares.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to review briefly the spending of this government since it took office. May I point out that the figures I am using are taken from the budget papers for the years indicated, except for 1968-69 which are the minister's own estimates. The 1967 figures are from supplementary estimates G for that year.
In the first full year in office, 1964, government expenditure amounted to $6,872.4 million. This was an increase of 4.6 per cent over the 1963 figure of $6,570.3 million. In 1965 we saw a very definite trend develop. Expenditure increased to $7,218.3 million, an increase of 5 per cent over the $6,872.4 million figure. In 1966 we find a further increase of 7.1 per cent to $7,734.8 million.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there had apparently been so little complaint concerning the increased taxes required to pay for these increased expenditures that the government really went all out. This is where the march toward disaster really began. In 1967, expenditures jumped to $8,795.6 million. This represented an increase of 13.7 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister's estimate for 1968, given to the provincial ministers of finance at the recent meeting amounted to $9,850 million. Here is an increase of 12 per cent. I would point out that a finance department release of November 24, 1967 shows that the expenditures to date in the 1968 financial year are running 15 per cent over last year. Here we have a true indication of just how this government has disregarded the galloping growth in expenditure.
December 6, 1967

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


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member wanted to spend more.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Now the minister estimates that the expenditure for 1969 will be $10,300 million. There are no cuts, as we have been led to believe. Actually there is an increase of 4.5 per cent over the 1968 figure. Here is an illustration of the incomprehensible attitude of the government toward spending, and its ruthless disregard of the fact that the spending is now out of hand.
I should like to deal briefly with the manner in which the minister and the government are attempting to hoodwink the public with regard to spending cuts. First let it be made very clear that there are no cuts in next year's expenditures. The minister has stated that they will be 4.5 per cent over those of the present year; that is, the expenditures in 1968-69 will be 4.5 per cent over the expenditures for 1967-68. This is a point which the public should keep in mind when the government talks glibly about cutting back. There are no cut-backs; there are only increases.
The minister says that the details of the cuts will be given by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson). What cuts? Does he mean the cuts in the 1968-69 estimates? The 1968-69 estimates have never been tabled in this house, and until they have been tabled they cannot be discussed. If they are discussed, they must be tabled so that parliament will have them before it. We cannot embark upon a responsible financial discussion on the basis of figures which exist only in the realm of fantasy.
We have dealt with the estimates for
1967-68. The estimates for 1968-69 are not before the house; they have not been tabled. There has been no motion to go into supply; yet, the minister proposes to put before parliament a lengthy discussion dealing with various estimates still to come, and presumably cuts to be made. How does it advance parliament to have the government say here: We have saved a lot of money because we have decided not to go ahead with a number of things which we could have gone ahead with if we had wanted to go ahead with them.


Mitchell William Sharp: Has the hon. gentleman
changed his mind about old age pensions?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is simply ridiculing parliament. Everyone knows how estimates are drawn up. They are drawn up in the 27053-323J
The Budget-Mr. Monteith departments.	The	officials lay down	theirrequirements	and	meetings	are held	withTreasury Board	officials.	Invariably	therequirements	are	reduced	in whatever
proposition the government of the day thinks best. Up to that point, however, the estimates have no official existence. It is simply a travesty for the minister to come here and place before this house the results of the discussions at the official level.
The estimates have no official existence until passed by Treasury Board and printed in the blue book. If they have been printed in the blue book they should be tabled, and we should go into supply in order to discuss them in the way provided under our rules. If they have not been printed and approved, then they do not exist and we cannot waste the time of this house discussing matters which, as I said, are in the realm of pure fantasy, because the government wants to appear as though it is saving when it really is spending recklessly. The government is not making any cuts; it is still increasing expenditures. This kind of procedure is out of order and is a hoax on all Canadians.


Mitchell William Sharp: Do you not agree with your leader?


Jay Waldo Monteith: If the government wants to show that it is cutting back on expenditures, let it come before this house with the 1967-68 estimates in printed form. Let it show how much it has reduced the items in those estimates, which are now running 15 per cent above last year. Let this government point out in detailed form what it has cut out or by how much it has reduced the estimates which currently are operative. They said they had reduced the estimates for 1967-68. Those presumed reductions have never been made known. We asked for them when these particular estimates were before parliament, for discussion. The fact is that not one single cent has been cut either in 1967-68 or in
1968-69 from the estimates passed by Treasury Board. The minister knows it. He should stop trying to hoodwink the people of this country.
The government has followed a policy that is unrealistic and lacking in honesty. In order to meet the figure of expenditure, namely the $10,300 million which has been proposed, the minister is having to increase personal taxes on the small taxpayer.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not so.
5114	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Monteith


Jay Waldo Monteith: Certainly it is. He does not say why he stops this surcharge at the $50,000 income mark, but it is obvious that he intends to take his required money from the average taxpayer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the hon. gentleman? It is just for correction, because I do not think he meant to say what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: 
Mitchell William Sharp: Now you are opposing this?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister has been talking for weeks about cutting back.


Mitchell William Sharp: Without any encouragement from the other side.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The other night he was forced to admit that he could not cut back, but could control the amount of increase. I do not believe he can even do that.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not with the support of the opposition.
December 6, 1967	COMMONS


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister has placed a surtax of 5 per cent on Canadian taxpayers to meet his cash situation. I want it clearly understood, and this is in reply to the interjection by the minister a moment ago, that this party is not against government spending for productive, positive projects. There is nothing new about that stand which was made clear by the leader of this party in his recent speech on a supply motion. What we are against is waste, uncontrolled and undisciplined spending for the sake of spending of the kind indulged in at least up to now by this government.
The minister gave corporations a refundable tax. I am sure that the individual Canadian taxpayer would appreciate a refundable tax, but as usual this Liberal government has come down heavily on the individual. Actually, corporations have come out best in this whole deal. They do not face any increase in taxes like Mr. Average Canadian faces. Even though corporations are going to pay their income tax some two months earlier than formerly, they are definitely going to receive the refundable tax which was levied on them after the 1966 budget. If this government remains in office much longer these corporations will probably be paying current taxes in advance of the year in which they are applicable. Could not the minister have considered the plight of the average taxpayer and made this 5 per cent surcharge refundable? This could then have given a lift to the economy when the government, if ever, dropped the 5 per cent surcharge, and again when it was refunded.
Let us review briefly the history of this government's taxing policy since it assumed office in 1963.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, we can't stand that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This started with the ill-fated effort of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) in June, 1963, and I will not outline all the backing and filling in which the minister of that day subsequently had to participate. Let me remind the house that this policy was full of wild experiments and partisan jibes. Let me further point out exactly how that budget was the first step taken by this government toward the calamitous state in which we find the economic affairs of Canada today. I am not going to enumerate all the various and somewhat minor changes,-and most of the major changes suggested by the minister of that day were abandoned,-but I should like to bring to your attention and recall that in the
DEBATES	5115
The Budget-Mr. Monteith budget of 1963 the minister proposed an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and machinery. Under pressure this was subsequently amended to 4 per cent to March 31, 1964, 8 per cent to December 31, 1964 and 11 per cent thereafter.


Mitchell William Sharp: Because of the big budgetary deficit of the previous Conservative government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This government was
warned then that it was contributing toward the inflationary trend and would substantially increase the cost of housing and construction as a whole. I remember the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) getting up in his place, down the aisle a little bit, attempting to defend that budget and the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and machinery. He is just as responsible as any member of the treasury benches, including the then minister of finance. This house knows that as a result of that 11 per cent sales tax the cost of housing has skyrocketed at the expense of the average taxpayer in Canada.
So far I have only been discussing budget-tary matters, but I think at this time I should mention that on September 30, 1963 the old age security tax on personal income was increased by 1 per cent, with a ceiling of $120. This was to cover the increase in old age security of $10 per month which came into effect on the same date.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think it is fair to point out, however, that it was only as a result of the efforts of the then right hon. leader of the opposition that the government was forced to capitulate and grant this increase to our hard-pressed elder citizens.
The net budget was brought down on March 16, 1964. There were no changes in income or sales tax rates. But let us recall that on April 1, 1964, the sales tax on building materials and machinery was increased from 4 per cent to 8 per cent and that as of January 1,	1965, it was to be further
increased to 11 per cent.
On April 26, 1965, we had the last budget of the then minister of finance. He gave us a 10 per cent income tax reduction. Despite the denials of the government at that time, it was a pre-election budget; and such, of course, it turned out to be. We all recall the fact that when the house adjourned for the summer recess we were to come back in the early fall, but instead of that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), at the suggestion of
December 6, 1367

The Budget-Mr. Monteith the then minister of finance, decided to go to the country. The government was returned, again in a minority position, and according to the figures I mentioned earlier with regard to increased expenditures, this was about the time those expenditures began to skyrocket. So did taxation.
Following the election the present Minister of Finance brought down a budget on March 29, 1966, the main achievement of which was to restore practically all the tax cuts which had been made prior to the election. He also imposed a refundable profits tax on business. At the same time the minister injected one of his famous exhortations about spending restraints while announcing the government's plans to increase spending which, as I have pointed out, was done to the tune of 13.7 per cent. He has maintained that level of consistency ever since.
Then came the mini-budget which doubled the old age security tax; it went from $120 to $240 per year. That budget also added 1 per cent to the sales tax, which increased from 11 per cent to 12 per cent. This tax increase, covering almost everything, hurt everybody but most of all those in the low income bracket and those on fixed incomes, particularly the recipients of old age security. This was the Christmas present for Canadian taxpayers on December 19, 1966.


