1967-11-21

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer a certificate of the election and return of Douglas M. Caston, Esquire, for the electoral district of Jasper-Edson.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Douglas M. Caston, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Jasper-Edson, introduced by Hon. Robert L. Stanfield and Hon. Marcel Lambert.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask if he is in a position to give the house a definite date on which he will be presenting his supplementary or mini budget.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to present this message on Thursday, November 30.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will these proposals be put forth in a form which will permit a budget debate? What arrangements will be made to debate these proposals?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer this I wish to say I have had some discussions with the other house leaders, and I hope the conclusion of these discussions will indicate a method of dealing with this problem, including a possible allocation of time for the debate.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
Minister of Finance regarding the action of Noranda Mines Limited in substantially hiking the price of copper despite the fact that its profit position this year improved by some 6 per cent over last year. I should like to ask the minister two questions. First, does he consider this move to be inflationary in contravention of the restraints he asked all parts of the economy to observe? Second, what action, if any, does the government intend to take?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that in respect of the first part of his question he is asking for an expression of opinion from the minister. The second part of the question would appear to be in order.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was made aware of the reported increase in the price of copper by the Noranda mine. I was a little astonished to read in the Globe and Mail this morning an article dealing with this move on the part of the company in which the following appeared:
This is an inflationary world; if the government will stop spending so much we could help to keep the price of copper down-
The reason I take exception to this statement is that I understand the Noranda company is going to tie in the price of copper with prices in the United States and not in Canada. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I intend to investigate the situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the minister for the answer he has given and ask him whether, following the investigation, the government will make public the results of his inquiries as to whether this increase is justified in the light of the company's favourable profit position.


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall be prepared to answer further questions.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the resolutions to implement the Kennedy round are on the order paper, and this may be discussed when they are considered.']
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting

November 21, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether the trip to France contemplated by the member tor Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) is tor the purpose of collecting tunds to promote national unity in Canada?



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether he discussed with the foreign minister of Japan when he was in Ottawa a few days ago the question of Viet Nam, particularly as it relates to the present initiative of Japan toward the cessation of hostilities.


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows the foreign minister of Japan was here on Friday. We did have an opportunity for an extended review with him about a number of matters, including the conflict in Viet Nam. He went to great pains to explain his own proposal for ending the war in Viet Nam, which involves a system of mutual guarantees. Consideration was given to the Canadian proposal for an end to the bombing, and we in turn gave an undertaking that we would seriously consider the details of the Japanese plan. We will be in consultation with his government.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence perhaps the Minister of Finance would care to answer it. In the light of the British devaluation of the pound, is the government giving consideration to its commitment to cut tariffs under the Kennedy round agreements?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention to carry through on its commitments.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Will the minister or the government be making an announcement as to how the devaluation of the British pound will affect the anticipated benefits or harmful results of this agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the resolutions to implement the Kennedy round are on the order paper, and this may be discussed when they are considered.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence advise the house whether Canada is among the NATO member nations which plan military reductions, as mentioned by General Lemnitzer in his address to the NATO assembly meeting yesterday?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen General Lemnitzer's statement; therefore I cannot comment on it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, then will the minister advise the house whether Canada is planning any reduction of the military strength of its NATO forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, this question is under review and will be the subject of further discussion at the December 13 meeting which is to take place in Brussels.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of National Revenue answer the question I raised in the house yesterday?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the hon. member is being looked into by officials of my department, who will consult with the United States officials involved.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he can indicate to the house the extent of Canada's contribution to the support being given Great Britain through the I.M.F.?
November 21, 1967


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I calculated that under the I.M.F. arrangement the Canadian contribution in various forms would be approximately $91 million. In addition there will be an arrangement among the central banks and we will be taking a proportionate share of the total obligation. It has not been customary to reveal these obligations of the central banks, and I hope I will not be pressed on the matter. We are taking our proportionate share of the total support being given.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that support in the form of an outright advance or a credit which can be drawn on from time to time?


Mitchell William Sharp: In the case of the I.M.F. of course, resources would be made available to the United Kingdom government to be called upon from time to time as required. This would take the form of part of the gold in the I.M.F. and other forms of quotas we have subscribed. In the case of the arrangement among the central banks, this would be in the form of a stand-by to show the massive support behind the present rate of the United Kingdom pound sterling.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister advise whether any part of the $250 million payment made by Britain to the International Monetary Fund includes any part of the previous advances that Canada undertook to assist Britain in 1964?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry that my memory is not sufficiently accurate to answer the question now. I should like to take it as notice.



POSSIBLE EFFECT OF DEVALUATION ON CANADIAN GRAIN PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my question should be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Finance with the hope that he can provide an answer. Is the minister in a position to indicate what effect the devaluation of the pound will have on the price Canadian farmers will receive for their wheat, particularly in relation to the Chinese wheat agreement, since payments by the Chinese are made in sterling?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not expect it will have any effect, Mr. Speaker. These transactions with China are made in sterling but they are hedged, and I do not think there is any reason to expect
Inquiries of the Ministry that the western farmer will suffer on the Chinese market as a result of the devaluation of sterling.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that flax will now cost the British 50 cents a bushel more and wheat will cost 28 cents a bushel more, will the minister acting on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce contact the wheat board to determine whether a conference is now taking place between representatives of the wheat board and Great Britain in order to assure that Great Britain will continue to purchase our wheat and flax at those levels?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman knows, the wheat board and the British mills are in almost continuous consultation. There would be no need to call a special conference for this purpose. I expect our wheat will remain just as competitive in the British market as it has been hitherto in relation to United States, Argentine or other varieties of wheat. I do not think there is any reason to anticipate either lower prices or smaller sales as a result of devaluation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure the house that there is a contract with Canada under which Great Britain will continue to purchase our wheat at this time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are contracts between the British mills and the wheat board. The British government does not buy wheat; I think the hon. gentleman should know that. He is a good western member, has been for a number of years, and I should think over the years he should have absorbed something about wheat trading. In any event, our contracts are being fulfilled. Our sales to Britain are made in dollars, of course, and not in sterling.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, earlier the Minister of Finance indicated that the price the farmers will receive for their wheat will not be affected because of hedging. I wonder if the minister can say now that this hedging will cover all future sales including the negotiations now under way with China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that this is the policy of the Canadian Wheat Board.

November 21, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry



INCREASE IN BANK CHARGES FOR U.S. FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether he is prepared today to give the house the information he gave me yesterday when he very kindly invited me over in order to apologize for the manner in which he had answered my question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to make public the apology that I made privately to my good friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I discovered that in the confusion over the week end some of the banks were not aware of the outer limits of trading and in order to be completely safe had charged a little bit extra. But today the hon. member will be able to trade in the British pound in the normal trading limits. I would be prepared to pay that extra bit out of my own pocket just in order to show the depth of my apology.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us whether the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was one of the sinners yesterday?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the continuing problems in the field of transportation in the Atlantic provinces, will the government give consideration to referring the special study now in their hands in this field to a committee of the house, as was promised by the former minister of transport during the debate on legislation in this field in September of 1966?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the researches which will be required to completely deal with this question, I will take it as notice.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question relating to consumer affairs is directed to the Registrar General. I would ask the Registrar General 
whether officials of his department are following in some detail the testimony now being put before the relevant congressional committees in the United States regarding irregularities in the meat packing industry?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Yes, sir.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the announcement by the prime minister of Ontario that the confederation of tomorrow conference will discuss the question of a bill of rights, which I understand to be an essential feature of the federal government's proposals for constitutional change, will the minister discuss with his colleagues the importance of the minister's personal attendance so as to be able to explain to the conference the federal government's proposals on a bill of rights?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the federal government is not invited to that conference; it is an interprovincial and not a federal-provincial conference.
Nevertheless, I hope that members of his party will attend the conference to get better information on the special status. It seems that his own party shilly-shallies on that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL REPRESENTATION AT MONTREAL MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, over the week-end will be held the sittings of one of the most important nationalist organization in the history of French Canada, and I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that six ambassadors from various countries will take part as observers in these discussions, will Canadian diplomacy be represented in some way, possibly by its most distinguished head?
November 21. 1967


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the gover-ment will not be represented. Under these conditions, there can be no question that Canadian diplomacy will be represented as such.
As for the attendance of diplomatic observers, I may add that it is the duty of foreign diplomats to be informed of what goes on in the countries to which they are accredited.
Furthermore, foreign diplomats and Canadian diplomats cannot be present on the same footing, since this is essentially an internal matter.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the Department of National Defence accepts applications from male teachers up to the age of 60, will the government grant the request of the Canadian Teachers Federation to remove the discrimination against women teachers over the age of 40 whose applications to teach in defence department schools are not accepted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the order paper.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY SCIENCE COUNCIL CHAIRMAN ON NEW WEAPONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sloke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Can the hon. gentleman reassure the house that the remarks of Dr. O. M. Solandt, chairman of the Science Council of Canada, suggesting that Canada's armed forces should become the leading specialists in the application of modern science to the problems of warfare, are not government policy? Would he also reassure the house as to Dr. Solandt's comment that this course of action would "provide weapons for which there might well be a substantial market in other countries"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that this is a proper question to put on orders of the day. Dr. Solandt is a distinguished Canadian, but he is not in the service of Canada as
Inquiries of the Ministry an official, nor is he a member of the government. I do not think we are called upon to comment on statements made by individual citizens.
I have not seen the statement. Now that my hon. friend has directed my attention to it I will be happy to read it, but I do not in any way withdraw what I said about the propriety of the question.


Howard Earl Johnston: I have a supplementary to my earlier question which I believe is proper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some serious doubts about the hon. member's question. I was deliberating whether it should be allowed, and I must say the point of order raised by the Acting Prime Minister was well taken. Certainly the question could not be asked in that form.


Howard Earl Johnston: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, since Dr. Solandt is chairman of the Science Council of Canada, which I believe is a body this parliament set up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have made a ruling on the point of order, and I believe the hon. member cannot ask the question which he raised originally.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to send me a copy of the report of the International Joint Commission on the Pembina river, which has been received by the government?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do so as soon as the report has been cleared by both sections of the commission.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the chairman of the agriculture committee. I asked the question yesterday but unfortunately he was absent at that time. I should like to ask him

November 21. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry today whether he will convene the agriculture committee very shortly so we may discuss the report of the Economic Council of Canada on questions related to ARDA and P.F.R.A.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: My reply as chairman of the committee can only be that we cannot meet without an order or reference from the house, and as of this time we have no reference or order from the house. However, I will be only too glad to call a meeting if this subject matter is referred to the committee.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I caution the hon. member that he cannot ask questions of chairmen of committees except, generally, speaking, as to whether a committee will sit. I suggest to the hon. member that detailed questions cannot be asked of chairmen of committees regarding the operations of the committees.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the house leader on this matter. Could the house leader indicate to the house whether he intends to place the necessary information on the order paper in order that this committee may be convened?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of Agriculture and the chairman of the committee.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister any report to make to the house on his recent meeting with the fisheries ministers of the four Atlantic provinces?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: I have nothing to add to the joint release that was issued at the close of that meeting. It was a very profitable meeting, and it will probably be followed by another meeting early in the new year.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour following a question I asked some two weeks ago or more with respect to the closing of the Perfect Circle Manufacturing Company and the laying off of its staff as a result of the United States-Canada auto agreement. I want to ask if any arrangements have been made for the payment of transitional assistance benefits to these employees.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my memory is reasonably good but I have no recollection of any such question having been put to me. I will have to take it as notice.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
MEDICARE-INQUIRY AS TO ESTIMATED COST On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which follows a couple of questions yesterday on the cost of medicare. I now ask the minister what is the estimated cost of medicare or, in the phraseology I use, what will be the additional expenditure over and above the cost of existing plans?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be very happy to answer that question in detail, and I invite my hon. friend to put it on the order paper so I can do so.


Mr. Fairweather:: Thank you.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact he advised the house that school teachers will not be included in the proposed Unemployment Insurance Act amendments, and since this fact has not been widely publicized, will he issue a press release to that effect so all teachers will know of the intentions of the government?
November 21, 1967


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure they all know it by this time. I have been in communication with the teachers federations as well as other organizations. Furthermore, I do not know where the rumour originated in the first place.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Before putting my question may I be permitted to say on behalf of all members, I am sure, but in particular those from British Columbia, that we read with personal regret the announcement of his intention not to run for parliament again. We extend to him personal good wishes for the future which, as I said to him in a note a moment ago, might start tonight.
Is the minister in a position to report on progress with respect to the strike on the coast of British Columbia to which reference was made in the house recently?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the minister's attention has been directed to other matters of late, particularly the slowdown in the port of Montreal, which has taken most of his time except for a few hours last evening.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Winona Grace MacInnis: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government give consideration to the request of the Canadian Teachers Federation that the federal government make a contribution to the pensions of teachers working in the government's external aid program?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already dealt with that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry POSSIBLE USE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM CENTENNIAL COMMISSION
On the orders of the day:


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the announcement yesterday of a $1 million surplus by the centennial commission, is the government giving consideration to using this money for the continuance of its worth-while efforts in the centennial international development programs or other forms of external aid?


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



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: My question is for the Solicitor General and would normally be placed on the order paper, but it is related to the capital punishment debate which may be resumed very soon. The question is, was a public opinion poll conducted at the Canadian pavilion at Expo on the question of whether we should abolish capital punishment? What department of government was responsible for the survey, and what were the results?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: visited Expo, Mr. Speaker, and I personally did not observe that any such poll was conducted. I have no knowledge whether there was such a poll, other than by remarks made during the course of the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the minister check to see whether such a poll was held and if the results were 19,000 votes in favour of abolition and 5.5 million against?



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of certain items appearing in the press today regarding negotiations being conducted between Dosco and the government of Nova Scotia, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister is in a position to provide any information, so far as the federal government is concerned, with regard

November 21, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry to these negotiations. It he is not, possibly the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be in a position to provide information.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the flow of information between the government of Nova Scotia and the government of Canada has been very frequent and full. However, there has been no recent opportunity to discuss the negotiations with the members of the government of Nova Scotia.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I think my question is a supplementary, and I would direct it to the minister from Nova Scotia. In the negotiations with Hawker Siddeley and Dosco, particularly with Dosco, has any mention been made of the two shipyard facilities at the port of Halifax?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give any information on that particular aspect of the negotiations.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that in his address last night the minister gave no indication of the government's intentions with regard to medicare, and in view of the understanding that this matter was to be discussed in cabinet this morning, I want to ask the minister if he is now able to assure the house that the government intends to proceed with medicare as of July 1, 1968 with those provinces which are desirous of proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question he is asking now is part of the subamendment he has placed on the record, and therefore the question should not be asked now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister has already spoken in the debate and has given no indication of the government's intentions. I am therefore asking the government if they are prepared to make a statement before the vote is taken. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is a proper question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay West.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was Jean-Eudes Dube, Canadian president of the NATO parliamentarians conference, expressing government policy when he proposed yesterday in Brussells that members of the Atlantic alliance might encourage Israel to be generous to her Arab neighbours, in view of the fact that there are fears Israel will sacrifice future gains to the advantage of the moment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian government's position is well known. We believe the matter of the withdrawal of Israeli troops must be considered in conjunction with the other basic issues involved.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his present philosophic mood, what is the situation with regard to Cyprus and a possible conflict between Greece and Turkey. What are the safety factors in so far as our Canadian troops are concerned on that island?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Cyprus has been a matter of some concern for the last few days. The Canadian government, in consultation with other governments, has been considering ways and means of discouraging any developments that would add to the situation. We have already put forward certain views and submissions which are now being considered by the parties involved. Beyond that, until I have had some reaction from the countries concerned as well as from the Secretary General, I prefer not to say anything more.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Have any steps been taken to ensure the safety of Canadian troops in Cyprus if war does break out?
November 21, 1967


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we are considering at the moment the various plans which could be followed in the case of an eventual conflict.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister comment on whether these plans are being discussed with the United Nations authority that placed the troops there?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, those things are under consideration at the present time.

The house resumed, from Monday, November 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 4468) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas (p. 4473).