Mr. Graffiey:: Scrooge.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then on June 1, 1967, came the next Sharp budget.


An hon. Member:: It was sharp, all right.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was described by the press as a "do nothing" budget. It did nothing concrete about inflation; it did nothing to reduce taxes; it did nothing for the farmer, the businessman or the consumer. The white paper said that prices rose 4.6 per cent during the year. The budget did nothing about that. All it did was exhort Canadians, not the government, to tighten their belts.
Now we find the minister in a familiar position where he must bring in another face saving budget to correct the omissions of his last budget. Last Thursday night, when he was delivering his so-called budget message to the House of Commons, one gained the impression that he was doing his level best to explain away the predicament we are in, so that Canadian citizens would believe there are circumstances afoot over which he really does not have any control.

I admitted last Thursday evening that there is turbulence in the financial and economic community at large. But upon re-reading his message I cannot help but believe that the government has obviously been working on a razor's edge in its fiscal policies. The minister admitted that his cash reserves were at rock bottom until new cash was obtained and he had great difficulty borrowing on the financial markets. He now says that in the next 16 months he will be going frequently to the money market.
Once again we will have the government siphoning off for non-productive purposes capital which might far better be made available for the development of this nation. Everybody knows the increases in taxation which the minister imposed in the budget he delivered the other evening, so I will not enumerate them again. I simply say that they are to the detriment of the average Canadian and are as a result of gross mismanagement by this minister and his government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Starr:: Resign.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There are so many criticisms to offer on the mismanagement by this government that really I cannot cover them all, or come close to doing so. I suggest that my colleagues who follow me in this debate will be dealing with them in some detail and will in specific instances lay before the government evidence of how they have been completely incompetent in handling the affairs of this country.
I should like to quote briefly some statistics to indicate that the trend this government has taken is at the expense of our economic situation as a whole, and the individual Canadian. These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the figures. Federal government spending was 15 per cent higher for the first seven months of this year. In regard to the number of unemployed, there has been a large increase over the situation of a year ago. Consumer prices in October were 3.6 per cent higher than those of October, 1966. Imports in October were up 5.5 per cent over the same month in 1966. Exports for October, 1967, were down 6.3 per cent compared with October of 1966. Gross national product is increasing at a rate of about 7 per cent, of which about half represents price increases.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Much more than half.
December 6, 1967


Jay Waldo Monteith: Wheat shipments in August and September, 1967, were 52 million bushels. Shipments of wheat in August and September of 1966 were 116.7 million bushels.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jay Waldo Monteith: One of the important growth indicators, the index of industrial production, rose 2.7 per cent in the first nine months of this year compared with an average of 5.7 per cent over the 20 year period 1946 to 1966. This represents a very definite sag in the index of industrial production.


Mitchell William Sharp: From the highest levels in our history.


Michael Starr: This points up that we need a new government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In the 14 years and a few months that I have been in this House of Commons I do not remember such a unanimous condemnation of a government's handling of our financial and fiscal affairs, nor such unanimous alarm at what the government has been doing.


Mitchell William Sharp: And I have never heard such a speech, except from the hon. member.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is also unanimous concern about this budget, which is supposed to rectify the situation. I would like to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, just a few excerpts of editorial opinion across this country to show I am not the only one who feels this way, but that it is the unanimous opinion in the country. I would like to read this paragraph from the Globe and Mail of December 1, 1967:
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
At a time when he is urging restraints on everyone else, he will increase Canadians' taxes to pay for the government's own lack of restrain and to reduce his need for going to a money market where he has already worn out his welcome. There is not an atom of deflation in this budget.
The following statement is from the Toronto daily Star of December 1, 1967:
Mr. Sharp bears the responsibility for the fiscal mistakes that were made. He will have to explain to the nation why he removed the ceiling on the rate at which banks lend money and thus contributed to the rise in interest rates.
He will have to explain why he waited so long before trying to cut his deficit.
Now, when he has finally recognized the government cannot go on living beyond its means, he will have to defend a budget that tries to deal with present inflation with future promises.
The Budget-Mr. Monteith
The Toronto Telegram of December 1 wrote the following:
The minister has now revealed what Canadians have suspected all along. The cut in expenditures promised by Ottawa wasn't actually reductions, but rather deletions in departmental estimates that had been before cabinet for approval.
Again in the same editorial we find the following statement:
The time has come when the government should provide direction. The latest taxes announced by Mr. Sharp will have to be boosted still more in next spring's budget to meet the costs of medicare.
The 4.5 per cent hike in spending, to be followed by another increase next year, isn't going to sit well with the Canadian people who are being told to tighten their belts.
As Conservative leader Robert Stanfield said last night: ''The whole thing is a costly misjudgment on the government's part that won't help restore confidence in it."
The following is a brief comment from the Hamilton Spectator of December 1:
Let's get things back into perspective and see where the government fits in.
It is introducing these additional taxes to bail itself out of a hole, not the people. They are getting no new services for this added sacrifice.
The Windsor Star of December 1 wrote the following:
It will be an unpopular budget. It applies to five out of every six income taxpayers and all who smoke or drink. Those of modest means, already living from hand to mouth, will be hit the hardest. They are on the fringe where every dollar counts and already had no money to spare.
The following is an excerpt from the Montreal Gazette of December 2:
If Mr. Sharp were to take away the new tax dollars, and set them carefully aside, so that the people could not spend them and so that the government would not spend them itself, then this would make clear sense as an anti-inflationary measure. But every dollar that will be taken in the higher taxes will be spent. Why is government spending supposed to be less inflationary than private spending?
The government explains that the new tax money will enable it to reduce its deficit. It will need to go to the bond market for less borrowing. This will reduce the pressure on the bond market, and may result in lower rates of interest.
That is all to the good. But why not accomplish the same end by cutting the government's overspending to the point where the need to borrow would be proportionately reduced?
The following comment is from the Toronto Globe and Mail of December 2:
Government policy has unleashed a tiger that is snarling instead of purring and it does not quite know how to handle it.
Then I wish to quote a humorous comment made by George Bain in his column in the
December 8, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Monteith Globe and Mail of December 2. It reads as follows:
It's hard even now to keep a straight face about those economies in government which the Minister of Finance has been promising to bring out of his hat any day-that is, any day for the past two months.
The following is an excerpt from the Toronto daily Star of December 2:
The main weight of his mini-budget falls on the back of the ordinary wage-earning family which is already hard-pressed to meet the inflationary rise in living costs.
Further on it continues:
The ordinary wage earner is already having a difficult time coping with the rising cost of housing, food and clothing, caused in part by Mr. Sharp's mishandling of the economy in the past year.
Now he is blithely asked to lay out an average increase of $40 in personal income tax to help pay for the finance minister's miscalculations.
He is also asked to accept the increased risk of unemployment as a direct result of the Sharp budget.
The following is a quotation from the Financial Times of Canada of December 4:
The mini-budget is not, as it appears, a futile
charge "into the jaws of death, into the mouth of hell". It is an over dramatized package of rather desperate devices to keep the federal government solvent by reducing the gap between expenditures and revenues to an amount which it can reasonably expect to be able to borrow.
Further on it continues:
Until then

This refers to some needed clarifications by the minister.
-Mr. Sharp can hardly expect his little tax devices to be accepted as a serious attack on inflation rather than an attempt to atone for the sins of yesteryear.
I think it is obvious what has happened. As I said earlier, my colleagues who will be following me in this debate will deal with the Carter report, the Kennedy round tariff negotiations, and many other matters. I have tried to demonstrate the cost to Mr. Average Canadian of what this government has been doing, particularly over the last two years, by way of increasing taxes and by its lack of action to combat inflation.
The cost of living has risen sky high. I gave the illustration of a typical Stratford family. I have never seen such a mass of opinion and such a mass of evidence clearly indicating that the government has erred beyond redemption.

Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefore:
This house regrets that the government by its vacillation and its failure to manage the economic and financial affairs of the country in a responsible manner has created a situation of instability and uncertainty, and has now proposed an increase in taxes to meet governmental extravagance, thus contributing to the inflationary pressures of the economy.


Mr. Olson:: November 20, as recorded on page 4468 of Hansard:
This house regrets that the mismanagement of this government has endangered the rate of economic growth-
I suggest to you that the charge of mismanagement by the government is essentially the same in substance as the present amendment, which refers to the failure of the government to manage the economic system properly.


An hon. Member:: You are wasting the time of the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The substance of these amendments is exactly the same. If you look at citation 194, Mr. Speaker, on page 164 of Beauchesne, you will find this:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided,-
It does not say the same wording; it says the same in substance.
-because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house.
The substance of this amendment has been before this house at least twice. For the record, just so hon. members opposite can be brought up to date, the substance of the amendment before the house on October 10 was negatived by a vote of 113 to 68. This house therefore clearly indicated that it did not agree, for example, that the government has failed miserably to set an example of responsibility. The house voted against that proposition.


Mr. Nowlan:: How did you vote at that time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I forget the exact date when we were considering this amendment by the then leader of the opposition, which complained about mismanagement and failure to adjust taxes, which is the same in substance; but that amendment was negatived by the house. I could go on and quote chapters from Beauchesne and from May, but I do not believe Your Honour needs to be convinced that the substance of any motion that has already been dealt with by the house cannot be brought forward again during the same session. This amendment is clearly out of order.
Discussion on Point of Order
In addition to citation 194, there is citation 200 in Beauchesne which reads:
An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house."
Then the author goes on to explain this proposition.
Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the house might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
I suggest therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you rule accordingly. It is almost incredible to me that the opposition would not look up and at least read the amendments they have moved in this house to make sure that this amendment would be in order. When I was listening to the hon. member who moved the amendment, it seemed clear to me the kind of amendment he was going to try to move. I had quite a bit of time while he was rambling through a bunch of statistics to look up these other amendments and the citations supporting the argument I have made.


Mr. Ricard:: You should have been listening instead.
^ Mr. Olson: I listened very carefully. I hope Your Honour will take into consideration particularly citations 194 and 200. I am sure you will be convinced then that the substance of this amendment the opposition is attempting to move is essentially the same as the last two amendments that have been before the house in this session.


Mr. Baldwin:: I submit, to start with, that it is quite obvious the learned authors who wrote the present edition of Beauchesne could not have had in mind such an incredibly inept government as the one we have now. I want to congratulate the government on receiving such a brilliant addition to their ranks. Having in mind his days in opposition, and knowing what kind of government he would have to deal with, the hon. member obviously contemplated the kind of motion an intelligent, well informed opposition would make as an amendment. Obviously it would be a motion criticizing this government for its vacillation, and its failure to manage the economic and financial affairs of the country. He obviously was prepared for the kind of motion which it was the duty of an opposition party to move. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in order to say that every day of every year which this government stays in power it
5120	COMMONS
Discussion on Point of Order would be competent for us to move a motion, if the machinery were provided, to the effect that the government, by its vacillation and failure to manage the economic and financial affairs of the country, no longer commanded the confidence of the people.
However, I do want to point out that the operative part of the amendment is that which states that the government has now proposed increases in taxes to meet governmental extravagance. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is the second budget during this session. Surely in a situation where the government has seen fit, for reasons to which the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) has alluded, to bring in a budget proposing increases in taxes, to which we take legitimate objection, we are entitled to say we object because the government, in its actions leading up to the proposal to add to the tax burdens of the Canadian people, has vacillated in its policy and mismanaged the financial and economic affairs of the country.
How else would it be possible for us to take exception to the government's most unwise and unjust proposal to increase taxation, without referring to the reasons why, in our opinion, it was necessary to do so? This is the second budget in one session. Surely if the rules make any sense at all they permit us to make a motion of this kind, a motion of non-confidence in the government, and to give our reasons for doing so without any reference to an amendment that may have been moved before.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the only reason the question is being debated at the present time as to the acceptability or otherwise of this motion is that the question was raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). In substance he was trying to point out something that is well known in this house. Certainly the hon. member is not so incredibly naive as to believe that the members of the opposition are not well aware of motions made in this house on any and all subjects.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
May I point out that the chief complaint of the hon. member was against the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on November 20. That motion dealt with the rate of economic growth: There is no mention in this motion of the rate of economic growth. The earlier motion mentions the prospects of satisfactory levels of employment: The present motion says nothing about the levels of employment. Then the

DEBATES	December 6, 1967
motion of November 20 refers to the ability of individual Canadians to meet their own commitments: That is not mentioned in the motion now before us.
As my colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) indicated, Mr. Speaker, this motion protests against the government increasing taxes after the delivery of a budget speech by the minister. This is an entirely new matter and is now before the house. The government proposes a tax increase. The motion objects to this tax increase and to the fact that the economic tool proposed by the government will not achieve the end for which it is designed. That is the substance of the motion.
Merely because use is made a second time of the same words in a descriptive or ancillary way, such as "inflationary", "economic" and "the government" does not vitiate the validity of the amendment, so the argument put forward by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) is reduced to absurdity. I put it to Your Honour that the operative part of the motion, as indicated by my colleague from Peace River, protests against an increase in taxes and also suggests that the increase in taxes will not achieve the end desired by the government. It has nothing to do with any previous motions before the house during this session.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the argument put forward by the hon. members for Edmonton West and Peace River (Messrs. Lambert and Baldwin).
It is obvious that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) could have quoted every section in Beauchesne to no avail; he erred in his original premise, when he said that this amendment was identical in concept and substance to the two previous amendments. It is not the same thing at all. As a matter of fact, his argument is entirely wrong, since the premises are false.
Here, the objection is against those tax increases. In the other two amendments, there was no mention of them at all. It may be that like causes produce unlike effects, but the difference lies in that today's amendment is concerned with tax increases, while the others dealt with the increase in the cost of living. Similar causes can bring about different results and I wonder how the hon. member for Medicine Hat can reach the conclusion that it is in principle exactly the same amendment. It is astonishing to see how he
December 6, 19G7

can make a mistake at the outset, by suggesting it.
That is why I feel the premises of the hon. member for Medicine Hat are clearly unsound and the amendment should be accepted, because I fail to see how it could be similar to others.
We are faced today with another unusual situation: an increase in taxes which was not mentioned in the other two amendments. That is why I think the amendment is quite in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that Your Honour is in the position of having to pioneer a bit. The rules under which we operate, and which are the basis for the citations that Beauchesne gives us contemplated only one budget a year.


Mr. Pascoe:: Not three.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No more than one at any rate. As a matter of fact, we have had to agree in the house that, though standing order 58, which sets out the rules relating to the budget speaks of "the budget presentation", when we have a second budget in the same session we have to deal with it under the same rule. I suggest therefore that the citations and pronouncements relating to the old situation, where there was only one budget a year, do not help Your Honour very much today.
The fact is that today we have a new budget, and the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) has proposed an amendment dealing with a new situation. Despite the fact that the amendment is several lines in length, it really hinges on this concept-and I quote from the amendment-"and has now proposed an increase in taxes". Thus the amendment relates itself, and I say in its entirety to an increase in taxes that has now been proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). Because this is a new situation, Mr. Speaker, I suggest you cannot rely on the citations which envisage a session in which only one budget is brought down.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to have to give some pretty serious thought to the citations that say in general that the same subject cannot be dealt with a second time. But I do not think you will have trouble with that, because what is being commented on now is something that was not before us when the previous amendments were moved, namely an increase in taxes proposed by the Minister of Finance last
Discussion on Point of Order Thursday night. It is in this new situation that the amendment has been made, and I believe, all things considered, Your Honour will have to find that this amendment is in order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who indicates quite clearly that what we have here is a new budget with new resolutions and that, in these circumstances, the amendment of the Conservative party is quite in order.
Furthermore, the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) should know from experience that when he sat with the Creditistes, here, amendments were moved against the government and substantially, Social Credit proposals were always included in such amendments. At that time, the member for Medicine Hat did not object to the Chair accepting these amendments. Today, he is objecting because he has become a Liberal.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this exceptional situation should be taken into account when a member prefers to set his electors aside and join a political party which is not supported by his own voters.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has already spoken once to the point of order.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I feel you are in a rather difficult position in reaching a decision at this stage.