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in his maiden speech charges economic mismanagement. Indeed, he was sorely tempted, he said, to substitute the words "rotten management". Does his charge have substance? I believe it does not.
Let me present, Mr. Speaker, some representative views of our economic progress. I should like to refer to the newsletter of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce dated January, 1967, which makes reference to the fact that in 1966 Canada's national output in real terms rose by 6 per cent to 7 per cent over 1965. It was confirmed that total employment increased more in 1966 than in any previous post-war year.
According to "Canadian Farm Economics" for February, 1967 the economy is now effectively fully employed and cannot readily draw on slack resources for expansion. On the basis of this the conclusion is reached that a more moderate rate of real growth in 1967 than in the previous year is indicated.
If I may refer to the Globe and Mail for July 4, 1967 there is a lead article dealing with the economic forecasters of the govern-
Suggested Economic Mismanagement ment of Ontario. The headline is "Ontario expects 7 per cent more growth this year; optimistic about 1968."
In the Financial Post for July 29, 1967, in an editorial headlined "The Nation's Business", it is stated there are fresh reasons now for confidence.
I should also like to quote the mid-year review of private and public investment in Canada prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics under date of August, 1967. There we read:
The strengthening in investment plans has occurred in both the business and the housing and social capital sectors.
I should also like to refer to the cautious statement by the Minister of Finance in his remarks on the budget on October 4, 1967, which are to be found at page 2808 of Hansard. The Minister of Finance said:
-I would still expect the gross national product this year to increase by 7 per cent or a bit more-
The Toronto Telegram for October 11, 1967 reports the prediction of Mr. Donald B. Marsh of the Royal Bank of Canada. Under the heading "Our economy will expand at faster rate in 1968", Mr. Marsh predicts a 1968 gross national product-total value of goods and services sold-of 8Jt per cent to 9 per cent higher in value and 5 per cent higher in volume than in 1967.
Looking at the Vancouver Sun for October 13, 1967, I discover the encouraging prediction of Dr. Harry L. Purdy that the odds are ten to one against recession. The Winnipeg Free Press for October 31 reports part of the speech of the newly appointed chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, Dr. Arthur J. R. Smith, in regard to the possibilities of economic growth in the years ahead. According to this gentleman we can look forward for many years to rapidly expanding economic potentials, "to future potentials of truly extraordinary dimensions".
These are, I submit, representative views of informed Canadians about the conditions we are now facing, Mr. Speaker. Professor Harry G. Johnson, speaking to the Canadian Club of Toronto on November 5, 1962. discussed the long run problem of slow economic growth. His topic was "Canada in a changing world". Remember, Mr. Speaker, the year was 1962. Professor Johnson said:
The two real problems have been and remain foreign competition-specifically European and Japanese competition-and domestic stagnation. These two problems are obviously interrelated. I interpret them basically as manifestations of a fundamental trend in the world economy, a trend sure to continue-the spread of industrialization.
November 21, 1967

Suggested Economic Mismanagement
In that address he described the post-war industrial revolution which has occurred in Europe, the oil, electricity, chemicals and plastics revolution, and the industrialization of underdeveloped nations, most apparent in the rapid emergence of Japan as an advanced industrial country. The question as I see it now is, do we really wish to enter the big league of progress or simply fade into the obscurity of a new phase of North American opulence, laziness, and then decadence? I am all for getting out into the world whatever may be the risks.
Even more, I believe right now that if we have the will we can be unique builders in Asia and in Europe. We as no other country could start the movement to cause anxious mankind to work together for good. I rejoice that the Prime Minister is in London today. I hope while we still have him at the helm he will visit several world capitals for serious policy discussions. No man that Canada has produced more truly epitomizes faith and hope and charity. This great human personality whom each of us knows as a parliamentary colleague and friend should not be wasted.
No, Mr. Speaker, this is not a time of despair but rather a time of challenge and opportunity. The great work of this centennial parliament is not ended; it is coming at last to its full fruition. We rejoice that the new Leader of the Opposition has joined us to share in its glory.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Mr. Maiheson:: Of course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister and said "so long as we have him at the helm...". Would he give an indication to the house how long this is going to be, because he seems to have some doubt about the Prime Minister continuing.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of any prime minister continuing indefinitely, but I think we are particularly favoured in Canada in having this great world citizen heading Canadian affairs at this momentous time. I hope his great talents will be used to the full. I can think of no respect in which he could serve Canada more now than by making visits to important centres of the world to hold high level discussions with influential world personalities.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was not my question.

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


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) moved here in this House of Commons a non-confidence motion reading as follows:
This house regrets that the mismanagement of this government has endangered the rate of economic growth, the prospects of satisfactory levels of employment, and the ability of individual Canadians to meet their own commitments.
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of seconding that motion. In fact, I was convinced that the Canadian people have lost confidence in this government and that it was the duty of any member to take all the means available to overthrow the government. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is our patriotic duty to overthrow this government as soon as possible.
I am convinced also, on the basis of conversations with my constituents, that the citizens of Canada, in general, agree with us and share our desire to see another government replace this incompetent, weak and wretched government.
A few minutes ago I heard the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) say that several people were congratulating the government and that others had faith in the future of Canada.
We also have faith in the future of Canada. We are convinced that a great future is in store for Canada, but we do not share with the hon. member for Leeds the opinion that the present government is able to manage the affairs our country, as it thinks it can.
In his speech yesterday, the Leader of the opposition gave several reasons why the Canadian people have lost confidence in the present government. I shall not repeat all the reasons for which they have lost their confidence in the government, but I should still like to mention a few which serve as a basis for speaking as I do.
First of all, the Canadian people are not gullible, they can make allowances. Canadians have drawn a parallel between the actions and the words of the present government, and they have realized, without too much trouble, that there is quite a margin between the words and the acts of the Pearson government.
The people also know that promises have been made during election campaigns only as a lure for Canadians and in order to get votes.
November 21. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES
That is why today, having seen the actions of the government which had promised a sort of paradise on earth, the Canadian people have come to the conclusion that the government no longer deserves their confidence.
Mr. Speaker, may I recall, for example, some of the promises which were forgotten as soon as they were made.
At the top of the list, to mention only a few, there is the post of Minister of Agriculture for eastern Canada which, I repeat, was promised during the 1963 and 1965 election campaigns and which has never been created.
The 10,000 scholariships promised to students have also never been granted.
The 7 per cent bonus for bilingual civil servants has not been paid as promised. Our secretaries, who are bilingual, are still waiting for the 7 per cent bonus which the Liberal government had promised to give bilingual civil servants. This is another promise which has not been fulfilled. If my information is correct, the reason why the secretaries of members of parliament have not received this 7 per cent bonus is that a senior member of the cabinet objects strenuously to these secretaries, whose services the members find so useful, being given what was promised them.
Medicare which had been promised for July 1, 1967, was put off a first time, and I would not be at all surprised-even if we were categorically promised today that the plan will come into force on July 1, 1968-if it were shelved once again.
Some time ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) had made us aware of the fact that the department wanted to reduce expenditures. Well, if we look at the facts as they are, we can only note that not only are government expenditures continuing at the same rate but that, in some cases, they are increasing.
Everyone also knows, Mr. Speaker, that even within the cabinet there are conflicts and disagreements now that filter through to the public.
Those are the reasons which have led the Canadian people to lose confidence in this government.
Another promise was made by our friends opposite, namely full employment. However they never fulfilled that promise, because in the Montreal and Quebec areas, we are now experiencing a rather alarming rate of unemployment.
Suggested Economic Mismanagement
I remember, Mr. Speaker, in what circumstances our friends opposite came into power in 1963. They went across the country instilling doubt and fear in the minds of people, launching a denigration campaign on the solvency of Canada and stating that the devaluation of the dollar would lead Canada to bankruptcy.
We have evidence of their sincerity, since after four years in office, they took great care not to reinstate the dollar to its former value.
As I said a moment ago, the thing that mattered in 1963 and in 1965 was to gain votes, and all means were good for that.
It is fitting also to recall that our friends opposite had left us, in 1958, a very poor legacy. We inherited unemployment, while in 1963, our country was in a prosperous economic situation. Through daring measures, through the continuous and strenuous work of the then ministers we had given new impetus to our economy.
All our friends opposite had to do was to follow the road we had mapped out for them. They did just that and that is why, if we enjoy today a degree of progress, we owe it to legislation passed and implemented by the previous government.
Mr. Speaker, I said that unemployment in the province of Quebec is a disquieting problem. I am not the only one to stress that situation because barely a few weeks ago the chairman of the executive council of the city of Montreal, Mr. Lucien Saulnier, sounded a warning and thus tried to get the support and co-operation of the government to undertake or continue works which would have created jobs and alleviated unemployment.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
On a few occasions I have myself asked in this house whether the government would be ready to make a financial contribution with a view to extending the subway. The amazing thing is that even though the Prime Minister is aware of the present unemployment, his answer was very brief, but to the point. It was a flat refusal.
I renewed my request a few days later and asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) whether he would not take the necessary steps, meet with the chairman of the executive committee in an attempt to come to an agreement and find a way to provide jobs for the unemployed in Montreal. His answer was also quite clear: If
4512	COMMONS
Suggested Economic Mismanagement Mr. Saulnier has anything to discuss with me, he is always welcome.
These are very definite answers I admit, answers that are slightly tinted with arrogance and almost show unconcern by our friends opposite over a solution to the unemployment problem.
It is known that by mid-October 1967, 4.7 per cent of the labour force was unemployed in the province of Quebec compared to 4.1 per cent in September 1967, 3.7 in 1966 and 2.4 in 1965. This is indicative of the increased unemployment in the province of Quebec.
On November 13 last, more than 4,000 railroad employees were unemployed. I would not be surprised if this number had increased since, and we would be justified in suggesting that this large number of unemployed is due to the poor management of the Department of Transport which has increased freight rates too markedly.
Another fact which causes concern is that, compared to last September, there are 42,000 fewer jobs in October. This year, 33,000 employees in the construction industry, 12,000 in the Montreal area, have lost their job and 18,000 jobs have also been lost in the manufacturing industry.
Since 1966, the number of workers has gone up by 172,000 whereas the number of new jobs has increased by only 113,000. That is very disturbing to the people who are concerned with the well-being of those who must go to work every day to earn their living.
But it does not seem to concern unduly the members of the cabinet because, at different times, I asked them, as did many other members, what means the government intended to take to create new jobs with a view to helping the unemployed in the province of Quebec in particular, and throughout Canada as a whole. We were always told that this would come in due course, without being given any other details.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that the government does not have any plan ready and one fine day, we shall wake up as we did in 1956, in the midst of a depression and unprecedented unemployment, although our hon. friends opposite will have been warned, as they were in 1956, by the economists.
Mr. Speaker, I would still have many things to mention and discuss, but since others have also things to say and suggestions to make, I shall be brief. However, I should like to recall that during the sixties, there were,

DEBATES	November 21, 1967
on this side of the house, some Liberal members who claimed that they had the solutions and the answers to all questions.
I still recall, Mr. Speaker, the speeches made then by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and Messrs. Chevrier and Pickersgill, former members for Laurier and Bonavista-Twillingate.
Not one day would go by, Mr. Speaker, without those three hon. members making a concerted attack on the government, scrutinizing every lay-off they could find across the country, with the result that they spread panic in the people's minds.
I recall hearing at that time, in this house, Mr. Chevrier, the former minister, give a list of 25 different projects that, if implemented, he thought would remove unemployment overnight and benefit the Canadian people as a whole.
In closing, I would like to ask my friends opposite to rummage in their old bag of tricks, their old files from the time they were in opposition, and to resurrect those wonderful projects. If they were sincere at the time, Mr. Speaker, they should put their sincerity to the test today for the benefit of the labour force in this country.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members are pleased to have heard the first speech made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the house. Canadians generally and members of parliament in particular are keenly interested in the viewpoints of the hon. gentleman since, as hon. members well know, there has been a lot of talk throughout the country and in the press that there is a new look within the Conservative party.
Yesterday afternoon I listened intently when the hon. gentleman was making his speech and I also read his speech very carefully this morning to see if it was possible to find out what new direction, what new philosophy and new purposes the official opposition now had as a result of the change in the leadership of their party. It was a rather fruitless exercise, Mr. Speaker, because there was not very much that was very interesting in the speech he made yesterday. I thought that when I read it perhaps it would be better than it seemed when I listened to it but, alas, the same result was apparent after reading the speech very carefully.
November 21. 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. gentleman when he referred to rule changes which ought to be made in the house, although they did not involve setting up new regulations as much as finding ways and means so that the House of Commons could expedite the business of the country at the national level. He seemed to be of the opinion that there should be a greater attempt to expedite the business by consensus rather than by rules and regulations so that we would have the kind of flexibility we ought to have in order to meet the contingencies which arise in the country and come before this house from time to time. I find myself in agreement with this contention. He also suggested that we should dust off the rules of relevancy and repetition. I suggest that here too is an area where we could possibly make some improvements so far as debates in this house are concerned. The hon. gentleman went on to suggest that there should be agreement between the parties as to timetables and that sort of thing.
I realize that the hon. gentleman has not been in the house for a long time and in case some of his own members have not told him I think I ought to mention that the government house leader has been trying to do this for months without any apparent co-operation or inclination to co-operate on the part of the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: That is not right.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is all very well to use nice phrases about offering to co-operate and so on, but I am far more interested in the action that follows assertions of this kind. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has done his homework in respect of the Broadcasting Act, because this was in fact debated in this house after he took over the leadership of the party. If this is the kind of co-operation the house can expect, it is certainly no improvement.
For example, Bill No. C-163 was debated in the house all day on Wednesday, November 1 and again all day on November 3 end November 6. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) attempted to move an amendment to do precisely what the government had announced a few days before it was going to do as soon as the bill passed the second reading stage, in other words, send it to the standing committee on broadcasting. Is
DEBATES	4513
Suggested Economic Mismanagement that the kind of co-operation the hon. gentleman is offering when he talks about a consensus to get business through the house? Again, that same broadcasting bill was debated all day on Tuesday, November 7. At this time another member of his party, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), moved an amendment. What was the wording of that amendment? Precisely what the Secretary of State (Miss La-Marsh) had announced she was going to do, that is, send the bill to the standing committee on broadcasting as soon as hon. members would stop talking on it so that it could be sent there. Is this co-operation?
Again, the bill was debated all day on November 8. The net result was that it was in fact sent to the broadcasting committee after five full days of debate, filibustering and all the attempts to move amendments to do exactly what was under way. Mr. Speaker, we do not need that kind of co-operation. The thought occurred to me when the hon. gentleman was offering co-operation whether it was just his personal co-operation or whether he could include all the members of his party in that offer. For example, I wonder whether he is able to guarantee the cooperation of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Certainly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -because over the years he has been notorious for holding up business of the house when we wanted to get on with it. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman can guarantee the co-operation of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner), the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), and so on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does he think he is now contributing to the possibility of working things out?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am trying to draw the attention of the Canadian people to the kind of farce the house was exposed to yesterday afternoon because so far as I am concerned actions speak louder than words. No matter how fine-sounding the words may be, if there is no follow-up to give effect to those words they are so much superfluous rhetoric.
The hon. gentleman also mentioned, as reported in Hansard on page 4459, that he
November 21, 1967

Suggested Economic Mismanagement was not afraid of the government bringing forward its programs and its policies. He said that the Canadian people can judge them on that. With that I agree. Then he went on to say:
I should like to say that I have no fear of allowing the government to proceed with its legislation.
Earlier he had said:
As I said before, we are in politics to help get things started, not to get them stopped.
Mr. Speaker, I say he has that all wrong, because so far as legislation is concerned it seems that, although the government introduces legislation, when the debate will stop so that we can vote on it is up to the opposition. So far as the broadcasting legislation is concerned we have seen what the new look of the Conservative party is. However, while the hon. gentleman was in fact the leader of the party at that time, he was not in the house. He could not take his seat, of course, until after the election on November 6. We do hope that now he is in the house and sitting on the front benches he will in fact give effect to these promises. I believe that those of us who have been here for quite a number of years, however, will wonder with some concern whether or not the party opposite is capable of discipline in cooperating with the government to get the business through the house.
I have given the record of performance in this regard so far as co-operation in the house is concerned. I should like now to speak about another matter or two raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He had quite a lot to say about such things as the loss of confidence in the government, in parliament, and so on, by the people of Canada. He had things to say, for example, about export markets. As reported on page 4462 of Hansard he said:
Certainly the degree of inflation which has taken place in this country in recent years has seriously undermined our ability to compete and our ability to move ahead at a satisfactory rate.
Then some hon. members said "Hear, hear." They were hon. members from the other side who have not done their homework because that statement is not in accordance with the facts.