Roger E. Régimbal: Not at all. You are.


Mitchell William Sharp: The reason I say that I understand you may have some difficulty is not only for the technical reason spoken to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but also for the reason of substance.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the first budget debate the position members condemned the government at a time when we reduced taxes for exactly the same reasons that they are now condemning us for increasing taxes. It must be very difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, to distinguish between the cases, and I think it does indicate that even though there appears to have been a change in leadership, it is just the same old group arguing the same old platitudes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

December 6, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Lewis


Mr. Crouse:: Is that the best contribution you can make?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Let me say at the outset that I will accept the amendment, and I do so for the following reasons. I recognize the difficult position that the Chair is in at the moment, having particular regard to the citations which have been given by hon. members. I am quite familiar with citations 194 and 200; there is no need for me to repeat them. I must also pay attention to the fact that these citations, if they are to apply to a budget debate, were written when there was only one budget. That I think is an important point.
May I proceed further and say that I agree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin); the operative part of the amendment which we have before us is an increase in taxes, which could not have been discussed on any earlier occasion.
I shall also say this to the house. If citation 194 is to stand and we apply that citation with its full force, as if there were only one budget, then I would have some doubt about the presentation of the budget we are now considering being in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the house therefore has allowed the budget, then I think that the house must allow the amendment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Any comment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ought to point out, too, that if the amendment is out of order, since the amendment deals mainly with a tax increase I would have some difficulty in ruling any subsequent speeches in this budgetary debate to be in order. These are the two matters that bothered me particularly.
I recognize the force of citation 194 and I am familiar with citation 200. In the time that I have been in the house I know that we have never permitted discussion of the same topic more than once during the same session. I recognize that; but this, I believe is a special occasion. I think I must look at citations 194 and 200 with some leniency. For these reasons as I have said, I shall allow this amendment.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in our opinion the budget which is now before the house is unnecessary and contradictory. It is thoroughly inequitable. It treats the corporations with loving kindness,

while placing unjust income and other taxes on the working people of this country.
The budget, Mr. Speaker, is designed, and designed deliberately, to increase unemployment in the next year and to slow down the rate of growth. There have been four budgets in about 18 months and five budget speeches by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). Indeed, I am tempted to say that the minister will go down in Canadian political history as "Two Budget Mitch" who was shooting from the Up most of the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Coming in the wake of three similar budgets in the short space of about one year and a half, the present budget underlines the government's utter failure to manage the economy. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the minister's main concern is the financial market. The main aim of the budget is to soothe the tender nerves of the financial institutions.
When on many occasions over the years, spokesmen of our party have said that Canadian governments too often have been influenced and guided by the views and objectives of the large financial and industrial corporations, we have been scoffed at. I say to you that this budget is proof conclusive that we have been right and are right in that condemnation.


Mr. Greene:: A nineteenth century speech.


David Lewis: In short-


Mr. Byrne:: How about Wilson?


David Lewis: This is not a budget which is just or forward looking. This is a budget which favours, ultimately, the rich and powerful corporations at the expense of the average people of this country.


John James Greene: The hon. member is making a nineteenth century speech.


David Lewis: In my considered opinion-and I say this despite the interjections of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) who may not have had time to read the budget- no language is strong enough to condemn the social callousness and economic folly of this budget.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How about the folly of
socialism?


David Lewis: To cap this callousness and folly, the minister blandly jettisons the
December 6, 1S67

Carter report, giving reasons for doing so which make clear that the government accepts, holus-bolus, the objections of the vested interests which are threatened by the search in the report for equity and justice.
Given the choice between the present unjust and inequitable tax system and a radically new tax system which would lift the unfair burden from the backs of ordinary Canadians and place it where it belongs, on the backs of the rich and powerful, the government deliberately has chosen to stay with the unjust and inequitable tax system. That is the characteristic of this budget.
The minister says that he is trying to fight inflation. I suggest to him that his budget may well do the opposite in the short run; and in the longer run it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost production through increased unemployment, and millions of dollars in lost revenues to the treasury. It is obvious surely that the present inflationary pressures are not due to excess demand, except perhaps in the field of housing. As the economists put it, the present inflation is a cost-push inflation and not a demand-pull type. To reduce aggregate demand through personal income taxes cannot affect the situation-certainly, it cannot affect it in the short run-except adversely.
I have little doubt that the added taxes, which fall mainly on the working people of this country, will spur some of them to make higher wage demands; at least the tax will make it much harder to restrain them. This will add to the cost-push situation and will not improve it. I cannot imagine that the minister and the government are unaware of these elementary facts. Why did they, then, impose these unfair, unnecessary and dangerous income taxes? I appreciate that the increase is not very large; but it is significant and important.
1 can find only three possible explanations for the government's action in this respect. First, I have had the distinct impression, in four budgets, that the minister uses the income tax as a severe teacher uses the cane, to teach the people a lesson. Whether an income tax rise is economically or socially sound, it is good for the soul, says the minister. It will teach the people not to want too much-too much, that is to say, according to the gospel of the powerful in the land, which he accepts.
Second, the government and the minister hope, apparently, to persuade the professional money lenders that the minister can be relied on to be cautious, conservative and,
The Budget-Mr. Lewis above all, tough on the right people-not, God forbid, on the financial institutions or other large corporations. They may confidently expect only sympathetic consideration. So, hopes the minister, they will surely be persuaded to take up large government issues and reissues which must be floated in 1968.
* (4:30 p.m.)
The third reason for this added income tax is that in the long run the budget looks forward to an increase in unemployment to cure inflationary pressures. The minister admitted as much when he said that his policies might "limit somewhat the increase in our production next year." This is a careful way of admitting that he fully expects more unemployment next year. At all events, he later told us that he does not expect the present rate of employment to be increased except to an extent about in proportion to the growth of our labour force. This is certainly an admission that the minister does not expect the present unemployment rate to fall. I say that the present level of unemployment is already too high to be complacent about; it is 4.7 per cent of the labour force nationally, and substantially more than that in the Atlantic provinces and certain other parts of Canada.
Furthermore, if the rate of growth of the economy slows down as the minister expects, admits and desires, unemployment is bound to increase. Indeed all the major indicators now show a levelling off or a slowing down of the economy. This, therefore is the explicit and implicit objective of the budget-a deliberate and calculated increase in unemployment. What an objective. And what a budget.
I know that this kind of policy has been tried before and it has been tried elsewhere. It has never worked, and we of the New Democratic party reject as ineffective and cruel a policy of deliberately creating unemployment. It is ineffective because of its cost in terms of loss of production and in the cost of welfare. It is cruel because of its social and human cost right across the country.
The minister says he needs additional revenues. In one sense it is doubtful whether at the turn-down of the cycle, when economic activity is levelling off or slowing down, it is wise to increase taxes at all and seek to reduce the deficit. That our economy is slowing down, the minister himself admitted when he said:
The result of these recent changes in the sustaining forces in the economy has been a slowing down in the rate of growth of production, a slight downturn in total employment and a rise last month in