Robert Muir: Your thoughts do not mean very much in view of the mess the country is in.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I might give some statistics, Canada's share of exports has been steadily

expanding. Our export growth has been a major expansionist force in advancing the Canadian economy. Canada's exports increased by 18 per cent from 1965 to 1966 and by a further 11 per cent from January to September, 1967, a period of nine months. For the whole calendar year exports are expected to reach $11J billion, up from $10-3 billion in 1966 and $8J billion in 1965. Thus, in the space of two years Canada's exports have grown by 28 per cent compared with the growth in world exports of 17 per cent. In fact, during this same period Canada's exports have risen faster than those of any other major trading nation. The hon. gentleman and his colleagues do not bother to look up the facts before making these statements. Canada's share of world exports has been expanding and presently comprise 5 per cent of total world trade compared with 4.6 per cent in 1965 and 4.4 per cent in 1963.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
A particularly notable feature of Canada's recent performance is the strong growth in sales to the United States. Yesterday the hon. gentleman complained about Canada's position relative to the United States, yet our exports into that market have been going up substantially faster than the movement the other way. In the past two year period Canada's sales to that market have grown by two fifths whereas United States total imports have grown by one quarter. Thus Canada's share of the United States import market has been expanding steadily.
There was a substantial increase in exports of automotive products and this contributed in an important way to the improved position in the United States market, but new gains have also been made in other categories. It is noteworthy that the sharpest gains in Canada's exports continue to be made in the highly competitive field of fully manufactured goods. That is one thing the hon. gentleman complained about.


An hon. Member:: What about wheat?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will get around to that subject in a moment or two. If the hon. gentleman would like to look at an answer to a question I placed on the order paper some two or three weeks ago in respect of wheat he will find that since 1963 there has been a progressive improvement in the export sales of wheat and flour by Canada, unprecedented in the history of our participation in trade.


An hon. Member:: What about this year?
November 21, 1967	COMMONS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will get around to that in a moment. I suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that they should do this house and the people of Canada the courtesy of doing their homework by looking at the statistics before they come here and make misleading statements designed to create gloom and doom, which in my view is a disservice to Canada generally.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, all these interruptions really have no value because they are based on nothing.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I wanted to ask him a question about exports before he moves to another subject. Will the hon. member not agree that the great increase in Canada's exports is due to the devaluation of the dollar brought about in 1962?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There may have been some relevance in that regard, and I do not doubt that, but I was not talking about 1962, 1963, and 1964. I was talking about the tremendously significant expansion in exports in 1965, 1966 and 1967 when the initial impact of that devaluation must surely have passed.
I was talking also about exactly the same period to which the Leader of the Opposition directed his complaints, and that is what is relevant to this debate.
Before turning to another subject let me place a few statistics on the record so hon. gentlemen will not have so much trouble digging them up for themselves. I have before me a table indicating the percentage of exports of major trading nations. These percentage increases give a clear picture of the situation in 1966 compared with 1965. Canada's share was up 18 per cent compared with the world, 10 per cent, the United States, 11 per cent, the United Kingdom, 7 per cent. We were even ahead of Japan whose share increased 16 per cent. West Germany's increase was 13 per cent. Canada was in the lead.
From 1966 to 1967 we find that Canada's increase was 11 per cent, the world was up 6 per cent, the United States was up 7 per cent, the United Kingdom was up 8 per cent, Japan was up 9 per cent, and West Germany was up 11 per cent. In other words, even on the comparison between those two years Canada was in the lead. What does the Leader of the Opposition mean when he says that we are seriously undermining our ability to compete and move ahead at a satisfactory
DEBATES	4515
Suggested Economic Mismanagement rate? Does he suggest that being the world leader is not satisfactory? Is that what he means, or did he make this kind of statement without knowing what he was talking about, which is more likely?
Let me turn to another matter. The hon. gentleman had something to say about the gross national product and productivity. I suggest that he have a look at some of the very excellent sources of information in this regard such as those published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. That bureau has published the Canadian Statistical Review, catalogue number 11-003. It has also published National Accounts, Income and Expenditure, catalogue number 13-201; Annual Supplement to the Monthly Index of Industrial Production, catalogue number 61-005; Indexes of Output Per Person Employed and Per Man-hour in Canada, Commercial Industries, catalogue number 14-201, and others.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No. I will not permit any questions at this stage because I want to place statistics on the record in respect of what happened when the party the hon. gentleman leads was in office. I refer to statistics in respect of the gross national product, the per capita gross national product, productivity indexes, etc.
First of all, let us have a look at the gross national product in the years 1958 to 1966 to see what the the record of performance was. Using constant 1957 dollars, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the percentage changed from the previous year. In 1958 it was up 1.2 per cent, the first year the Progressive Conservatives were in office. In 1959 it was up 3.5. per cent; in 1960 it was up 2.4. per cent; in 1961 it was up 2.6 per cent, and in 1962 it was up 6.7 per cent. We then came to the end of that era.
Let us see what the record shows for the period 1963 to 1966 using again constant 1957 dollars. In 1963 it was up 5.1 per cent; in 1964 it was up 6.4 per cent; in 1965 it was up 6.9 per cent, and in 1966 it was up 5.9 per cent. In other words, for the whole period since 1963 there has been a greater increase, using constant dollars year by year, than in any of the six years when the hon. gentleman's party was in office, with the exception of one year.
Let us look at the per capita gross national product at market prices.
November 21, 1967
4516	COMMONS
Suggested Economic Mismanagement


An hon. Member:: What about the increase in taxes?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is difficult for hon. members opposite to accept these facts because they have never been very good at standing on their record. In any event, let us look at the per capita gross national product figures, again using constant 1957 dollars. Let us see what happened in so far as the change from previous years was concerned. In 1958 it was down 1.6 per cent and in 1959 it was up 1.1. per cent. It did not quite make it back to where we were in 1957, but it came back 1.1 per cent. In 1960 the change was .2 per cent, two-tenths of 1 per cent. In 1961 it was up .5 per cent, one-half of 1 per cent. In 1962 it was up 4.8 per cent. When we look at the period from 1963 to 1966 what do we find? The figure was up by 3.3 per cent in 1963. In 1964 it went up by 4.6 per cent. In 1965 it went up by 5.1 per cent, and it was up by 3.6 per cent in 1966.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know hon. members opposite do not like to hear these figures. Here again, with the exception of one year the whole record of performance indicates that there was more than double the rise in the per capita gross national product since 1963 compared with the six years before. There were some complaints made about productivity and the manner in which Canadians generally have performed during the last three or four years. Therefore I should like to read to hon. gentlemen opposite some statistics from the productivity indices that relate to output per person employed.
This index uses 1949 as a basis of 100 and is for persons employed in agriculture. We find that in 1958 the index figure was 191, based on 100 for 1949. These figures are for output per person employed in agriculture. The figure was 196 in 1959, 206 in 1960 and it fell to 187 in 1961. I understand that, because that year there was a drought in western Canada. In 1962 the figure went up to 224. What happened after 1962 in so far as output per person employed in agriculture was concerned? In 1963 the figure went up to 250. It was 244 in 1964, up to 276 in 1965, and in 1966 it was up to 338. This represents a fantastic increase in the output of Canadians.
I do not appreciate hon. gentlemen opposite saying that Canadian workers are not able to compete in international markets and


using this as a basis to find want of confidence in the government. The statistics show that statements of that kind are absolutely not true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Let us look at the figures for output per man-hour during those years. I shall read the figures for total commercial industries. Again 1949 is used as a basis of 100. In 1958 the figure was 152, in 1959 it went up to 158; it went up to 162 in 1960 and to 167 in 1961. In 1962 the figure was 174. Those were the years of a Conservative government. What happened after that? In 1963 the figure really started to move up. In total commercial industries the output per manhour rose to 183 in 1963, to 188 in 1964, to 198 in 1965, and to 207 in 1966.
The kind of irresponsible statements made by hon. members opposite simply cannot go unchallenged in this house. These figures are available to hon. gentlemen opposite, and when they make statements such as these they do nothing but damage to the confidence of the Canadian people in themselves and their ability to produce and compete in the international markets.
You can study all these figures with respect to productivity, output per man-hour, total and percentage increases in export trade and so on, and you will find all the figures are up. Then if you look at unemployment you find it is down. Unemployment is the only thing that has gone down since 1963. Let us look at the unemployment figures. It is important that we look at them because the Leader of the Opposition had almost the audacity, I might say, to say that there must be a more civilized way of dealing with inflation than having large scale unemployment. What a thing to say after the record of his party when in office.
Let us look at the record in this respect. In 1958 the annual average unemployment in Canada was 432,000. In 1959 it was 372,000. In 1960 it went up to 446,000. In 1961 it went up to 466,000. In 1962 it came down a little to 390,000. Those are the figures from 1958 to 1962. What has happened from 1963 to the present time? In 1963 the figure was 374,000. In 1964 it went down to 324,000. In 1965 it went down to 280,000. In 1966 it went down to 267,000.


An hon. Member:: Our policies were taking effect.
November 21, 1967	COMMONS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hon. gentleman has any genuine concern about this problem he will have to repudiate all the actions of his party when in office, because the record shows absolutely clearly that there were higher levels of unemployment in Canada during the six years his party was in office than at any time either before or since, barring the 1930's.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Who put it on our doorstep?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is very strange that the hon. member should ask that question because the highest level of unemployment was in 1961 after his party had been in office four years.
I ask him: Who put that on their doorstep? These figures do not tell the whole story. You have to look at the percentages because there were more people in the labour force. If hon. gentlemen opposite will bear with me I will read the statistics of the percentage of unemployment. The annual average for 1957 was 4.6 per cent. That was the year the Conservatives were elected. The very next year the figure rose to 7 per cent. Then it went down a little to 6 per cent in 1959. It went back up to 7 per cent in 1960. It was 7.1 per cent in 1961 and came down a little to 5.9 per cent in 1962. That is the record of their performance during those years, and yet they complain about unemployment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is 6 per cent in the Montreal region right now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is about the average or a little less than the average for that whole period. My hon. friend tells me that during the Conservative term of office the unemployment figure for Montreal was 14 per cent. At any rate, it is 6 per cent now which is less than the average for the whole period of six years when my hon. friends opposite were in office.
Let us look at what has happened since 1963 when there was a change of government. The percentage of unemployment in 1963 went down to 5.5. In 1964 it went down to 4.7 per cent. In 1965 it went down to 3.9 per cent. In 1966 it went down to 3.6 per cent. These are the facts. These are not figures taken from nowhere. Hon. gentlemen can look at the figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and find all these facts. I suggest they should do exactly this before they try to spread gloom and doom about the state of affairs of the Canadian economy.


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a single question?
DEBATES	4517
Suggested Economic Mismanagement


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, perhaps.


Harold Warren Danforth: The hon. member spoke of the reduction in unemployment. Has he the figures available of how many hundred thousand dollars per job it cost the taxpayers of this country to give those people work?


Mr. Byrne:: Would you rather have them unemployed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not quite understand the relevance of that question in view of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that there must be some more civilized way of relieving the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He said that without taking the trouble to look up the government's record of performance during these past few years. All I am trying to do is to draw his attention, in the most kindly terms I can, to the fact that there are records available to him on which to base his remarks, and I think it would be well for him to look up some of them from time to time.
The Leader of the Opposition also spoke about priorities. The word "priorities" has been permeating his discourses over television and radio, and many members of his party have used it in the past several weeks. As a matter of fact it has been the theme of his new lieutenant from western Canada, the premier of Manitoba. However, as intently as I listened yesterday afternoon and as carefully as I scrutinized his speech this morning, I could not find in it one statement regarding what should be put on the list of priorities.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is up to the government to do so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The question is: Does he know or is he afraid to say so? On page 4466 of Hansard he is recorded as having said the following:
Certainly, sometimes governments must do unpalatable and unpopular things, unpalatable and unpopular in the short run at least, so that the long term welfare of our people may be advanced and assured.
Does the Leader of the Opposition include himself among those who must do some unpopular and unpalatable things in the short run for the sake of the welfare of the Canadian people in the long run? I believe that this is the position that a responsible Leader of the Opposition should take. Let anyone try to find any of these priorities.
November 21, 1967

Suggested Economic Mismanagement The opposition is absolutely lacking in any suggestion as to what the priorities should be.
I think I have satisfactorily proved that there is very little substance in the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman. He said that the house regrets that the mismanagement of the government has endangered the rate of economic growth. We are at the top of the list so far as the world is concerned, and yet he says the government has endangered the country's economic growth. He said the government has endangered the prospects of satisfactory levels of employment and the ability of Canadians to meet their own commitments. We have had a record performance in productivity and in world trade during these past three, perhaps four years, that has been unequalled by any other nation. Yet the hon. gentleman moved an amendment which is designed to undermine the confidence of the Canadian people in their own economy. So far as I am concerned, this is not acceptable.
Let me say in conclusion that the most charitable thing that can be said about the hon. gentleman's speech in which he allegedly supports the want of confidence motion is that it is a conglomeration of nauseating rhetoric without rhyme, reason or direction and that it is completely sterile of purpose and barren of substance.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Whose quotation is that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It presumes that Canadians are naive and perhaps even stupid enough to accept that kind of assertion. I do not accept it and I do not believe that Canadians accept such an assertion. Indeed, I think they resent it. Something far better than this will have to come forth before any Canadian in any part of Canada can genuinely demonstrate any confidence in what the hon. gentlemen opposite might do if they ever, God forbid, get a chance to form a government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question? He called upon the Leader of the Opposition to repudiate his party. Will the hon. member give complete instructions on how to repudiate a party, a skill at which he is highly adept, and on how to desert a sinking ship?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The member for Medicine Hat never called upon the Leader of the Opposition to repudiate the members of his party. What he asked was whether or not the Leader of the Opposition was speaking only for himself or for all the members of his party,