December 6, 19S7
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
unemployment. The economy has ceased to be under the serious strain it experienced last year and has developed a small amount of spare capacity.
In these circumstances one does not seek to reduce aggregate demand. There is more than a small amount of spare capacity available and the minister's intention of making it a large amount is nothing less than reprehensible.
But even if it is granted that the minister should raise additional revenue at this time, was the placing of an unfair and inequitable additional burden of income tax on working people the only way in which he could have obtained that revenue? I say emphatically that it was not-that it was the last source he should have considered. I can put the point no more strongly than did the Toronto Star in an editorial of December 2, part of which reads as follows:
Finance Minister Mitchell Sharp merits severe criticism for the unfair manner in which he has chosen to apply the new tax burden.
The main weight of his mini-budget falls on the back of the ordinary wage-earning family which is already hard pressed to meet the inflationary rise in living costs.
Later, the editorial goes on:
It lets off scot free those powerful, fat eat industries-*
Those are not my words; they are the words used in this editorial from the Toronto Star,
-insurance, oil and mining-which for years have received almost a free tax ride at the expense of the Canadian public.
Indeed, Mr. Sharp has virtually assured these industries that they will be permitted to continue enjoying the special tax privileges they now get.
I agree with the statement in this editorial. I say that even if the government was not prepared to implement the general principles of the Carter report-and I shall have something to say about that later-there was no reason in the world why in the search for additional revenue the minister should not have imposed at least some of the fair and equitable taxes which that report recommended. Removing the special concessions given to mining and oil corporations, and to insurance companies, would have yielded him almost all the revenue he will raise by soaking the working people of this country by way of additional income tax and added taxes on liquor and tobacco. From these two sources the minister expects to raise $280 million in the next fiscal year. Even on the basis of the 1964 calculations in the Carter
report, removal of the special concessions to the mining, oil and insurance companies would yield over $200 million. If, to this, the minister had added even a relatively modest capital gains tax, as he should have done, he would have been able to raise a further $100 million or $200 million-or, according to the Carter commission, as much as $300 million in additional revenue.
Instead of imposing extra burdens on the ordinary people of this country the minister could have resorted to these sources which were available to him, and thus have gone a little way toward offsetting the imbalance and inequity of our tax system. But this is obviously not the objective of the government. I say there is no possible excuse for imposing additional taxes on the people when there are available to the minister sources in the rich corporations capable of providing additional revenue, even if it is admitted that additional revenue is needed.
This striking difference between the treatment accorded working people and the loving care accorded to wealthy and powerful corporations runs right through the budget. Even the income tax is imposed in a totally unfair way. I have tried to find some reason-perhaps the minister will enlighten me on this at some point-for the cut-off of the surcharge at the level of $600. I can find no justification whatsoever for this, other than the government's determination to be considerate to those who need consideration least, and to be ruthless to those who need consideration most.


Mitchell William Sharp: Would the hon. gentleman like to know, now? He could not have read my budget speech, because I said we reversed the process of 1965; when we reduced taxes by 10 per cent we reduced them only to a limit of $600. In putting them back, we simply reversed the process.


David Lewis: We have now heard the minister's explanation, and it is just as invalid as was the original decision. It simply underlines what I have said, that the only reason for the insupportable and indefensible cut-off at $600 is the inclination of the minister to be kind to those who do not need his kindness and to be unkind to those who do need his kindness. Thus, a person earning an income of $50,000 will pay a surcharge of only $600, when on the basis of the 5 per cent he would have had to pay somewhat above an additional $1,000. I suppose it was thought that the $100 exemption, which means an additional $5 to those at the lower level, could be

December 6, 1967

traded off against an exemption of $400 at the upper level.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not so.


David Lewis: This is an example of the cynical morality of this government.


Mitchell William Sharp: That shows how cynical the hon. gentleman is.


David Lewis: Look at the tender treatment given to the corporations. First, there is to be no increase in corporation taxes; those cannot be touched. The only so-called burden placed on corporations will be that instead of beginning to pay their taxes in the fifth month of the taxation year they will now be required to begin paying them in the third month. That is really rough, as one of my hon. friends says. I am not impressed by this step, though I do not object to it. After all, a worker, whether he receives wages or a salary, whether he works in a plant or an office, whether he is an office boy or an executive, begins his instalment payments with his very first pay cheque in the taxation year. I imagine therefore that the corporations will not be terribly upset by the slight adjustment the minister has introduced.
In short, the burden of this budget falls entirely on the ordinary Canadian. The mining, oil and insurance companies continue to enjoy undeserved concessions. The corporations generally get off scot free. Capital gains remain untouched. No wonder the Toronto Star says that this is a budget which favours rich industries at the expense of the average Canadian. This is exactly what it does.
There is a great deal of talk in this house and outside the house about cutting government expenditures. I expect we will hear today or tomorrow from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) where the government intends to reduce the expenditures. In a moment I wish to repeat a suggestion we have made many times and which my leader made in this house as recently as November 20 concerning where massive cuts in expenditures can and should be made. However, at this point I should like to say very frankly that while the New Democratic party shares the universal desire that all unnecessary expenditures be trimmed, that all wastage be got rid of and that the public service be made as efficient as possible, we do not agree that the public sector is expendable; we do not agree that any of the basic services which are needed to give some
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The Budget-Mr. Lewis security and comfort to the Canadian people should be cut; we do not agree that such an indispensable part of our social security system as medicare is should be delayed or eroded.
We do not agree that the first inadequate steps taken to encourage industrial research and development leading to improvement in productivity should be slowed down. We do not agree that any of the expenditures related to industrial development in disadvantaged regions of Canada should be curtailed; indeed, we believe they should be increased and accelerated. We do not agree that the totally inadequate federal program on housing should be tampered with at a time of a serious housing crisis.
It is our firm conviction-and I put it very frankly to members of the house, Mr. Speaker-that our modern technological age requires more and not less government involvement, more and not less government participation in the economy and a larger, not smaller public sector not only in the fields of social security and welfare but also in the fields of economic planning and development. This is where we differ fundamentally from both the government party and the Conservative party.
The spokesman for the official opposition who preceded me repeated that party's criticism of government expenditures and that party's demands for cuts in those expenditures. He did not indicate in his present speech any more than any other spokesman for the Conservative party has indicated exactly where they want the cuts in expenditures to be made. I believe they have a duty to tell parliament and the people of Canada exactly what government programs they want cut off or reduced.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Indeed throughout this and earlier sessions of parliament-certainly throughout the two sessions of parliament since the 1965 election-I have heard Conservative spokesmen demand-and we have supported the demands-that old age pensions be increased, that assistance to the provinces be increased, that other social security measures be increased and that assistance to housing be increased.
Mr. Speaker, if one is honest he must realize that these things cannot be done without an increase in the expenditures of the government. Furthermore, if one is honest he must recognize that when we increase the

December 6, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Lewis programs of the government we must increase the size of the public service of the government, because programs cannot be carried out without the people to do the work that needs to be done. I suggest that one is being utterly irresponsible when he demands cuts in expenditures and at the same time demands these increases in services and costs. I am certain, however, that the spokesmen for the official opposition will not make clear what programs they want to have cut, because they know perfectly well that the people of Canada will not stand for the erosion of their security and welfare which the curtailment of any of the major programs would involve.
As I have said, it may be popular to cry that the government should cut down its expenditures, but in our view it is irresponsible to do so without naming the fields in which the cuts should be made. Of course, we should also improve our housekeeping and staff organization in order to achieve whatever savings are possible. I was struck forcibly by the very profound and meaningful statement of Professor Galbraith, which I should like to quote. I commend this to all hon. members of the house, if I may, with humility:
nearly all of the investment in individuals is in the public domain and almost all of it is outside the market system.
It is my profound belief that whether public expenditures are in the field of cash payments to the old, the young and the ill, the unemployable and the unemployed, whether they are in the field of expanding educational opportunities or cleansing our waters and our air, whether they deal with the provision of decent homes, the clearing of slums and the planning of our urban communities and whether they are spent in the promotion of industrial expansion and increased productivity, all these expenditures are an investment in the future of the people of Canada and, to the extent that we assist peoples elsewhere, they are an investment in the future peace of the world. Without these expenditures life would be intolerable for the poor and dismal for the well-to-do.
I therefore say frankly that the time has come to abandon the out of date attitude toward government spending which was shown by the spokesman for the official opposition. We should cease to regard it as an evil to be contained. Full employment, expanding economic growth and social advance cannot be built by individuals themselves and cannot be left to the irrational
and arbitrary functioning of the marketplace. They are the responsibility of the nation or the community. They can only be achieved collectively through our parliament, our legislatures and our municipal governments.
However we believe there is one field in which our present expenditures are massive and extremely questionable from the point of view not only of Canada but also from the point of view of our trying to build a more peaceful world. I refer to our defence expenditures. I suggest to the government that if they want to cut expenditures they should reassess our military commitments to NATO, which were made 20 years ago when they had some relevance to the situation in Europe but which now are no longer relevant. This alone could bring about a saving of hundreds of millions of dollars. I suggest there is no reason now that we should not cut out our contribution to NORAD, since it has proven to be completely obsolete with the development of nuclear weaponry.
I suggest, as my leader suggested on November 20 in this house, that we should postpone the construction of the two support ships and drop the purchase of the CF-5 aircraft. If all these things were cut out we would avoid unnecessary expenditures in the large amount of $500 to $600 million. I do not wish to go into the details of this now, because there will be other opportunities to do that. However, if the minister had achieved these savings he could have avoided his sadistic attitute toward the taxpayers and would have been able to avoid the additional income taxes.
There is in the budget another sop to the wealthy. Not only is there no increase in corporation taxes, but the minister will start repaying the puny refundable tax in the next fiscal year. I suppose he will say this is because of an undertaking he gave when he imposed the tax. In any event he will repay in the next fiscal year $105 million, and $139 million in the following fiscal year.


An hon. Member:: He owes it.


David Lewis: Someone suggests the minister owes this, but the minister changed the income tax a couple of years ago after a former minister of finance had reduced the tax. This minister imposed the tax again. This is the law of the land and the minister could change this arrangement in the same way he has changed the arrangement with regard to the ordinary taxpayer.

December 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Lewis


Mitchell William Sharp: I want to encourage business Mr. Sharp: You just do not understand investment.	them.


David Lewis: Of course you do.


Mitchell William Sharp: And I care about unemployment.


David Lewis: You do not care about unemployment, because when you take tax from the ordinary purchasing individual you ensure unemployment. I will come in a moment to the encouragement of the minister to business investment, if he will keep his red hair smoothly combed. What this means in simple English is that the minister is going to collect $185 million in income tax from the ordinary Canadian in the fiscal year 1968-69 and promptly give $105 million of it to the corporations of this country.


Mitchell William Sharp: To pay debts.


David Lewis: That is exactly what he will do. Almost two thirds of the additional income tax to be paid by the ordinary Canadian will go into the coffers of corporations.


Mitchell William Sharp: Do you not believe in paying your debts?


David Lewis: I believe in paying my debts, but the greatest debt of the minister and this government is to the people of Canada who have suffered under a policy of mismanagement of the economy resulting in higher costs of living each year. We are now experiencing the deliberate encouragement of unemployment and the slowing down of the economy. This is where the minister's first obligation lies, and this should take precedence over everything else.
The minister says he wants to encourage investment. In searching for a method to implement an obsolete policy the minister has decided he will cut federal lending. I must make my remarks brief, but other colleagues in my party, including the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) and our financial critic, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) and others will elaborate on some of these points. In an effort to make sure that the economy will decrease and unemployment will increase the minister has decided to cut lending to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Farm Credit Corporation, the Veterans Land Board and Air Canada, and he will not renew federal lending to the Municipal Development and Loan Board. These steps are utterly incomprehensible to me.


David Lewis: I think I do understand a little bit about them, and let me inform the minister why I say that. There are only two alternatives which will follow this cutting back of lending programs. Either the developers and the people who need houses will borrow the same amount of money from the market, and Air Canada will borrow the same amount of money from the market, or they will not. If they do, what difference does that make to the economy.
What difference does it make to the economy whether the borrowing from the money market is made by "A" or "B"? The only difference is that the government may find it a little easier to sell its bonds and may even get a slight reduction in the interest rate. The house builder will have to pay a higher rate for the mortgage he seeks to obtain. When C.M.H.C. makes a loan to a house builder we at least know that the house will be built, even at a higher rate. When the developer borrows the money on the market we do not know where that investment will go. It will likely be used for the construction of an unnecessary bank building, rather than new homes. What sense does this make? And what happens if they do not borrow? If these builders and people who need houses do not borrow on the market, which I suspect may be the objective of the minister, then of course a decrease in the economy will be encouraged and unemployment will be increased.
Let me draw the attention of the house to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail yesterday. It refers to a survey by the Economic Council of Canada which suggests that business will not make enough investment in the next five years to keep production at full capacity, and that the largest drop in planned investment of business is in the construction field. Every student in first year university knows that the multiplier effect of construction is always high, and important to the entire economy.
What the minister is doing by curtailing these lending programs is merely adding, as he deliberately intends to do, to the forces in this country which bring the economy downward and unemployment upward. He thinks that this is the way to solve inflationary pressures, as he calls them. Under present circumstances the action of the minister in cutting down on construction loans is entirely ridiculous and reprehensible.

December 6, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Lewis
I know that in a moment or two the house will go to another item of business. Therefore, I want to place before the house an amendment to the amendment. I will make a few concluding remarks in my presentation tomorrow when the budget debate resumes. For the reasons I have already indicated I want to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and that the government has placed the burden of these tax increases on the ordinary citizen of Canada, with favoured treatment for those in the top income brackets, instead of introducing a just and equitable system of taxation and obtaining further revenues by the cancellation of the special concessions to mining, oil and insurance companies.
1 want to apologize to members of the house who would like to have this amendment in the French language. There simply was not time to have the French version prepared but we will make sure that it is available as soon as possible for the resumption of the debate tomorrow.
May I call it five o'clock.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege let me say that we do not have a copy of the subamendment in French. Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that this was out of order and that we should not accept this practice in the House of Commons. The subamendment amounts to only a few lines, yet they could not get it translated.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, since the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Chretien) was so unkind as to refer to this matter, may I remind him that it was impossible for us to draft a subamendment until we had the amendment of the official opposition in our hands. It takes time to draft a subamendment and it can be drafted in one or other language with the consequence that it is not available in one language.


An hon. Member:: You are supposed to be bilingual; you speak French.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. While it does take time to draft a subamendment,

and this can only be done after the amendment is available it also takes time for the Speaker to read the amendment and decide what should be done. Perhaps the hon. member for York South will permit me to hold this amendment until tomorrow, for a ruling In the meantime perhaps he can obtain a French version.


David Lewis: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I still have some time at my disposal and I will be pleased to introduce the subamendment again tomorrow.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not saying to the hon. member that he should reintroduce it. Perhaps he could refer to it again when he completes his speech tomorrow. In the meantime the French version can be prepared and the Speaker will have an opportunity to look at it.
It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the house to move a motion in respect of two notices of motions and five bills standing on the order paper to be referred to committee?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the leave of the house to present his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
whether it will be done in both languages?


An hon. Member:: Ask from your seat.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: By unanimous consent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon):
That the notice of motion reading as follows:
"That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Canada Elections Act to provide for the age of voters under the Canada Elections Act to be 18 years in lieu of 21 as at present", standing in the name of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) as notice of motion numbered 15 on today's order paper, (b) and notice of motion reading as follows:
December G, 19G7

That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to reducing the age of voters under the Canada Elections Act from the present age of 21 years to 18 years", standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) as notice of motion numbered 24 on today's order paper, be deemed to have been withdrawn and that the standing committee on privileges and elections be empowered to consider and report upon the provisions thereof.
(2) That the orders of the house relating to the following bills, namely,
(a)	Second reading of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters), being order No. 12 standing in the name of the hon. member for Springfield on today's order paper;
(b)	Second reading of Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (18-year old voters and candidates), being order No. 85 standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) on today's order paper;
(c)	Second reading of Bill C-172, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (qualifications of voters and candidates), being order No. 138 standing in the name of the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) on today's order paper;
(d)	Resuming debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters), being order No. 148 standing in the name of the hon member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) on today's order paper;
(e)	Resuming debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters), being order No. 155 standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince on today's order paper,
be deemed to have been discharged and that the subject matter of the said bills be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is it clear, these references having been made, that the committee will meet and deal with them?