because certainly their record of performance in giving co-operation in the house both before and after the election of the leader of that party has left something to be desired.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is the
hon. member rising on a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
hon. member for Villeneuve has the floor.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the members who spoke yesterday and today to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for his entry into the house and for his recent election. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition will learn in Ottawa things he did not know when he was premier of Nova Scotia. However, he is to be congratulated for his election at the head of the Conservative party and also as representative of his constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) and it was pretty good. All the figures the hon. member for Medicine Hat mentioned a while ago, he used to quote them exactly in the same way against the government when he was sitting here within the ranks of Social Credit. All these figures would have been used against the government if the hon. member had remained the representative his electors sent to the House of Commons. In fact, it would be sufficient simply to recall his speeches since 1963 to realize that he has apparently lost his sense of direction since his caper to the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat knows very well that the party now in power, just like the preceding one three years ago, does not offer the necessary solution the solution required to solve the problems we are no facing.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
When the hon. member quotes percentages, such as rates of unemployment of 2, 3, 4 or 6 per cent, the Canadian people do not understand so well, but the unemployed know only too well that they are out of work in a country where everything has yet to be done, where almost everything has to be developed
November 21, 1967	COMMONS
and created, where any unemployment is abnormal.
Since the hon. member criticizes the Conservative leader and his party's policy when they were in power from 1957 to 1962, I must tell him one thing: a study of the political or economic history of western Canada reveals that western farmers, who have wheat to sell every year, started to live decently after the defeat of the St. Laurent government by the Conservatives in 1957. The latter are the ones who actually passed pieces of legislation designed to help western farmers. On the other hand, that does not mean that everything is perfect. At that time, the Conservatives neglected the people in eastern or central Canada. That is why I say that a speech, like the one the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) made, is the kind of speech he would have made against the government if he had still been with the Social Credit party, because he was elected as a member of that party. The people of Medicine Hat never voted for a Liberal candidate. Indeed, in the last election, the Liberal candidate came last, way behind the other candidates in the Medicine Hat riding. Had the electors of that riding wanted a Liberal member, they would have voted for the opponent of my friend for Medicine Hat, they would have voted for the Liberal candidate. But no, they supported the Social Credit party, voting for the present member for Medicine Hat. He turned his back on his electors; the electors did not turn their back on the Social Credit party in the Medicine Hat riding.
Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that every thing that the Liberals do is bad, not at all, but there are things they should do, that they do not do and things they do which they should not do. Besides, the same thing happened when the Conservatives were in power. The amendment reads as follows:
This house regrets that the mismanagement of this government has endangered the rate of economic growth, the prospects of satisfactory levels of employment, and the ability of individual Canadians to meet their own commitments.
And the leader of the N.D.P. moves a subamendment which reads as follows:
-and this house urges the government to take effective steps to meet this situation by the creation of a Canada investment board to set priorities for both public and private investment, by a return to a floating exchange rate and the control of capital movements across our borders, by the immediate
DEBATES	4519
Suggested Economic Mismanagement implementation of those recommendations of the Carter commission which call for taxing gains now escaping taxation, and by making it crystal clear that medicare will commence on July 1, 1968.
Those policies, as suggested in the subamendment, have been implemented in England, for instance, with health insurance, with the recommendations of the Carter commission. They have also exercised a control over priorities in the case of public and private investments. All that was done in England. And recently, England was unable to cope with the situation while the Prime Minister of the Labour government, which is the New Democratic government of Great Britain, was trying to borrow $250,000,000 from the International Monetary Fund, the comptrollers of this fund answered him: Take it easy, we are not prepared to grant you a loan immediately.
Within a few days, while England was confronted with a new serious financial problem, about ten persons met in Paris and decided about the future of England. It does not matter whether the Labour party, the-Liberals or the Conservatives are involved, because it changes absolutely nothing. These ten persons met in Paris and compelled England to devaluate its monetary unit, after which it was granted loans of about three billion dollars. The orders did not come from the English people. No. They did not come from the English workers, the English farmers, the English manufacturers. No. These orders came from the ten financiers who met in Paris, from ten financiers who were representing, it seems, the richest countries in the world.
And what is being done here in this house? We are proposed controls or the setting-up of a Canada Investment Board, responsible for the establishment of priorities, they call for the implementation of the Carter commission recommendations, and for compulsory medicare as of July 1, 1968.
However, the leader of the N.D.P. did not say where the government could get the necessary funds. He tells the people when he comes to Quebec or elsewhere: Cut down the expenditures for national defence, and then you will be able to take control or implement medicare. That is one way; however, it does not settle the problem.
4520	COMMONS
Suggested Economic Mismanagement
Britain's problem, with regard to world markets, was not only a financial problem, but also a problem of production; in fact, Britain could not export because it had no purchasers.
As a result of restraints imposed on credit and on the economy in the last few years, the British government has generated mass *unemployment. Now, by generating unemployment and reducing production, it was obvious that the cost of production would become prohibitive and Britain could not be competitive on international markets. That is why the financiers forced it to devaluate the pound sterling in order to enable it to sell its products at a better price than it had until now and, at the same time, to become more competitive on the world market. That is the game of finance. Some people made money out of the devaluation of the pound sterling. Others lost money. Some time previously, we saw our Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) go to New York and kotow to investors, telling them: Do not be afraid, because the situation is stable in Canada.
I heard the Minister of Finance say practically the same thing when we studied the renewal of the charter of Canada's banking institutions last winter and last spring. He told us then that the banks were authorized to ask for a higher interest rate in order to make loans to smaller people, to help the needy, in short those who are really destitute in Canada.
But today, what does the government announce? Impending tax increases and credit restrictions. Projects have been abandoned because we do not have the credit or the funds required.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance of Canada, this sovereign country, went to New York hat in hand to ask the financiers' permission to act and realize some projects here in Canada. Three days earlier, it was Mr. Johnson, the premier of the province of Quebec, who went on his own pilgrimage to New York to meet the same financiers and tell them: "Do not worry about the economic or political climate of our province. It is not dangerous, because we enjoy political stability."
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, our political stability is exactly the same as that of England at the
IMr. Caouette.]
DEBATES	November 21, 1967
present time. We are told that England wants to borrow $3 billion, in order to stabilize its economy again. Any stability founded on debts is no real stability. These debts can remedy the present situation, but England will have to repay them. This may help her out of a bad situation today, but she will find herself in a position ten times worse in a few years. That is how finance works.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking of implementing medicare on July 1, 1968. That is what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) wants.
We have suggested a medicare scheme which does not seem to please everybody, but which would, for example, respect the individual far more than the plan which the government wants to foist on us.
We suggest the establishment in Canada of a group insurance plan, similar to that now popular in private enterprise. In my business, this insurance plan is available; all my employees, their wife and children are covered under a plan. Each one is free to choose a convenient plan. They are also free to select another insurance company if they find it more advantageous.
Competition exists and some companies offer a better deal. We thus respect the individual and his freedom of choice. Every Canadian could likewise be covered if the government rather than implementing a compulsory medicare plan which would be paid by the entire population would pay a maximum premium to insure all Canadians through existing private companies, either the Societe des artisans canadiens-frangais, the Blue Cross, the London Life or the Sun Life, as all those companies are competing with one another. The Canadian citizen, with a government coupon, which coupon would only apply to medicare, would choose the plan through which his wife, his children would be insured for medical care, hospitalization, drugs, etc. It would cost the government less to proceed that way than to impose medicare on everyone and to make it compulsory to belong to one plan under which everything would be decided.
Very well, Mr. Speaker, we want our people to have medicare, but not a socialist medicare, not one decided upon by the government. Let the individual be free to choose. And the only way to give him the freedom to
November 21, 1987

choose is to give him the financial means to do so.
In Canada, there is not one insurance company which would not accept such a plan, because its freedom would be respected, as well as the freedom of doctors, hospitals and patient, the most important person in this entire set up. That is what the Creditistes have been advocating. But all we hear about is the famous federal plan under which the government will make decisions in place of the people.
Now, when the government makes decisions in place of the people, see how things are run. No government organization can compete with private enterprise and with personal initiative.
All kinds of programs have been tried in Europe and they end up by saying: Com-petititve systems must be used, capitalist methods are needed in order to provide competition and improve our productivity, etc. It was recognized in Czechoslovakia hardly two months ago. This means they are returning to personal initiative and private enterprise. Why? Because the state organization was a mess. We know that all state organizations are the same, they are a mess.
Mr. Speaker, the subamendment is clearly contrary to the Social Credit principles and we shall vote against it. That is clear.
Let us now go on to the amendment moved by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party which reads as follows:
This house regrets that the mismanagement of this government has endangered the rate of economic growth, the prospects of satisfactory levels of employment, and the ability of individual Canadians to meet their own commitments.
Mr. Speaker, I have read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and if he were in the place of the present Prime Minister, I wonder what he would do in the present circumstances. That is what I would like to know.
The Leader of the Opposition has been premier of his province, which is losing almost all its industries. I do not know whether it is because he was there, but nevertheless Dosco is about to close its doors and the province of Quebec is the one that will save it.
I am pleased with the election of the Leader of the Opposition but if he comes here to sing the same old song like the others, that will not change the result very much. It is very well to tell someone: You did wrong,
Suggested Economic Mismanagement you did wrong; but what would we do in his place? The Leader of the Opposition can put this question to me, but if we were the government, would I tell him: Let us begin by tidying up our national finances. Let us consider carefully our own problems
Mr. Speaker, a father of twelve children does not look after the needs of his 20th neighbour's wife before providing for the needs of his wife and children. Let us start by providing for the needs of wives and children, our own people in Canada. That is what I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition, because his speech does not contain positive proposals.
He simply tells the government that the rate of economic growth, the prospects of satisfactory levels of employment and the ability of individual Canadians to meet their own commitments are all endangered. He did not have to come to Ottawa to tell us that, because we have known for a long time that everything is endangered.
What also constitutes a danger, Mr. Speaker, is that the value of the goods and services produced in Canada will total about $67 billion this year for instance, whereas the total national revenue of the Canadian people will reach about $48 billion. So, there will be $19 billion worth of goods and services which consumers will be unable to purchase, because they lack the required purchasing power. That is a simple mathematical problem, yet it is one we refuse to consider or to face. However, solving this problem would facilitate the marketing of our tremendous production to the advantage of Canadian people who need it, and it would ensure a sustained economic growth, inasmuch as consumers would be able to meet their own needs.
That is a solution and that is the only way to satisfy the consumers, because they will have bought products made by industry, by the farmer, by the worker, etc. In fact, when the products sell, industry is working. It is when industry stops producing, it is when the products no longer sell that industries shut down or decrease their production. It seems to me that it is not necessary to be in one party more than in another to understand those realities, in short that situation.
Mr. Speaker, here in parliament as well as outside among the economists and others, people think in terms of dollars and of the
4522	COMMONS
Suggested Economic Mismanagement monetary system. We do not think in terms of our physical possibilities, of our fantastic possibilities to produce goods and services in Canada.
What do the Creditistes propose? Not to start by taking a trip to New York, no. Just a little trip to the Bank of Canada, right at home, to say to its president: You will determine the actual difference between the total production of Canada, over a given period of years, and the national revenue for this same period. After having assessed the difference between the two, if the purchasing power exceeds production, taxes will be imposed to drain the surplus purchasing power. If production exceeds purchasing power, a national dividend should be distributed to all Canadian citizens.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
That is the solution: to put purchasing power on a par with the existing production.
I am not talking about productivity but about the existing production. At the moment, there is a gap of $19 billion between the national production and the national revenue for this year. This would allow for a dividend of about $900 per Canadian citizen. That is the difference.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes have, of course, been laughed at because of this national dividend. They have been laughed at, but has anyone suggested any other solution?
During election campaigns, we hear the Liberals stating in the province of Quebec and elsewhere-moreover, the Conservatives do the same-that Social Credit would create inflation. The Minister of Finance himself said so.
Mr. Speaker, Social Credit does not necessarily create inflation, it now exists with the Liberal party in power. Inflation started when the Conservative party was in power. We had inflation as an aftermath of the 19141918 war, when the Conservative party was in power. Social Credit did not create inflation. The increase in interest rates, for example, gives rise to inflation.
When one buys a small house for $15,000 at 8.5 per cent over 35 years, at the end of 35 years-I asked the other day an official of the C.M.H.C.-after 35 years, the purchaser
[Mr. Caouette.l
DEBATES	November 21, 1967
will have paid $46,059.30 for his small $15,000 house. That does not include the municipal and school taxes nor the repairs he will have to make to his small home during 35 years. The amount is $46,059.30. This means about $32,000 in interests only, on a $15,000 home.
Mr. Speaker, if that is sound accounting, I wonder what can we call a robber, in the world, or a robber, in Canada.
In his Encyclical Quadragesima Anno, Pope Pius XI said in 1931-it was not yesterday, it was 36 years ago-that:
Those who control money and credit are masters of all our lives and no one dares breathe against their will.
We have just seen some examples of it in England, a country a thousand years old, which did everything in the world, a country which was the most powerful in the world, at the time of the British Empire, today, is on its knees before a group of ten people in Paris, asking for the permission to live in its own country. Pope Pius XI was right when he said that those who control money and credit are masters of all our lives and no one dares breathe against their will.
The hon. Minister of Finance went to New York to ask for the permission to breathe as did the premier of Quebec. Does that mean that the Canadian people build Canada with their hands, with the sweat of their brow, with their intelligence, and are still unable to cash in on all that wealth, all those assets.
The same Pope said:
For then only will the economic and social organism be finally established and attain its end, when it secures for all and each those goods which the wealth and resources of nature and technical achievement can give.
These goods should be sufficient to supply all needs and an honest livelihood for all and each.
Can we pride ourselves at the present time in Canada to supply an honest livelihood to all Canadian citizens whom we represent? Poor people can yet be found all across Canada, in a country which is called the richest in the world in natural resources. We are told about millions and hundreds of millions invested in the development of a waterfall, of another natural resource, but on the whole, when we consider the poor people all
November 21, 1967	COMMONS
across Canada, I think that it is time for the government to consider the wide scope of the problem.
It is no solution to the problem to go to New York, Washington, Paris, Belgium or England. Our problem must be settled right here in Canada. Our own financial means must be used to develop what can be developed. That is the solution. I am convinced this is the only way to correct our economy.
In spite of all the speeches and complaints of the opposition or anybody else, as long as no solution is found to our monetary problems, we shall experience more depressions, more tax increases and additional taxes, systems designed to crush the small people instead of helping them, as always.
We changed the Tories for the Liberals, and the Liberals for the Tories. What did that change? Even in Saskatchewan, they decided at one time to change for the C.C.F.; did that make any difference? Absolutely none. That is why my excellent friend is here in Ottawa today, you see, because nothing did change down there. Now, people would like to effect some changes in Canada, but nothing will be changed, absolutely nothing. If power were held by the people, and not by a political party, the people would regain control over the economy. People hold the power when they have actual purchasing power, not when their pockets are empty. At this time, they have absolutely no control and no power.
The Creditistes, Mr. Speaker, have a solution. Strangely, enough, that solution has been applied by the Liberals and by the Conservatives as well.
In 1939, when war was declared, the Liberals were in power. There was no money in circulation in Canada. People were poor. Goods were destroyed because there was no one to buy them, and there was no one to buy them because people had no money. As soon as the war was declared, almost $200 million were found through the Bank of Canada. It was new money, at that time, two Liberal members asked the then minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, to create the same amount of credit through the Bank of Canada. Two Liberal members, Mr. Arthur Slaght,
I think, and Mr. Gerry McGeer, told minister
DEBATES	4523
Suggested Economic Mismanagement Ilsley: Apply the same policy in peace time to help Canadians develop their country.
The minister of finance answered: "No, I cannot do that, because the creation of $200 million through the Bank of Canada, constitutes a reserve for the chartered banks and gives them the right to multiply that reserve immediately by fourteen.
Mr. Speaker, that is the system we must change. During the war, the money paid our soldiers in the army, for training and so forth, was a sort of dividend. It could not be given to them before the war, but it could and was during the whole duration of the war. 800,000 young men were removed from the production of useful goods, in Canada, and were clothed, fed, boarded and paid on top of that. There was no money problem; it had been solved.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to all the bombs we dropped on the Germans at that time, do you think we sent the bill to Hitler and said: "You will either pay for these bombs C.O.D. or we will not drop them." We dropped them all on his head free of charge. Canada was never paid for that.
And at that time, we were enjoying a better standard of living in Canada than we had had during the depression, from 1929 to 1939. We were living better in spite of that devastating war. We were living better during those years than during the period from 1929 to 1939.
I have lived through 1929-1939. I saw what happened at that time and that is why, in 1939, I espoused the social credit doctrine; that is also why I keep on fighting to make that doctrine understood. I am not in the least seeking power, but I ask those who are in power to give results, to consider the solution seriously; if they put their heart in it, they cannot but recognize that it is consistent. After that, let it be put into force. Then we will vote for the government because it will produce something other than tax increases when the people are already paying too much and are being overly pressed.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, all this is to point out that supply motions, amendments or subamendments, while the same tampering is going on within the same system, do not change anything. For the past six years, I have been
4524	COMMONS
Suggested Economic Mismanagement sitting in parliament; I spent 3J years here as from 1946, and we have been advising the government to study the financial situation and to consider our physical possibilities. We have those possibilities and we can apply the principle which we are advocating, that is to make financially possible what is physically possible, to see that there is a constant balance between the purchasing power and production available to buyers, to Canadian consumers.
We are now witnessing a frantic increase in wages and prices. An increase in wages is followed by an increase in prices, and so on. Why is that? Because those increases, without any exception, are directly included in the price of products and are unavoidably leading to price increases.
And the Creditistes, what do they advocate? The $19 billion margin between national production and national revenue, once they are created by the Bank of Canada, are not included in the price of goods, do not bring about an increase in prices, but raise the purchasing power of the Canadian consumer. That is what we want: increase the income of the Canadian citizen without increasing the cost of production or prices. It is the only solution. If there are others, I would like to hear about them, but I do not want to hear that an increase in taxes will alleviate the situation of the Canadian people. His wallet may be lightened but his standard of living is certainly not improved.
People already feel that they are too heavily taxed. It is not with tax increases or new taxes that we will satisfy the people. But if the government, together with its Department of Finance, the Bank of Canada, its economists, its sociologists and its mathematicians considered-and it does consider it- the total production and the total national income in Canada, it would see right away that there is a gap between the two. That gap should be filled with a national dividend paid directly to all citizens of Canada in order to increase their income without increasing prices. Then, instead of financial crises such as those we are witnessing today in England and in other countries-and note that the same thing will happen here if we follow in their footsteps we will enjoy economic stability. We are assured that the dol-

DEBATES	November 21, 1967
lar will not be devaluated in Canada. However, should the American government ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to come down to New York, you would see him rush down there. If he is ordered to devaluate the Canadian dollar, he will do it. If this is deemed economical-for it might be seen later on that, by not devaluating our dollar, we would no longer provide any serious or significant competition to Great Britain-we will probably follow England's example.
I do not want that; however, under the present system, we are being led, involuntarily or not, it matters little, toward this situation, because some people, who may not even be from Canada, are giving orders and demanding results favourable to their own interests, without caring anything about the Canadian people. They are the ones who count, and the peoples, the sovereign peoples, the free peoples, nobody cares about them, as stated by Rothschild. That great international banker said: Give me control over the issuance of credit in a country and I do not care who makes the laws in that country. That is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to assume our responsibilities, as representatives of the Canadian people and of the people's will, so as to put some order in our national finance and spare Canada a frightful economic disaster which will plunge us into a kind of depression such as we experienced from 1929 to 1939. We do not want any more of that, nor do the people. Let us stop playing petty politics, like the Leader of the opposition was doing yesterday when he said that the Liberals have done everything wrong and that they would do everything right.
Let us make alternative proposals. If we have nothing to propose, let us keep quiet and stop introducing amendments as silly as the one which	was moved by the
Conservatives.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that the leader of the Creditiste party told us how he was going to vote tonight, but he did indicate some reluctance to divorce himself from his old debt-free money friends, namely, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), that great statesman, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon). However, I take
November 21, 1967

note of his concluding words about the crisis in the country and I hope that he will have found reason before he votes tonight.
Generally, Mr. Speaker, I do not pay much attention to what the hon. member for Medicine Hat says. He spouts off from time to time. He did when he was on this side of the house. I am one who feels that one should be around here quite a while before setting oneself up as an authority on the rules. Today I was dumbfounded to hear the hon. member say some of the things he did, and so I went back over the record. I just happened to have in my desk the record of the budget debate of June 6, 1967, the budget on which many of today's problems were predicated. I do not want to take up much time on this matter because I wish to deal with the economy of the Atlantic provinces which is in such a deplorable condition owing to the mismanagement of the government. However, just glancing at page 1209 of Hansard-and this is the fellow who had the nerve to get up and criticize us-this is what the hon. member said about the budget of his own party:
Turning now to the minister's speech I would like to ask him to give us some good reasons why he brought in the budget at this time-
Farther along he said:
Surely the minister-
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).
-is not prepared to admit that he, his advisers and his party are so bankrupt of ideas-
He also said:
-I think the minister has left the Canadian economy and Canadian business in an even more uncertain position than before it was introduced.
By "it" he meant the budget. He also said:
I think it is well for us to be reminded once in a while of the fact before we swallow this kind of conclusion-
Farther along he said:
If there is any time in Canadian economic history when we ought to be at least balancing the budget, if not budgeting for a surplus ... surely it is-
This time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: I suppose we are going to be subjected to more of this, Mr. Speaker, now that he is over there with his newfound friends, but I deplore this type of thing. Further, I think it was not proper for the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the Minister of Finance to call attention to the
Suggested Economic Mismanagement newness of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). This is almost unparliamentary. According to our etiquette we certainly do not do those things. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who was in the chamber a moment ago and is dean of the house, has never called attention to the fact that he is the senior member of the house. One is forced to conclude from these vicious, hatchet-like attacks on the Leader of the Opposition that his speech must have been very effective indeed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: I have limited time, Mr. Speaker, and I do not plan to listen to the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I may say that this is the first time in 15 years in this house that I have refused to answer a question during the course of a speech.
I now want to deal with the economy of the maritimes, Mr. Speaker, and I want to show in no uncertain way why the government has failed to produce any sort of relief for us. I want to tell, giving chapter and verse, why ministers and parliamentary secretaries have been booed at meetings across the maritime provinces. I want to tell why there are soup kitchens in Moncton called "Hellyer soup kitchens." To make it easier for hon. members to understand I will use football parlance, which may bring the situation home to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and say that the Liberals have failed to pick up the ball in the Atlantic economy.
I refer hon. members to the last report, volume 2, No. 3, of the publication periodically issued by APEC, which points out that despite six years of "rapid economic expansion" APEC finds "practically no change in the relationship of personal income per person in the region to the Canadian average." Second, the report reveals a slowing of the economy of the Atlantic provinces in the first half of 1967, and it goes on to say that there are at least 2,000 fewer people employed than in the same period in 1966. It uses the phrase "alarming proportions" to describe the migration movement from the Atlantic provinces.
In the brief time I have today I intend to show how Liberal mismanagement has failed to assist transportation and industry in the Atlantic region. I think it is vital to show that there is a link between transportation
4526	COMMONS
Suggested Economic Mismanagement and industry, but this has not been recognized by the government. When the pressures are on, and they certainly exist in our national economy at the present time, the weakest part of the body shows up. We are being hit in the transportation sector because this government has failed to do anything about the problem.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If one needed a prepared speech in this debate one could use the speech that the premier of New Brunswick, Louis Robi-chaud, made last week. I do not know why he made that speech. There was speculation in the first instance that he made it because the election is over and now he is in a position to be critical of Ottawa. However, I think he now knows there is going to be a change in Ottawa and that it is his duty to blast away. The whole speech deplores the situation. I should like to quote from the speech he made last Friday:
New Brunswick contributes next to nothing to the inflationary processes. Our wages are not high and our labour unions have not been unreasonable in their wage demands.
In addition, a speech was delivered yesterday by Premier Campbell of Prince Edward Island. I shall only quote part of it because time is limited. He said:
-the trouble with the present system is that federal development activities have been fragmented and unco-ordinated____ But for the weaker
provinces, the end result is to increase economic disparities and to mitigate against equal opportunity for all Canadians.
These are two premiers who have always apologized for the government in Ottawa. Now they are taking up the cudgels to fight this situation.
I should like to direct the following questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer). Why did he not try to do something with regard to the freight rate increases about which we have been speaking for some time? Were they not inflationary? Did he make any effort to see that these rate increases were held back during this serious inflationary period? Why did the savings in costs have to start in the maritimes? It was a few weeks after the lay-offs in the maritimes before they came into effect in other parts of Canada. To my mind we have had no explanation of this action. In the discussions with the heads of the railways was mention made of any change in policy? When business picks

DEBATES	November 21, 1967
up again, if it ever does without a change of government, will the men laid off be rehired by the railways or were the lay-offs simply the result of a new policy of efficiency on the part of the railways?
Does the minister realize that these freight rate increases in the maritimes affect the smaller areas where efforts have been made to bring in industry? As everybody can imagine, if these increases are maintained they will not affect the large cities where there are other modes of transport. The difficulty is that the cost of the smaller areas will be increased. I think we should have a statement of some kind concerning the overall responsibility of the railways in respect of transportation. We all want to see efficient railways. We have said so on many occasions in committee. I should like to know whether these actions have been taken in the name of efficiency, because they are to the detriment of the areas which were promised decent transportation at the time of confederation.
The history of transportation and industry in the maritimes is well known to members of the house. In the former case a bill was considered last year and this year with which we are all familiar. At that time many promises were made by the former minister of transport in an effort to get the bill through the house. We took him at his word. These promises have been indelibly written into the record. I do not intend to put them on the record again at this time. In the maritimes we were told that if the bill were put through new legislation would be brought in immediately. Nothing has happened yet. Then in September we were confronted with rate increases. Everyone knows what has happened. We went after the minister and he began to realize that the situation was serious and something should be done. Finally, a statement was made which has been met with no satisfaction at all.
I believe the minister has been hoodwinked by the railways. We say to him that he will have to stand up to the railways and find out what the situation is in the maritimes. When we ask the transportation commission for a statement we are told that we do not have the facts right. I wonder whether hon. members realize that in one case in Truro a toy manufacturer has demonstrated that there has been an increase of 527 per cent in the rate he pays on the toys he manufactures there. Yet this is said to be insignificant.
November 21. 1967

I should like to deal now with the problem in respect of industry. We know the story. The legislation was changed a short while ago in the hope that it would help to alleviate the problem in respect of areas such as the maritimes which need industry so badly. At that time the minister made reference to the slow growth areas and we thought something was coming. The other day he gave a detailed reply to a question I asked and failed even to recognize the term "growth centres" and failed to accept the fact that in Saint John which I represent eight industries have been lost, four having gone to other parts of the maritimes as a result of the incentive program.
I should now like to state my proposals. First of- all I propose that the committee on transport and communications take a trip to the maritimes in order to investigate at first hand the situation that now confronts us. I believe the transportation bill should be referred to that committee. I think the committee members should leave immediately and go there as they did on their western trip to see what the different problems are at first hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: Second, I suggest that a meeting of the premiers be convened immediately. We have been given inconclusive answers in the house. I believe a meeting should be set up with some of the leaders from the federal government so that they can get right down to business in respect of the complaints which the premiers have made in their recent speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a third proposal, I think there should be a reassessment of the promises made in this house by the former minister of transport. I believe this should be done in order to get to the crux of the problem. I suggest that before he does another thing the new Minister of Transport should look at Hansard and go back over the debates in order to see what promises were made. Every one of them is in the transportation field. They start with freight rates and causeways and go through everything which affects the maritimes. If this government plans to stay in office any longer it should get down to business and consider the promises that have been made.
As my fourth proposal, I think there should be a new regional fiscal re-examination made in an effort to deal with these
Suggested Economic Mismanagement problems bit by bit and promise by promise, because when we do get action in respect of them it is always too late. I believe there should be a system of priorities in respect of highways-I do not hesitate to use the word -because of the problems we have in the Atlantic region in regard to where highways fit into the picture. Immediate attention is needed in respect of co-ordinating the Atlantic Development Board and APEC. They have run into a conflict of ideas. APEC recently made a proposal in this regard and the Atlantic Development Board has expressed a willingness to co-operate with the Economic Council of Canada.
Very serious consideration must be given to the full potential in relation to these matters. The main thing is that there must be no delay. We must have the legislation that was solemnly promised to us. In the maritimes we must all unite and in this regard I call on all members on both sides of the house to stand together in an effort to see that the government moves.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The onus may be on us, but I know what the railway people are saying. They are saying: We have brushed them off again. The government hopes we will forget about it and go home. The government knows there will be a little squeak and a little squawk here and there, but it is happy because there are no more meetings. Let me tell the minister of external affairs, the senior man on the front benches, that this will not pass over and that we mean business this time. He is too good a politician not to realize that when maritimers get angry they mean business.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is not this type of politician and perhaps cannot make the same type of speech, even though he spent some time in the gallery watching the proceedings before he entered the house. He may not appreciate this fact, but the minister of external affairs with his years of experience knows that when you disregard the grass roots of maritime politics it is not even safe to cross the Quebec border into the maritimes.
In closing let me say that the desperate plight of the maritimes is apparent to everyone. The inflationary effect of the freight rate increase on existing industry has been readily demonstrated by the illustrations I have given, and I have not even referred to the deterrent effect it has on new industry attempting to locate there. The Department
November 21, 1967

Suggested Economic Mismanagement of Industry has failed miserably to understand the problems of the maritimes. This was made clear the other day by the premier of New Brunswick who, I suggest, is almost always an apologist for the government here in Ottawa. The Atlantic Development Board program has provided absolutely no stimulus and the area development program has had an even worse retarding effect.
Transportation is our weak spot and when inflationary pressures develop, as they have now, this vital segment is affected drastically. The importance of the link between transportation and industry has been proven and it is useless to pretend to assist our industrial sector unless transportation costs both within and without are given vital consideration in relation to these remedial measures.
The government set up the industrial incentives program to assist industry on the one hand and on the other hand permits inflationary transportation costs to drive industry out of the market. In this way our potential and future markets have been taken away from us. The onus is on all of us to remember what has been done and to point out the seriousness of the program the government has placed before us. We must lay our cards on the table. I do not think I can depict my feeling in any more serious way than by saying I was asked a traditional question the other day, although not an historical one. Someone asked me how things are in lower Canada. I did not reply in this way, but I thought that conditions in lower Canada, meaning the maritimes, are very low at the moment.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to welcome the new Leader of the official Opposition to the house. I am sorry I did not have the opportunity of listening to his speech yesterday, but of course I read and reread his words of wisdom this morning. I must confess I have come to the conclusion that in the best Tory tradition he had not one single, solitary suggestion to make to help the Minister of Finance to solve Canada's particular problems.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Read it again.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not need to read it again and hon. members opposite know that. In fact, I might be better off to get rid of it.
The reason I am speaking without notes is that I have a weak spot for the Leader of the Opposition. This is true for several reasons. I
[Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert) .1
suppose the first is because my granddad was chased out of Ireland as the result of persecution and a potato famine and went to Halifax where members of the Mackasey family still live. The second reason is that I have a great deal of affection and admiration for the two members from Nova Scotia who sit amongst the Liberal ranks. I think it is quite safe to say that the opposition would be the first to endorse the suggestion that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), who comes from Nova Scotia, is undoubtedly one of the finest ministers ever to grace that portfolio.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We certainly understand the persuasiveness of hon. member from the maritimes who has just sat down, because week after week during our caucus meetings we are subject to the persuasive talents of the present Minister of National Health and Welfare and the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart), who look after that province like it has never been looked after before in Canadian history.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As I said in my opening remarks, I particularly like the new Leader of the Opposition. There is something about the Leader of the Opposition that appeals to me, and it might well be that Nova Scotia charm. Rather than castigate the hon. member I want to help him by giving him a few words of advice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Watch out.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am delighted.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When he has been in the house a few months perhaps he will realize that I am one of the less belligerent members of this place. I am a great believer in cooperation. The first piece of advice I give him is not to be so gentle with the socialists who sit so close to him.
The other day wonderful words of welcome were placed on Hansard when the hon. gentleman took his seat for the first time, but I could not help wonder about the propriety of the remarks of the leader of the New Democratic party when he reminded the house that the Leader of the Opposition had left Nova Scotia in a state of ruin. I think those were his words. He suggested that the hon. gentleman had fled to greener pastures. I thought it was unfair of the hon. member
November 21, 1967	COMMONS
to place on the record so soon what many people in the maritimes may be thinking. I thought it was unfair of the leader of the socialist party to suggest that possibly the Dosco situation, the phasing out of the coal industry, might have had something to do with the decision of the hon. member to seek the federal party leadership within a matter of months after the re-election of not the Tory party but the Stanfield party in Nova Scotia. In any event, this is a problem the people of Nova Scotia will have to resolve.
I suggest that the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) was quite out of place in making those remarks. The Leader of the Opposition made a fine retort. Let me say in a spirit of co-operation that had he been around a little longer he might have suggested to the leader of the N.D.P., when he accused him of ruining a province, that it was only a question of the pot calling the kettle black. If ever a province was ruined in the history of Canada it was the province of Saskatchewan during the 16 years of socialist government headed by that hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was 20 years.