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: That is the understanding. Motion agreed to.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of taking an initiative in the United Nations with a view to the establishment of a committee which would, by consent of participating nations, standardize and internationalize all new scientific and technical words, terms and phrases, and review older terms, scientific and otherwise, that could readily be made into one word for all languages, in order to promote international understanding and facilitate communications between nations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as there are so many large words in this motion, I should like to repeat it slowly to get a little more of the
United Nations
impact across. I think this would be proper under the circumstances. My motion is:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of taking an initiative in the United Nations with a view to the establishment of a committee which would, by consent of participating nations, standardize and internationalize all new scientific and technical words, terms and phrases, and review older terms, scientific and otherwise, that could readily be made into one word for all languages, in order to promote international understanding and facilitate communications between nations.
I propose this initiative as being a proper initiative for Canada which is, in actual fact, a country of many languages and cultures. To realize this one has only to circulate through my riding of Spadina in metropolitan Toronto. I propose this initiative as a step forward simplifying international understanding, not only between nations but between individuals of different nationalities.
I suggest that all new scientific terms be made the same in spelling and pronunciation for all the languages in the world, or at least the world of the United Nations. It has been stated that over 90 per cent of all scientists ever born are living and are working in the world at the present time. It is obvious therefore with this concentration of intellectual ability in the field of discovery that the rate of discovery and change will be steadily and rapidly increasing, with the concurrent and resultant great expansion in our technical vocabularies.
If for each language different new terms are devised and used, the Tower of Babel condition of the world will be intensified, to the discomfiture of all, unless something can be done to prevent this. I propose that something should be done about this problem, and should be done now. This is a problem that could most properly and efficaciously be dealt with under the aegis of the United Nations, and I submit that a permanent committee should be set up at the United Nations to deal with this question. It would check for each new term the word that is most readily written and pronounced in the most languages, and set it up as the standard to be used by all countries. In this way scientific terms would readily become universal in usage.
The co-operation of the scientific societies should be sought, as their support would be necessary and very helpful in this regard. Each society could have a committee of multilingual individuals to review all new terms and to select the one which seems to have


Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: I should like to say at once that this suggestion has my unqualified support, and therefore I do not intend to take too much time in speaking about it, as I would not want to be accused of talking it out. However I wonder just how efficient the method suggested by the hon. member will be. I hope it will work but I think some difficulties might be encountered. However, if it can be carried out and taken to the United Nations, and if a committee can be established to work on these scientific terms and come up with a series of them- and there are a great many that can be adopted internationally-then I hope Canada would take the first step in adopting them.
I should point out here that, so far, Canada has not been very forward looking in taking initiative in the scientific field. Some three years ago I suggested to the house that initial steps should be taken to introduce the metric system. So far as I can see nothing along this line has been done as yet. The United States is making some attempts to convert to the metric system; Senator Pell having introduced a bill in the U.S. senate which seeks to do so. He pointed out that 90 per cent of the world's population now uses the metric system, and some 27 countries in Europe do so also.
So if we could do our part in this respect, it would be a good indication that not only Canada but the whole world should use a system of scientific terms as suggested by the hon. member who introduced the motion

before us. I wish to conclude by repeating that this motion has my unqualified support, and I can only hope it will be carried to a completion.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who introduced this motion is certainly to be commended for drawing the attention of the house to the necessity of standardizing and internationalizing scientific and technical words. As the previous speaker has pointed out, this is in line with the general movement among nations to standardize linear and weight measures through the adoption of the metric system, and to establish a more general usage of decimal coinage. I think we must realize, however, that this takes a long time. Certainly the hon. member must be prepared, as must all of us, for a considerable length of time to elapse between the initiation of his proposal and its actual fruition.
I have had some experience in the military field with the standardization of equipment. This necessitates the standardization of small items which, in the normal course of events, none of us would even think of. I refer to the standardization of the screw threads of machine parts, the standardization of the purity of metals which go into equipment, and even the standardization of very fine measurements used in the electronics field.
This is a problem which is taking on new dimensions as scientific research and industrial development continue to carry us rapidly forward into new and unexplored fields. It is a problem which is becoming more complex as more and more people of different languages expand their programs of research and development. As has been pointed out, the standardization of technical and scientific terms has become very urgent in view of the fact that we have entered the computer age. Computers have opened up new and virtually infinite opportunities for scientific research and industrial development. In fact we could almost say that now there is a requirement for research into research on research programs, to carry it to a logical conclusion.
For all these reasons it is a matter which has attracted the serious attention of scientists, technicians and engineers both in their respective fields and in common programs to which the United Nations agencies and various international scientific organizations are devoting manpower and money.
We have heard some of these programs outlined by the speakers who have preceded me. Quite obviously, in this increasingly
December 6, 1967

interdependant world in which we live, our scientific and technical personnel need to have the greatest possible degree of understanding of these terms, so that they can communicate with one another and speed up the general process of scientific and technical development everywhere.
I think all of us are aware of the fact that some scientific terms are already international in character. For example, it has been traditional in the botanical sciences to use Latin terminology, and I understand that this is accepted in all the major countries of the world as the standard way of describing plant life. These Latin terms therefore are evidently used by English speaking, French speaking, Russian speaking, Japanese speaking and other scientists working in the same fields to enable them to communicate with one another. This is a degree of standardization which was apparently achieved long ago. It is already very widely accepted. Perhaps it is not so easy in some of the newer sciences to make use of Latin or Greek or some other common language to define the scientific terms we are speaking of now. We evidently have a particular problem with new discoveries and new, exciting developments which call for an entirely new terminology.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
What seems to happen at the present time is that a discoverer of some new phenomenon or process coins his own name for it. If it is a good name it is generally accepted. I am told for example that the word "laser" is a word that is understood in all scientifically developed countries by people who deal with that recently developed phenomenon of light and energy. Perhaps this is a good example of how scientists themselves-and I repeat this, scientists themselves-are already dealing with this problem of communication with one another, when it comes to new scientific developments.
I think it is true also to say that an extensive common technical vocabulary has inevitably developed as industrial countries have expanded their trade in machinery, in industrial and scientific equipment not only amongst themselves but amongst the developing countries. We saw how this development of specialized terminology for special equipment became accelerated and was accentuated during the world war II, when many names which are household words today were coined or invented. They were picked up by the allied nations and distributed by that means throughout the world, and
United Nations
have now become part of our every day lexicon.
So, hand in hand with this expansion in industry and science there has naturally been a very extensive exchange of information between industrial and scientific communities throughout the world. This, in turn, has unavoidably involved the natural development of a very substantial measure of standardization of vocabulary. There is no reason to doubt, in my opinion, that these developments will continue at an increasingly rapid rate. In fact there is a long standing system of international scientific unions, each of which operates in one specialized field of science.
These unions, individually, deal among other things with terminology. If we take for example the field of chemistry, we find there is an International Union of Chemistry. The scientists who are prominent in this field have set up a committee on nomenclature, which is what we are speaking of today. Through this committee on nomenclature they are steadily developing agreement on chemical terms. I believe this extends, not just through the chemical terms or nomenclature but to standards of purity and so forth. These in turn must have names for themselves. It is necessary for scientists working in a given field to get together and iron out the differences of substance in the materials about which they are talking. It is a matter of agreeing on the structure of the material or on the combination of elements before one can decide what to call it and come to an agreement on a widely understandable name for the substance. It is particularly desirable, if possible, that this name should in some way describe the appearance or use to which that substance would be put. This is something which obviously only scientists, who have a highly specialized knowledge in a particular field, can deal with adequately. It is no job for amateurs.
It is also my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that there is close co-operation amongst the various scientific unions through an organization called the International Council of Scientific Unions. I understand this body is doing a great deal of work in co-ordinating the efforts of the various scientific disciplines so that they will be understandable to one another. In recent years the problem of the development of common technical knowledge has become much more acute, as the industrial and scientifically advanced countries of the world have come to rely so heavily on computers. The need to exchange computer stored information has, in fact, magnified the


Sylvester Perry Ryan: We should adopt that word.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We already have.