Mr. Stewart:: Yes, it took 20 years.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: By way of welcome to the hon. member, and we are all entitled to a few words of welcome, I would suggest that he remind the leader of the N.D.P. that at least he was able to get elected to this house in his own province, which is more than the leader of the N.D.P. was able to do. Chances are that the Progressive Conservatives will win the by-election in Nova Scotia created by the departure of the Leader of the Opposition, which was not the case in respect of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Therefore my first suggestion which is intended to be helpful is that the hon. gentleman not be too easy with our good friends in the socialist party.
We are faced not only with an amendment but with a subamendment which was introduced by the N.D.P. I suppose when one looks at the subamendment in light of the answer the leader of the N.D.P. made last night to a question posed by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), which was a classic socialist reply, one will see that the leader of that party has not strayed too far from the Regina manifesto. No only is he going to regulate government spending but he is also going to dictate the number of supermarkets that can be built with private capital in any community. When challenged by several members on this side on whether
DEBATES	4529
Suggested Economic Mismanagement or not this was an invasion of private industry or the right of an individual to invest his capital as he sees fit, the hon. member pointed to Sweden as the perfect example of a country where such a system is working.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am getting a little tired of Sweden being held up as an example to Canada. I went to the library and picked up two papers. The first one was Business Week for June 25, 1966, which carried an article entitled, "Now The Swedes Feel The Pinch". It is too lengthy to read into the record since it refers to the many problems of that great socialistic Utopia. I shall not refer to all the statistics in the article but it reads in part as follows:
-there are 120,000 applicants on a waiting list for new apartments in Stockholm alone. For some persons, the waiting time to get a new housing unit can stretch up to ten years and beyond. The shortage results from several factors, including rent controls-
Naturally private enterprise is not overly interested in building in Sweden and the government has not been able to keep up with the demands. The article goes on to point out that inflation is costing that country from 8 per cent to 11 per cent year in and year out.
In an article entitled "Inflation In Utopia" which appeared in Time Magazine in April, it is pointed out there is a grave possibility of Sweden pricing itself out of world markets because of labour unrest, because of the threat of inflation and because of a tremendous drop in productivity. We do not have to go to Sweden when we need examples. We have Saskatchewan where the principle of the subamendment was put into effect under the guidance of the present leader of the New Democratic party. What happened in Saskatchewan? We all know that while other provinces in the west had booming economies and added dramatically to their population, the province of Saskatchewan dwindled in population to such an extent that it lost seats in redistribution. While the hon. member was preoccupied with nationalizing box factories, soap factories, the potash industry lay dormant until foreign capital was attracted to it by private enterprise. This is the record of socialism, not in Sweden but in Saskatchewan. When the hon. member suggests, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition left the province of Nova Scotia because of the ruin facing him, he may have been accurate but he should have been the last person to get up in this house and call the pot black.
November 21, 1967

Suggested Economic Mismanagement
There is one other reason why I feel nobody is devoting too much attention to the subamendment. Frankly, none of us are too sure it the philosophy contained in the subamendment is going to be the philosophy of the New Democratic party next week or two months from now. I am not exaggerating. Their financial critic, who is a very enlightened gentleman and never ceases to learn, appeared on television and said that foreign capital was really what we needed. He had a little argument with his leader on that statement, but that is not unusual. When I say that is a prime example of that party changing its philosophy from week to week, I can give one more example.


Colin Cameron: I should like to ask the hon. member what program it was on which he alleges he heard me say that?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am going to say a little more, sir, and the hon. member can ask all
his questions at one time. I should like to give another example of the New Democratic party changing its philosophy, as they might do a week from now or a month from now. I can point to their "special status" for my own province as an indication of the way that the philosophy in the sub-amendment might be changed. I can recall the leader of the New Democratic party getting up at a conference a couple of months ago and saying, "We endorse special status for the province of Quebec." I could read editorials from he Devoir, written by Claude Ryan who took that statement at face value, endorsing the New Democratic party. I can recall the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) getting up in the house and defining this special status some months ago. I can also recall the hon. member for Greenwood writing a letter to the editor of Le Devoir reminding French Canadians that his was the party that first recognized special status for the province of Quebec and asking them not to forget it.
What happened last week end, Mr. Speaker, to the New Democrats? They suddenly discovered that perhaps special status is not the way to infiltrate the working classes of the province of Quebec or to harness resentment in the province so as to get their members elected. They now know that this is a fallacious argument so far as the province of Quebec is concerned. Therefore last week end the hon. gentleman admitted his party had made a mistake and that they were going to send 30,000 people across the country to find out what the people really want. They are

now disowning all of a sudden the special status philosophy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nonsense.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: How can we seriously consider any subamendment moved by that party, Mr. Speaker, as including any degree of responsibility?


An hon. Member:: Hypocrites.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would not say they were hypocrites; I would say they have been misguided.
I have devoted too much of my time to this insignificant party, but I did want to point out this practical example of how the philosophy of this party changes from week to week, from month to month, from convention to convention. First of all they tried to ride into this house on the coattails of the farmers. When they found this failed they then lent their wholehearted support to the trade unions. When this failed they tried to harness resentment in the province of Quebec by endorsing the special status theory and lending support to other contentious issues in the province. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the day of judgment has now come and they have decided that they do not endorse special status after all.
So I repeat, Mr. Speaker, how can we take the subamendment seriously? How do we know that all members of that party think alike? In this regard I think of those who support the Regina manifesto and of those such as the member from Waterloo who supports liberalism. I think there are as many philosophies in that party as there are members. You would think there would be some consensus of opinion on such an important subject as special status. Somebody should tell the hon. member for Greenwood to stop writing letters to the editor trying to point out to French Canadians that they were the first party to discover special status for the province of Quebec.
I should now like to turn to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I thought he made a good speech. It was one that pleased me because of the great degree of partisanship to be found in his remarks. Obviously he forgot to refer to the government party as "rotten" and he got that expression in as a kind of supplementary. I do not disagree with the type of speech he made. After all, this is not a Sunday school; this is the highest forum of debate in the land. This is what the House of Commons is all about.
November 21. 1967	COMMONS
The hon. member served notice yesterday that he is going to be partisan, so in this case I know he will not mind or take exception if members on this side of the house, as was the case a little while ago, tee off by dealing with some of the obvious misconceptions that were apparent in his speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) is not a true-blue Liberal.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We have to be generous and understand that this was the Leader of the Opposition's first speech. We must be tolerant and realize he has not had time to do much homework or get around to finding some solutions to the problems facing the country, even though he may next time or the time after that.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. gentleman offered no suggestions and put forward no reasons why the government should be defeated tonight or any plans for administering the country and solving our economic ills if he formed a government, we can only presume he had some other purpose in mind-apart, of course, from his patriotic, duty, something that touches the hearts of all of us. We are all here to do our patriotic duty. Patriotic duty is something we can all understand. We hear it is the patriotic duty of the members of the opposition to throw us out of office. What would they do then? Nothing in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition indicates what he would do if he came to power. All he did was to make a fine speech endorsing the conclusions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), and endorsing his summary of what the problems of Canada are.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
What would happen if we were defeated tonight and went to the people? The Leader of the Opposition should realize that the people of Canada do not need a particularly long memory to remember the Tory regime of six or seven years ago. The problems that face Canada today result from the longest economic boom in Canadian history, while the problems in Tory times were chronic unemployment and a disunited and unimaginative cabinet which could not cope with the problems of the day.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, if the hon. member asks an intelligent one.
DEBATES	4531
Suggested Economic Mismanagement


Michael Starr: When he speaks about the long period of economic boom can he tell us in what year that boom started?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member thinks I will say it started in the last year they were in office. If that were so, this did not register with the Canadian people because the hon. member's party went into that election with the biggest majority in the history of Canada and the people lined up before the polls opened to make sure they threw the Tories out. These are the facts.


Mr. Monfeith:: The Irish in the hon. member is coming out.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Saint-
Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) spoke about the increase in unemployment to 4.5 per cent. What were the rates of unemployment in the maritimes in those years? In the province of Quebec the rate of unemployment was from 12 to 14 per cent. These days are gone.


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


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, no questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have never seen the opposition so touchy.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am speaking to the Leader of the Opposition in a spirit of co-operation and I say to him he should not fall into the trap of presuming that the problems of the Tory party can be solved by a new leader. I say this with full respect for his integrity and his image, and that image is important. However, it is naive to think that that is all that is wrong with the Conservative party. If through a miracle the hon. member were to form a government tomorrow, whom would he call upon? The same cabinet ministers who destroyed his party? We see here the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who was a cabinet minister then, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) who was a cabinet minister and also the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). I also see the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who is so quiet for a change, who was a cabinet minister at that time, and so was the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean). It is the same old gang. I doubt that the people of Canada want to give the reins of government to these people. Does anyone think for a minute that a new leader will rectify these problems? Of course not. I think that the reason the Leader
November 21, 1967

Suggested Economic Mismanagement of the Opposition wants an election is to get rid of the old gang so he can perhaps change a few of them. But let us not try to deceive the Canadian people by telling them that all is well with the Tory party just because they got rid of their leader.


Hugh John Flemming: The hon. member is an authority on that subject.


Michael Starr: Why are the Liberals trying to get rid of their leader?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We are not trying to get rid of our leader. He can be with us until 1980. The hon. member for Ontario should be aware of the fundamental difference between the Conservative party of the Diefenbaker days and the present Liberal party. Unlike the Tories prior to 1962, there is no movement in the Liberal party to get rid of our leader. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat said, the Tory party members can meet every morning for a free breakfast and try to indicate organization, but I say that they need a new research team. The hon. member for Kamloops has lost weight on the job, running here and there trying to round up speakers. He will have to get a large research team and supply his speakers with some information and some facts. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition will have to find someone in parliament to write his speeches rather than someone outside parliament, someone who is aware of Canada's problems and aware of parliamentary procedure, because it is obvious from his speech yesterday that he does not have sufficient information.
We have heard much about the high rate of taxation in Canada from the opposition. I have some statistics on this subject. In the year 1966 the per capita disposable income, what is left after personal taxes are paid, was the highest in the history of this country, 50 per cent higher than when the Tories were in power. In fact it was 118 per cent higher than in 1949. So it is not hard to point out with a certain degree of accuracy that we have an affluent society.


Mr. Nesbitt:: What about the inflation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We realize there is inflation, but the Minister of Finance will do something about it. Let us not forget the time when the present Minister of National Health and Welfare, who as I said, has been one of the greatest ministers in Canadian history,


brought in the imaginative first step toward a guaranteed minimum income for Canadians when he added to the old age pensions according to a needs test. How responsible was the opposition about spending money in that debate? All they wanted to do was make sure that E. P. Taylor was included in that increase. They wanted no needs test for anyone. Is that the type of party of which the Leader of the Opposition can be proud? When and where did that party ever take a stand against spending in any of the legislative measures that have been adopted by the house in the last few years? They have not. It is the same old gang. All they have changed is the leader. The only kind thing we can do to the Leader of the Opposition- and I want to be kind to him because he is a fine person from a fine province-is to defeat his amendment and give him an opportunity to sit in the house with the same old gang for a while. The worst thing for him would be to be shoved out into the street and to have to face an election. This would be tough on him.
I do not want to be partisan so I will point out to the hon. gentleman that there is a fundamental difference between today and 1962 when more than one out of every ten Canadians was out of work. In those days there was no manpower department to which to turn for help. There was no economic council to rely upon for information, and the members of the opposition constantly refer to the council which we set up. At that time there was no Department of Industry, there were no designated areas and no tax writeoffs to stimulate production and diversify the economy of the country.
In case members from the maritimes, including the Leader of the Opposition, are not aware of this fact, let me inform them that as a result of the introduction of the designated areas program by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), no less than 236 projects have come into being in the maritime provinces since 1963, with a total capital investment of $667,781,000. These are fantastic figures and they refer to programs which have been instituted since 1963. I am referring only to the maritimes. There have been over 800 such projects across Canada. It was only two weeks ago that the hon. member for Kamloops spent 20 minutes pleading that his area be designated. He realizes how well this program works. He is hoping that this legislation, which was not available in his time,
November 21, 1967	COMMONS
might do something for an area of the country which he neglected badly when he was minister. There have been 809 projects which have produced over $1,760 million in assets since this government has come into power and since we established a Minister of Industry.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) tried to arrive at a solution and said that productivity in Canada has fallen and we must do more research. This is like saying that we are against sin. However, I did feel this struck a responsive chord. I think we need more research and development. I looked up the figures for research and development in 1959. I chose this year rather than 1958 in order to give the opposition a chance to get acclimatized and push research and development. There was less than $150 million spent in those days on research and development leading to technological change and increased productivity. I do not like the inference that the working man in this country is less productive than the working man in the United States. Given the same opportunity, given the same set of circumstances, the working force of this country is second to none in the world.
Then I looked at the figure for research and development in 1963 when the Minister of Industry took it under his wing and decided to do something about it. From a figure of less than $150 million it has risen to over $200 million since the present Minister of Industry took charge of his department. In 1965 the amount devoted to research and development by Canadian industry, as a result of the initiative and prodding of the Minister of Industry, reached over $300 million. These are the last accurate figures because these figures are available only in odd years. I am told that for the year 1967 they will come close to $400 million. This is concrete evidence of the efficiency of this government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the hon. member
answer a question? Why has productivity fallen?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We have the problem of inflation today which is the result of the longest economic boom in the history of this country. It differs from the main problem of the opposition which was as chronic unemployment, a problem they could not solve despite their ability to railroad through any piece of legislation they felt was necessary. We will overcome the problem of inflation.
27053-286i
DEBATES	4533
Suggested Economic Mismanagement However, since I started out in a conciliatory fashion and since my message is directed to the Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest he take advantage of the supper break to suggest to some of his members that they stay out of the house at voting time because the worst fate that could befall the hon. member would be to go to the people of Canada today while the sad record of the Tory years from 1958 to 1962 still rankles in the minds of the one out of ten people in this country who were unemployed in those days.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend too much time on the speech of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). I know the party clown is always brought out at a certain point. However, I do wish to point out that tonight he was guilty not of a lie-I will not say that-but of the sort of thing that the late Benjamin Disraeli said of another much more esteemed Liberal when he said he had been guilty of a terminological inexactitude. When the hon. member for Verdun attributed a statement to me on television, he was guilty of that terminological inexactitude. As I say, I do not intend to take too much time on that story. One of these days I shall go down to Verdun and find out why the hon. member is so terrified of the New Democratic party that he spends almost the whole of his time trying to tear it to pieces.
I have a rather difficult task tonight, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) because, for one thing, he is not in the house, and for another, after our touching little love feast today I might find it difficult to be as venomous as I should be. Although I may find it difficult, I shall try to bring up all my resources of venom. Sincerely, though, I was shocked when the Minister of Finance of a country in its present condition would stand in his place and make a flippant, frivolous speech such as we heard from the minister last evening. If he thinks he can solve the problems of this country by playing the Merry Andrew, he is very much mistaken. I suggest to him that a man who should be standing in sackcloth and ashes should not be putting on the cap and bells of the court jester. For one thing, he is not very good at it. He is rather clumsy, rather heavy. It is quite inappropriate for a Minister of Finance who is presiding over an economy that has reached the state under his direction that ours has reached today.
4534	COMMONS
Suggested Economic Mismanagement
I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in the insolent way in which the Minister of Finance remarked that he was not going to deal with the speech of my leader. He said this, as recorded on page 4478 of Hansard:
I do not intend to say very much about the speech made by the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) because essentially it was the same speech as I have listened to on many other occasions. I gained very little that was fresh by the way of ideas.
This interests me, Mr. Speaker, because the main burden of the speech by the leader of this party last night was on the question of medicare. He was asking the Minister of Finance to explain the preposterous figure of a billion dollars that he had produced only a day or two before and about which my leader had no opportunity to speak. I quite understand that the Minister of Finance does not want to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). He does not want to have to explain this billion dollar figure because, of course, it would cause even more trouble within the Liberal cabinet which is obviously and notoriously split right down the middle. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) was obviously very unhappy when he was asked how he accounted for this sudden change in the estimated cost of medicare. He answered in such a way as to throw some confusion into the issue.
No wonder the Minister of Finance did not want to deal with this speech. Incidentally, our irrepressible friend from Verdun interjected himself at this point and, displaying his ignorance, said that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam gave that one in 1934. In 1934 the Liberal party had only been promising medicare for 15 years. There had been no question whatever of a billion dollars, so I do not know how the member for Verdun happened to hear it in 1934. However, it was nice, comic relief from the party clown.
I am concerned about a minister who will pluck a sum out of the air which he is unable to connect by the slightest filament of connection with reality, who runs away from the question when he is asked upon what he bases his estimate. This, Mr. Speaker, is considered terror tactics which the nazis used and called schreklichheit-frightfulness. The Minister of Finance has been using this to frighten the people of Canada so they will encourage the provincial governments to pull his chestnuts out of the fire.
I cannot think of anything more contemptible, Mr. Speaker, than a minister of the

DEBATES	November 2L 1967
crown charged with responsibility for the enactment of government policy which has been endorsed by this parliament, trotting around the country persuading the governments of the provinces to refuse to co-operate with the policy that he has presented to this house. This, to my mind, is one of the most contemptible things we have ever seen. If the Minister of Finance, as he obviously does, does not believe in medicare then let him have the guts and say so. Let him not pretend that he is anxious to bring in medicare but that the provinces might not approve, the minister having scared the daylights out of them by using a completely fictitious figure he is unable to justify in any way at all. This is the ultimate in dishonesty, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I heard one of the members of the Liberal party who was with me on a television program the other day say that only over his dead body would medicare be abandoned or postponed. I am afraid that we are going to have a lot of funerals in the Liberal party because it is quite obvious that the Minister of Finance has decided to scuttle the program and he has not the guts to get up and do it himself. Instead he twists the arms of the provincial premiers and scares the daylights out of them by producing fictitious figures.
I now go to the speech of the Minister of Finance. I am interested to see that the minister wants a consensus when things are going wrong. As reported on page 4481 of Hansard he had this to say:
I am very sorry if I did. I must have said it inadvertently.
This was when the minister was suggesting to the Leader of the Opposition that the Leader of the Opposition had misquoted or misrepresented him. I do not think the Minister of Finance got away with that one, because I have a very distinct recollection of his suggesting to the house that he felt it might be necessary to allow a little slack to develop in the economy. The minister went on:
I do not know what he said exactly-
The Minister of Finance apparently has many lapses about things he does not know exactly; yet he is prepared to get up and make categorical statements about them. He went on:
We are seeking a more civilized way of dealing with our problems which I suggest depends a good deal on the consensus that we can arrive at in this country on the importance of the problem and the correct steps for dealing with it. If we are to get
November 21, 1967

that consensus we must be clear that both the government and this parliament accept their share of the responsibility for adequate fiscal measures and adequate fiscal policies.
It is an odd thing, Mr. Speaker: the minister always wants a consensus. He wants to rope parliament in when things are going badly. If by accident, as has occasionally happened, oddly enough, something good happens while the Liberal party is in office, he then wants to take all the credit for it, but when things are going wrong we must all be roped in in a consensus.
The minister says he does not believe in unemployment. I am rather inclined to reply to that by quoting the famous phrase of Geroge Bernard Shaw when a lady of somewhat aesthetic taste said "I accept the universe", and George Bernard Shaw said "By God, you'd better". Although the Minister of Finance does not believe in unemployment, unemployment is here and he had better have a look at it. He may not like it. I do not expect he likes it any more than any other rational person does, but he certainly has to believe in it.
One of the most fantastic statements made by the minister in his fantastic speech was a remark that appears on page 4480 of Hansard in connection with the policies presented to this parliament by the leader of the New Democratic party in the subamendment that he presented. The sapient and learned Minister of Finance had this to say:
I say to my hon. friends in the N.D.P. that the kind of policies they are now advocating is exactly the kind of policies that have helped to bring the United Kingdom to its present state. But even in a less exaggerated form we find these problems in the United States.
Exactly how that got tagged on, Mr. Speaker, I do not know; it seems the minister is a little confused there.
I am amused and horrified if this is a serious statement of the minister's understanding of the state of affairs in Great Britain. I suspect it is the same short sort of shocking ignorance displayed by the minister yesterday when he had not even taken the trouble to do what I did yesterday morning-find out the attitude of the chartered banks to the possible effect of the sterling devaluation on the Canadian economy. So the minister had, rather unfortunately for him, to apologize to me and to admit that I had

Suggested Economic Mismanagement been right. Unless he was just being a complete clown-and sometimes I wonder about that-to suggest that the policies we are putting forward are those that have created the problems in Great Britain is the most irresponsible nonsense I have ever heard from a minister of the crown.
I should have liked to ask the minister-unfortunately he is not here-about a statement by a British Columbia cabinet minister that appeared in the Vancouver Province and was reported in the Globe and Mail for November 13, 1967. I will say right at the start, Mr. Speaker, that I have no more faith in Mr. Bonner than I have in the Minister of Finance. However, Mr. Bonner said:
The federal government is pressing British Columbia and Ontario to cut production to help ease a national economic crisis, Attorney General Robert Bonner said yesterday. Mr. Bonner said British Columbia and Ontario are being singled out in talks at the national level to hold back the pace of production. "But any representations in this way are being received with very serious reservation."
If this is true, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance is seriously suggesting to provincial governments that the way to solve this problem is to cut back on production, then we have proof positive that he does consider rising unemployment as the way in which to solve the appalling crisis into which he has managed to manoeuvre himself. I hope that at some time I will have a chance to get an answer to this question raised by Mr. Bonner from the Minister of Finance.
I now want to deal with a matter brought up earlier today in connection with the rise in the price of copper that was announced by the Noranda company. I know the Minister of Finance made some brave statements here today about looking into the matter and about how he was going to deal with it. I suppose he is going to say:	"Naughty,
naughty, mustn't do that; we don't like you doing that". Does the minister think that Noranda will listen to him, having had the most fantastic increase in profits of probably any company in Canada? According to the Globe and Mail for November 21 the profit of Noranda Mines amounted to $33.86 million, or $2.84 a share, compared with $32,351,000 in 1966. I do not think that this company will listen to the Minister of Finance while they are riding so high.


Mr, Speaker:: Order, please.
November 21, 1967

Suggested Economic Mismanagement


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling certain documents, if I may. The first document I wish to table on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is a series of correspondence with the provinces relating to the proposed federal-provincial conference on a constitutional bill of rights for Canada.
The second series of documents I wish to table, again on behalf of the Prime Minister, is correspondence with the provinces relating to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on housing and urban development in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed that we revert to motions for the purpose of tabling the documents in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the parliamentary secretary leave to table these documents?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was agreed earlier that the documents dealing with the dominion-provincial conference on the bill of rights would be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For documents referred to above, see appendix.]


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson for committee of supply and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 4468) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas (p. 4473).
[Mr. Speaker.}
Colin Cameron: When we rose for the dinner recess I was discussing the shocking action of the Noranda company in raising the price of copper. In this connection I should like to quote from a statement made by Mr. James Thomas, vice president of Phillips Cables Limited of Brockville, who said:
The increase is definitely inflationary. The company is not a Noranda customer and will not be immediately affected, but the increase and subsequent additions will mean a 20 to 30 per cent increase in the cost of wire and cable.
This is inflation of the worst kind. This can affect the whole building industry. The economy cannot afford it.
This afternoon, when this particular situation was brought to the minister's attention, he said in somewhat vague terms that he intended to look into it and do something about it. I admit I am a little dubious about what he is likely to do, since this government has consistently rejected the proposal which this party has put forward for a long time for the setting up of a prices review board. It would be too lengthy a process to establish one to deal with this sort of situation. I believe it is time the minister considered something more effective than merely warning or pleading with these rapacious corporations to avoid adding to our economic difficulties; he should be consulting the provinces in which these companies are located and urging them to use their constitutional powers to establish price controls over these basic industries. Otherwise they will get completely out of hand.
The minister was quite satirical yesterday-at least he thought he was satirical- about the proposals made by the leader of this party with regard to the control of private industry. In this connection he made one of the cheapest and snidest comments ever made in the course of a cheap, snide and frivolous speech, when he said this:
I sometimes wonder, when I listen to such talk about having control over the private sector as well as the public sector, whether it does not really mean that the hon. gentleman's party would like to limit competition-to ensure that one of their friends would have an opportunity of building a shop somewhere and that competition in that area would be limited.
There, I think, is an example of the cheap, flippant, frivolous attitude of this Minister of Finance. He is apparently wholly ignorant of the fact that he is directing investment in Canada every day-and directing it very
November 21, 1967

badly-by way of unjustifiable and unjustified depreciation allowances which force our scarce capital into a certain sector of the economy, which ties us more closely to the United States market and renders us less able to manage our own affairs.
When we propose that there should be an investment board to enable the government to determine the direction of our economy and the investment which will decide that direction, the minister should take this more seriously than he does now. I say to him that he will encounter continued trouble unless he does something of this sort. I should like to spend a moment or two of the few that are left in pointing out how shocking it is that the government of a country like Canada can reduce it to the situation in which we find ourselves today-a country which has continually rising production, and enormous personal savings that rose by the end of the second quarter of this year to the phenomenal figure of $3,940,000,000. This, in addition to the retained earnings of the corporations, makes our constant plea that we require foreign capital, and require our ministers to go to New York and beg for it, highly suspect.
In this week's Financial Post the president of the Toronto chamber of commerce draws attention to the fact that Canada has now grown up and that we are ourselves a source of investment capital. He did not say where the capital goes, but I have been doing some analyses and have discovered just where it is going. I found that a very large part of it is going to the United States, and to pay for a rapidly rising volume of imports-$8,620 million in 1965, $10,102 million in 1966, and at the rate of $12 billion this year. We have been pouring money across the line in the form of interest, dividends and equity and portfolio investments. Much of this money has gone in the form of interest and dividends to the United States owners of equities and bonds, and there is not much we can do about that. But a large proportion of it represents the savings of Canadians which are being invested in the United States by those who have control of those savings-the various financial institutions of this country.
I say to the Minister of Finance that if he can bring himself to inquire, however reluctantly, into the activites of the chartered banks he could make some inquiries about the volume of Canadian savings which those banks are funnelling into the New York call market, enabling them to make an extremely

Suggested Economic Mismanagement handsome profit and to pay the high interest rates on deposits about which the governor of the Bank of Canada had to take action a week or ten days ago.
It is time the Minister of Finance began to look at some of the basic problems associated with this financial crisis. I am still not at all sure that there will not be repercussions as a result of the devaluation of the pound, and I notice that my views are supported by many who have been making statements in the press today and yesterday. It is time the minister began to consider doing what we have been suggesting to him for a long time-negotiating for a return to a floating exchange rate. In addition, if for no other reason than to protect the currency of our United States neighbours, we shall have to impose exchange controls to prevent American funds passing into Europe in the form of euro-dollars, escaping the control of the United States and adding to its difficulties. These are the sort of thing we feel should be done in this crisis.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We do not know what the minister is going to do in regard to fiscal measures but we are told by the usual informed sources that there is going to be up to a 10 per cent increase in the personal income tax. The minister has not taken any care to allay that idea and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, he will find that this suggestion for an increase in the personal income tax will not sit very happily on the shoulders of the Canadian taxpayers as long as he persists in protecting those interests that he feels he has to please, I presume to help him in the struggle for the final seat of power.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Isn't he there now?


Colin Cameron: No, he isn't there now. There is a higher spot yet, and I suspect he will find that his policies in catering to certain people today, by refusing to accept the Carter commission report recommendations on depletion allowances and on taxation of insurance companies, are not going to sit well with the less favoured members of the community.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my shock and dismay that the Minister of Finance, who has presided over the economy until it has got into this position, should have seen fit to come before the house last night with a singularly frivolous, flippant, and cheap speech, the sort of speech one expects from some of the other members of
4538	COMMONS
Division
his party but not from a responsible minister of the crown, not from a minister of the crown directly charged with the direction of our economy and the protection of Canadian economic welfare. It makes me wonder if I have to revise my opinion of the capacity of this minister.
I had thought that although he and I might always differ within the basic philosophy, that at least he was competent within the narrow range of his frame of reference. Now that I find he is not prepared to deal seriously with the problems he has been howling about across the country, I am forced to doubt his capacity to fill the job that the Canadian people are paying him to fill.
In case the Minister of Finance feels he lacks the constitutional power to deal with the earnings of corporations in this country, I would remind him of the ill fated and very foolish move he made with regard to the 5 per cent refundable tax, which indicated he had complete constitutional power to interfere in the distribution of the profits of corporations. Of course it was an imbecilic sort of proposal. He was paying 5 per cent on it, and had tied his hands to return it into the economy whether or not it was economically justified. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that next week, when he is going to present his budget, we will have a more serious speech from the Minister of Finance than we had last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 8.15 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section (4)(d) of standing order 56 to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on the subamendment. Before leaving the country the Prime Minister requested me to pair with him in his absence. I thought it proper to meet his request. Had I voted on the subamendment I would have voted against it.


Mr. Gendron:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question immediately, without the ringing of the bell?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on the amendment. As previously indicated, I agreed to pair with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Had I voted, I would certainly have voted for the amendment.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was paired with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) who was unable to be present.


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my grievance today has to do with the laws and the making of laws in Canada, with particular reference to the law of expropriation. Before I proceed with that part of my grievance, I should like to say that I have always understood that Canada, as a democracy, is governed by laws that are made to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. After being a member of this parliament for almost ten years, I wonder how much attention parliament actually pays to democracy in making the laws to provide the greatest good to the greatest number? I think very little. A great many of our laws appear to be made with a view to political expediency and providing for the wishes of certain classes of people in our country and without any apparent regard for the well-being or interest of the greater number of people who may be concerned.
At times one appears to be justified in feeling like the character Mr. Bumble in one of Charles Dickens' works who remarked so aptly, "The law is a ass, a idiot". There are times, very many times, when one wonders if that is not perfectly true. Until I became a member of parliament almost ten years ago, I used to think that the laws were all made with a view to carrying out the democratic principles we are supposed to have in this country. However, since coming into a full understanding of the way some of the laws are forced on the country, without any regard at all for the feelings of the majority of Canadians, I have begun to wonder just where we are going.
An example of this is shown by the present government in the present debate on the emasculated capital punishment bill, under the provisions of which our nation is to be divided into first and second class citizens, so far as protection is concerned. If this bill on capital punishment is approved, then as I have already stated, God forbid, it will certainly divide us all into first and second class citizens. This is not the will, Mr. Speaker, of the majority of the people of Canada.
November 21, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The second example is the bill that was finally passed on January 27, 1967 and which is now law. That was the bill to amend the Railway Act and to set up Mr. PickersgilTs empire, he now being chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission. That bill along with the Canadian National Railways Act and the Expropriation Act, gives the Canadian National Railways almost carte blanche to do anything it pleases, without reference to parliament or regard for the welfare of any people who may be involved or who get in the way of the ambitions of the railway, whatever they may be. Certainly the Canadian National Railways Act and the Expropriation Act taken together makes this sort of thing possible.
While speaking of the Expropriation Act, which is chapter 106 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, I should like to make particular reference to two cases which occurred locally but which have national implications, inasmuch as under the existing law the same thing can occur anywhere in Canada. But before I deal with these cases, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to tell the house that I was formerly an executive officer of a rural electrification scheme in Alberta, and as such it was my duty to invoke expropriation laws in that province. This I did according to law and justice. When this electrification line was constructed I had to get permission from certain farmers for the line to cross their land. Four farmers in the area did not agree.
I therefore went to court, for which provision had been made, and got authority to expropriate sufficient area to place seven or nine power poles-I forget the exact number now-on each quarter section, each half mile. The farmers received payment in advance of the poles being erected; but when the farmers finally wanted to receive the power they had to pay the money back. Nevertheless everyone was happy; there was no trouble.
However, Mr. Speaker, this is not always the case. On October 4 I made a speech in this house about expropriation-that is a nice way to put it; I call it theft-by the Canadian National Railways of certain lands in the Fort Saskatchewan settlement area immediately north of the North Saskatchewan river. A few days following that speech, which is reported at page 2819 of Hansard, just to show that this situation is not confined to the province of Alberta or to my particular area,
I received a telephone call from a lady in Toronto. She complained that her house, which was a solid brick house on a full sized 27053-2871
DEBATES	4541
Expropriation of Farmlands by C.N.R. lot, had been expropriated and that her house had been demolished without her permission. She had been offered $10,000 for her property, a property which would sell in the city of Toronto, I am told, Mr. Speaker, for between $30,000 and $40,000. Eventually she had to go to court to establish her rights. I understand from her that she paid more for this property than the $10,000 that she was offered.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this situation is not peculiar to Toronto or to my constituency; I could quote a number of other instances of this kind. I might say, however, that as soon as I received this lady's complaint I contacted her member of parliament, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), told him about the matter and he is now looking into it. I am sure that with his efforts she will receive a proper settlement for her property.
A different situation arises in connection with the areas of farm-land taken over by the C.N.R. in the Fort Saskatchewan settlement, which is just north of the town of Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta. Actually, the town itself is not in my constituency but the settlement is. The C.N.R. took over part of the farms of 23 farmers. This is the finest farmland in Canada, and it was expropriated to enable the railway to build a spur line to the government subsidized Imperial Oil Company fertilizer plant which is located five or six miles south of the town of Redwater in my constituency, e (9:10 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, everyone approves of having a railway line put through there, but these people are disgusted and up in arms at the cavalier way the C.N.R. took over this farming area. They gave the owners of the land no warning. The farmers knew this plant was being built but they were given no intimation that the line would pass through their land or be routed in this fashion. Now it is an accomplished fact.
I suggest it is a pretty poor state of affairs when the C.N.R., a crown corporation and a child of the government of Canada, can take over private property without making any proper arrangements to do so or to arrive at an appropriate settlement. I am told that the only survey made to decide whither this line was going was done from an aerial photograph. An Edmonton official of the C.N.R. drew a straight line between the point at which they wanted to join the main line of the Canadian National, and the plant. That is where the spur was built. It did not have to
November 21, 1967
4542	COMMONS
Expropriation of Farmlands by C.N.R. be built there. They could have built it in half a dozen different places. Apparently they did not even consider these possibilities. They found, when they got the line built, except for the fill across the river, perhaps a quarter of a mile long, over 400 feet wide and a matter of a hundred or more feet deep, that no soundings or tests had been made to find out whether the fill would stay. They had a lot of extra work to do because the banks of that river were filled with springs, and the fill would not stay. I do not know what was done eventually, but I did see an article recently which said this spur was in use.
I mentioned earlier that the first intimation to the farmers in the area that their land was being taken from them was by way of a letter from the manager of Canadian National real estate in Edmonton. This letter informed them that the C.N. was building a spur through their property and that a certain amount of their property would be required for this purpose. They were each told more or less how much it would be. I have a number of these letters. They are all the same, except that the location marked at the top is different.
When I made my speech to the house on October 4 I did not have copies of these letters, but they were sent out to all the property owners and farmers, supposedly free citizens of this so-called democratic nation, telling them that their property was to be confiscated. The company called it expropriation but I call it plain, ordinary theft.
I will read the letter which was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Lamoureux whose land was desecrated and destroyed as a farm as a result of this action by the railway. This letter was dated April 27 and reads as follows:
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Lamoureux Box 51
Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta Dear sir and madam:
Re: Parcels A & B of river lot 4, and parcel C of river lot 2, of plan 1996 C.L., Fort Saskatchewan.
You have probably read in the newspapers of Imperial Oil Limited's multi-million dollar fertilizer plant to be built near Redwater, Alberta. A rail line to this plant will be built by CN and from studies which have been made, it has been found necessary to acquire a right-of-way across your above noted property as shown on the attached sketch.
For reasons of expediency, the railway has deposited in the land titles office, Northern Alberta land registration district, a plan under the provisions of the Expropriation Act and the Canadian National Railways Act.