David Walter Groos: That is what I am getting at.
The hon. member proposes that the Canadian government take the initiative at the United Nations to form a committee to work for the standardization and internationalization of scientific and technical words, terms and phrases. UNESCO, which would be the United Nations agency in which any such initiative should be taken, has already taken steps to encourage the development of standardized bibliographies and terminology. Scientists in UNESCO are already working on these problems through the various international scientific unions, and I am wondering whether we really need to set up one more large body to co-ordinate this work.
It would seem to me to be much more desirable to leave this problem at this stage in the hands of a scientific organization that is already working upon the problem, a view which I believe is strongly held by most scientists. Encouragement should be given, and assistance provided when requested of the governments concerned, to carry forward programs of standardizing scientific and technical terms in the various disciplines I have mentioned and in joint scientific bodies. If at any time the job is found too heavy for their resources, or the program of work too expensive, or if roadblocks appear which governments might help in removing, then through UNESCO let us press for a more active and extensive program. I would have no hesitation whatever in supporting such a proposition.
December 6, 1967


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


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a very few comments on the matter now before the house. I must admit I find myself both intrigued and somewhat puzzled by what has motivated the hon. member to move this resolution. It is a rather peculiar one because it calls upon the government of Canada to take the initiative through the United Nations to bring about the standardization and internationalization of scientific and technical words, terms and phrases which could readily be reduced to one word for all languages.
If my understanding is correct, those who deal with scientific terminology have had a scholastic education in acquiring their scientific knowledge, which basically was taught in either Latin, German or English. These are the basic three scientific languages that scientists understand.
Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the urgency of the government of Canada initiating through the United Nations the establishment of a committee to try to standardize and internationalize scientific and technical terms. However, I was most interested in the last part of the motion. Although the introduction refers to the standardization and internationalization of scientific and technical terms, the motion concludes:
-in order to promote international understanding and facilitate communications between nations.
Within these words, Mr. Speaker, lies a wonderful idea and a beautiful motivation. But surely such a concept should not be concerned with scientific and technical terms and their standardization and internationalization. I would accept the last part of the motion because what we need is an international language between peoples, not just between scientists.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I would say from memory that it is more than 50 years since Esperanto was introduced as an international language. I think that any step which would bring into being an international language-not a language that deals only with scientific and technical terms-is a forward step. We need to facilitate international understanding and communication between the peoples of the world and not just between scientists. If the hon.
United Nations
member's motion helps to do that, I am sure that he will have 100 per cent support for his bill.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the motion of the hon. member for Spadina. He wishes to bring to the attention of the federal government the advisability of taking the initiative in the United Nations to establish a committee which would, with the consent of other member nations, standardize and make international all new scientific and technical words, terms and phrases. The hon. member's motion involves the broad problem of communication. We must begin somewhere to make standard our technical terms. His motion is also commendable because it touches on the field of scientific terminology.
During my life as a physician and medical student I have had considerable experience with the nomenclature used by the medical profession. To obtain admission to a faculty of medicine a student had to know Latin. Those of us in medicine use many scientific terms, the roots of which are in Latin or Greek. If one peruses the subjects of a medical course, expecially the subjects of anatomy, physiology, pathology, bacteriology and pharmacology, he realizes that the terminology used in those courses will be understood by those in the medical profession in all parts of the world, and must be understood by them as of necessity.
Verbal communication also is a problem for teachers who must travel through different countries and give lectures. It is also a problem for members of international conferences, when they address delegates from different nations. Communication is also a problem for the interpreters of translation services of the various professional bodies which sponsor such international conferences. For these reasons, as well as for others which have been outlined previously by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos), I think the hon. member for Spadina is to be commended highly for bringing his motion before the house.
In the past, on two or three occasions, I discussed with him his intention of introducing a motion similar to this one. I am happy to say that I am in favour of it, and I hope that it will meet with the approval of the members of this chamber. From my experience at the United Nations, I know that communicating with those who speak different

December 6, 1967
United Nations
languages from ours is a problem. Already many international agencies are trying to standardize, update and make available to all nations the fund of knowledge and the resources that certain favoured countries have at their disposal. We also know how slow the United Nations is to start any action such as that contemplated in this motion. We must begin at some time. In this era, when we are progressing rapidly in fields of science, and especially in the field of medicine and its basic sciences of physics and chemistry, I believe it is desirable that some international body should co-ordinate this work. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Spadina.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it correct that all those entering the medical profession throughout the world must know Latin? Is it also correct that prescriptions that are written anywhere in the world will be understood by a doctor in any other part of the world?


Stanley Haidasz: That was the practice in the past; I am referring to that part of the question which related to Latin. Recently, especially in English speaking countries, the trend has been to get away from Latin terminology. This sometimes brings about difficulties, when medical people from various countries get together. Traditionally, in the past, Latin terms were used. After all, medicine and most other sciences were taught in Latin. Originally they were taught in Latin, when teaching first began to be organized in universities. We have inherited that tradition but, as I say, the tendency is to get away from Latin.
I believe the hon. member for Spadina wants to make scientific and technical terms international and standard. In the light of new findings some terms in the English language must be updated. For instance I was reading a technical book about fluorosis. There are many such technical books, and they show the need to standardize technical terms. In view of the rapid progress of medical science and the interdependence of medicine on other sciences, such as pure physics and chemistry, that need exists, even in medicine.


Mr. Nasserden:: May I ask the hon. member a question. Does he think it possible that we could improve the legibility of the average medical man's handwriting?

Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External
Affairs): I am not rising to respond to the question of the hon. member for Rosthem though, as a matter of professional courtesy,
I might be said to be responding to my colleague who is in the medical profession. I am happy to do so, in that regard.
The remarks which I should like to address to the house on the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Spadina, may be divided into three parts. The first is with respect to the difficulty posed by the unfortunate problem of language to any prospect of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion in this field. Second, I should like to give some indication of the work which is being done in this sphere, both by the government and by non-government organizations operating at the international level. I should then like to express my own feelings, from experience as an observer at the international level, why I do not feel that the United Nations, as opposed to private organizations, that is, organizations formed by representatives of the professions or disciplines, should be used for this purpose, a (5:50 p.m.)
The motion deals in part with a subject which is close to the heart of human relationships, that of language. No more obvious support for this proposition could be indicated than the report which has been presented to this parliament within the past 24 hours. We have had this recent example of the tenacity of language and how dearly it is held by the groups which use it. The first comment I would make, therefore, must express a certain scepticism about our ability to arrive at a comprehensive standardization of terms given the great differences which exist between the languages of the human race.
The hon. member for Spadina said he would hope to achieve, through endeavours in the United Nations, a similarity between scientific words in various languages-that they should have the same spelling or pronunciation. I believe my hon. friend would agree there are obvious problems attached to this. It is true that although spelled in the same way, we all recognize, through an examination of the same words as used in German, English, French and Italian, how very different the pronunciation is. A more serious difficulty arises when alphabets such as the Cyrillic are used, or the forms employed when writing Arabic or Chinese.
December 6, 1967

The second of my observations is this: However imposing this difficulty may seem, I do not think there is any general dispute that a great advantage would be obtained by having a greater degree of standardization of scientific and technical terms throughout the world. There are obvious advantages attached to moving in this direction. The question is, not whether we should move in this direction but how we should encourage the development of this desirable state of affairs.
It seems to me-and this has already been shown by my hon. friends from Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and Victoria (Mr. Groos)-that the persons best fitted to carry on this particular task are those working in the various scientific and technical fields. Take for example the discipline of physics. It would appear obvious that the only persons who would know how to go about standardizing the scientific terms used in physics are physicists themselves. It is my understanding that physicists do in fact use a great many common terms and that they are making considerable progress through the International Union of Physics in developing common nomenclature. This international union, like other similar bodies in other sciences, has meetings and sets up committees to discuss terminology, amongst other matters.
This is an example of the kind of thing that is being done by non-governmental organizations composed of scientists or technicians working in a particular field, to develop standardization and internationalization of the language they use. If this is going on, and I understand it is quite widespread, then it does not appear to be necessary for governments to step in and attempt to have some very broad comprehensive committee tackle the problem, under the sponsorship of the United Nations.
I go on, now, to a further point which relates to the functioning of the United
United Nations
Nations itself. I personally am not convinced that the proposition put forward by my hon. friend from Spadina is one which the house should adopt. I would be fearful, lest by assenting to this resolution, and presuming the ultimate success of a comparable resolution within the general assembly we would be introducing governmental participation in a field which has hitherto been non-governmental. I should like to elaborate on this point.
Even during the worst period of the cold war it was possible for scientists on both sides of the divide between the nations to participate in exchanges of information about their particular specialties. What would happen, however, if governmental propositions were put forward to deal with this field? Inevitably-and this has been well demonstrated by what is happening within specialized agencies of the UN-political issues would be introduced into the field of pure science. For an example we need only look to the experience of UNESCO in recent years. The annual meetings of this organization have been bedevilled-I do not apologize for saying this-by the introduction of general international issues such as the problems of South Africa, the Middle East, and cold war politics.
A further example, of course, is the way in which political issues-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Rapp:: Is there any change in the program for tomorrow or Friday?


George James McIlraith: No change.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
5137
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 7, 1967