Our representative will call on you as early as possible within the next month to discuss this matter and to arrange settlement for the property taken.
The deposit of the plan need not affect your use of the property outside the right-of-way shown on the attached sketch and it will not be necessary for you to postpone any action on the balance of your lands, such as spring seeding.
Yours truly,
J. H. Tilley
Manager of Real Estate
Mr. Speaker, all these people need to make Jesse James and his gang look like Sunday school teachers is two guns each and a horse. This is appalling. This letter was the first information these people received that their land was to be taken and that a spur line was to be built through their property along the route described. They did not get a chance to say a word about what was happening to property on which some of them had lived all their lives, as no doubt had their fathers and grandfathers. This settlement was originally named Lamoureux; it was named after the ancestors of the people who are there now. Six families named Lamoureux are involved in this situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is Mr. Speaker's family.


Frank John William Fane: As I said earlier, there were several different routes which could have been taken. If the spur had to be jointed with the line at the one spot which had now been chosen, there was no need for it to pass through these farms; it could have been routed a quarter of a mile north along the old Victoria trail. It could even have been placed on the trail itself, which is already government property and is not used a great deal. In any event it could have been built alongside it. This would not have disrupted the farming operations and it would have made for greatly improved public relations between the people concerned and the Canadian National Railways, and maybe between those people and the parliament of Canada.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
No settlement was made before the takeover or before the spur line was begun, nor were any efforts made to reach such a settlement. Ten days after that letter was written, an agent of the C.N.R. went around to see some of these people. Two of them were missed out entirely, according to a letter that I have from the C.N.R. However they were busy on their farms, and could not take the time to go out and make a deal. They employed in Edmonton the firm of Farm Surface
November 21, 1967

Rights Consultants Limited to look after their interests. This firm is looking after the interests of these people, as well as their interests in connection with the building of a pipe line and another railway spur, the second one in Saskatchewan.
The C.N.R. could very easily have saved millions of dollars of taxpayers' money if the management of the railway had used their heads, made a proper survey and routed this spur in a sensible place. If it is ever possible to do so we must find out how much it is actually going to cost before we can see how many millions of dollars were wasted through this stupid, idiotic placing of the spur line.
That line has now been completed, and the railway company is trying to make settlements with the farmers whose farms have been destroyed. What hope is there of making any kind of a reasonable settlement? I do not know how the railway will be able to make a settlement after the destruction it has caused, after the inconvenience to the farmers, and all the other things that enter this expropriation. The C.N.R. management will probably offer the farmers the assessed value in the municipal district, but that will certainly never, never be accepted.
Besides all the value of the land that has been taken away, just think what it means to a farmer to have a railway line crossing his farm at an angle and destroying all the existing set-up of fields, shelter belts, and all his planned farming operations, dividing one end of his farm from his farmstead, his granaries and his other installations. It is an appalling situation for these people whose land has been desecrated by something like this that appears to have the approval and the protection of the laws of Canada. I cannot say, much as I would like to, that it is approved by this government, because probably this government did not know about it. Members of the government may have known, but it is possible they did not. I did not know that things like this could be done, and I have lived there all my life.
The railway company was supposed to provide crossings at proper places. It has not done so. It was supposed to provide underpasses for cattle. It has not done that either. But it has made crossings where it is impossible to use them. That is the kind of arbitrary action that the railway company has undertaken there. It just is not right, Mr. Speaker. It violates the rights of the free citizens of Canada. It makes me wonder what
DEBATES	4543
Expropriation of Farmlands by CJV.R. Canada is coming to when a child of the government can undertake actions like that and veritably steal the land from the farmers and desecrate their private property.
Just think, Mr. Speaker, we have 105,000 Canadians lying dead over in Europe because they fought to protect the rights of the people of Canada. Is their memory to be treated in this way? We have to get busy and get our laws changed, make them good for something for the majority of the people and not just for a company like the Canadian National Railway, which is the child of the government and therefore is actually the government.
It amounts to the fact that we have dictatorship in Canada. We are not a free country. We are not a democratic country any more. We have a dictatorship here, and this dictatorship is conducted by crown corporations like the C.N.R. As that lady said in her letter to the Journal, "If you think you have rights in Canada, try dealing with the Canadian National Railways". Parliament has to do something to amend the laws, to make it mandatory that things like this cannot be undertaken without consultation with and approval by the whole of parliament. This has happened because some half baked act was pushed through parliament to make it easy for somebody to destroy private enterprise and take over from private enterprise.
I just do not know what this country is coming to. I do not want anybody to think that I am blaming the present government for this situation, because this was in effect before it came into power. But I do blame the members of the government for forcing the new railway legislation through parliament without due consideration being given to the amendments to that act, bill-I have other words for what it has turned out to be. I blame members of the government for refusing to accept the amendments that were proposed from all parts of the opposition in the House of Commons. When we in the opposition try to amend government legislation we are not doing it for our own good. We are doing it with the interests of the people of Canada at heart.
I think my time is almost used up, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank you for allowing me to get this off my chest. I am terribly worried about the situation in this country of ours. I know that the government is also involved with the Expropriation Act. To realize this, all you have to do is to hear about the troubles that have arisen in the
4544	COMMONS
Expropriation of Farmlands by C.N.R. national parks, with the government trying to destroy the long term leases-


Mr. Laing:: Careful.


Frank John William Fane: O.K. Art-with the government trying to destroy the long term leases and the private ownership of property that has existed since before the parks were started. I refer hon. members to a speech on this subject made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) on May 15, 1967. I hope when I sit down, Mr. Speaker, you will see the hon. member for Bow River who I know is ready, waiting and willing to carry on from where I leave off.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: The
hon. member for Kootenay West. Is the hon. member rising to speak to the same grievance raised by the hon. member for Vegreville?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker; it is the same grievance. Mr. Speaker, I support very faithfully the ideal put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane). It is not very often that I find myself in support of the same things as the hon. member for Vegreville, because I am a progressive, I believe he has a grievance which is a genuine one, and one which affects many farmers across this country in respect of expropriations by crown corporations and other organizations. I know, so far as my own constituency is concerned, that in a minor way, many farmers have had the same complaints he has mentioned concerning the railroads, and other bodies.
I should like to give an example. I admire people who stick up for their rights. I was visiting in a rather isolated part of my constituency in which a lady lives who came from England about 65 years ago. She lives alone on a cattle ranch which she has had for over 50 years. She also has quite an area to timber. One day she discovered that a large logging company was constructing a road through her property without her permission. This was three or four miles from her home, .on her own property. She immediately felled a tree across the road with a chain saw. The following morning when the men came from the camp she was sitting on the fallen log with a rifle in her hand. She said, "If any of you try to cross this road I will shoot." The men were sympathetic to her cause. The manager had to come in by helicopter. She
[Mr. Fane.I
DEBATES	November 21, 1967
was not concerned about the matter of compensation, but she was concerned about having her rights recognized. That company signed in a legal and proper manner an agreement to cross her property.
There are many instances such as this, but in most cases the people are afraid to stand up to the crown corporations, the railroads or organizations of that sort. I fully appreciate the grievance of the hon. member, because this type of thing has been brought to my attention a good number of times by the people whom I have the honour to represent. This is something which is of particular concern in the province of British Columbia. The farmers organizations there are trying to get the government of British Columbia to pass an act in respect of the expropriation of property, so that there will be a proper procedure and so that the farmers will receive adequate compensation for the damages they suffer.
This is a subject which should be the concern of both the federal and provincial governments. I suggest that one way to meet this problem is to have it placed on the agenda of the next federal-provincial agricultural conference, so that it can be discussed by the ministers of agriculture from the various provinces. I think this is a step which should be taken. First of all, it would help to point out the importance of this matter and would provide an opportunity to obtain the views of the various agricultural ministers across Canada. If this were to be done, a notice of intention should be sent to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the provincial federations of agriculture, the farmers unions, and so on, so that they will know what is going to happen, and so that they will have an opportunity to present their views to the provincial ministers before they come to Ottawa for this conference. If this were done I believe there would be co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in an effort to bring about similar legislation across the country to cover the matter the hon. member for Vegreville has mentioned.
I should like to deal with another matter which is related to this. It is a similar problem. I am referring to the question of hunting and fishing on private property.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That has nothing to do with it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Oh, yes; this has to do with the expropriation of eminent rights of the owners. This situation has developed in recent
November 21, 1967	COMMONS
years. Generally speaking, farmers who have many acres of land on which there are game welcome persons who wish to hunt on their property, provided their rights are respected by the hunters and provided no damage is incurred. This is a problem which also has concerned provincially the British Columbia federation of agriculture. I believe it is a matter which should concern the minister. I am sure he knows all about it and is interested in the matter. I hope we will hear from him on this subject.
In the province of British Columbia there has been considerable co-operation between the game associations, the rod and gun clubs and the farmers. These organizations in some cases agree to undertake to police the hunting and fishing on private property. What is really required, however, in this country is a national code of ethics for this purpose. I suggest that this is another matter which should be placed on the agenda of the annual federal-provincial agricultural conference, in an effort to see whether something can be done about getting general acceptance of a national code of ethics for hunting on private property. If this were done, it might be possible to have legislation passed by all the provincial governments in this regard.
These matters have intensified throughout the years. I appreciate what the hon. member for Vegreville said, because I have had a good deal of experience in my own riding in respect of expropriation without adequate compensation, without notice and with a complete disregard for the rights of the person who held the property. I believe these matters can be satisfactorily settled if they are approached in the manner I have suggested; that is, by placing them on the agenda for the federal-provincial agricultural conference, and by giving the organizations ample notice of the meeting so that they will have an opportunity to present their views to the provincial ministers before they come here, or to the federal ministers concerned. I am confident that if we can develop this sort of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, and the owners of the land concerned, through their organizations, we will be able to do something to cure the evils mentioned by the hon. member for Vegreville.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. member for Vegreville in respect of his grievance concerning expropriation. In my introductory remarks, however, I should like
DEBATES	4545
Expropriation of Farmlands by C.N.R. to say that in order to develop the country we must have reasonable expropriation laws. Whether we wish to build a trans-Canada highway or a railroad we must have the right, according to the law, placed in the crown, in the federal government, or in the provincial government or at the municipal level, to be able to expropriate private property.
I think the first question which should be asked is: What is the problem, and why have the hon. member for Vegreville and other members risen tonight to make some complaints to the crown in this regard? I think the first thing we must do is re-examine the rights in respect of expropriation. I have made several speeches on this subject. I must come to the conclusion that the law on expropriation has made the crown-the state -all powerful. Whether the expropriation is on behalf of the railways, the Department of Public Works or any other department of the crown, it always seems to me that they should have that right, but that the right should be spelled out very carefully in the law for a public work or for some other reason. If the crown is unable to make a proper settlement with the individual in question, then it should be the crown that should have to commence the action and obtain the evidence at the expense of the crown, or at the expense of the railway as the case may be.
9 (9:40 p.m.)
I am quite certain that if this was somewhat legalistically automated we could save a lot of the expenses to the individual. Sometimes we overlook those matters raised in the Bill of Rights, particularly in section 1. I am one of the members of the House of Commons and of the legal profession who believe the courts have shied away from the Bill of Rights and have failed to give the proper interpretation intended by parliament. It is interesting to note that the Bill of Rights was approved by all members of this house when it was passed on August 10, 1960. Let me read what is in this part to which I refer and which I think we sometimes overlook. It reads as follows:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property-
November 21, 1967
4546	COMMONS
Expropriation of Farmlands by C.N.R.
We are here dealing with the enjoyment of property, and I intend to list a few things I think should be done. First of all the right to expropriate by the crown should be spelled out. The courts assessing the amount of compensation in respect of expropriation should be those courts in the provinces in which the land is situated, probably the Supreme Court Trial Division or the Court of Queen's Bench in the province. The cost and the onus of bringing on litigation should be on the crown. Citizens would then be able to come to the courts with their realtors or appraisers and present their cases at very little expense.
In the 15 minutes left at my disposal I should like to deal with a subject I have brought to the attention of this house on other occasions, and I am happy to see that the minister responsible is in the house. Perhaps he realized that I intended to speak tonight in reference to national parks in Canada. I have already set out what I feel should be done in respect of the expropriation laws. Nothing has happened in Canada to equal what has happened in reference to the taking over of property of individuals in national parks.
Land is owned in national parks in four ways. Some land is owned in fee simple, although there is very little of that. Some land is owned on the basis of 99 year leases. Some land is owned on the basis of leases in perpetuity, generally for 42 years with the right to renew the 42 year lease and with the right to renew again. Some land is owned with a 42 year lease and 21 year renewal. Some land is owned on the basis of other short term leases. This government in recent years has run slipshod over the rights of the occupants of Banff, Jasper and other national parks in Canada.


An hon. Member:: And Waterton.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and someone says Waterton. I have had something to do with these matters as a member of parliament because Banff national park is located in the constituency of Bow River which I represent. This government has been able to use its propoganda machine through the newspapers of this country, which is a source which will soon dry up, to build up this wilderness theory as though it was something new. Every Canadian and every member of parliament, no matter where he lives-in a national park or outside-believes that parks were established in Canada to preserve nature in its natural surroundings. However, in order for people to enjoy these parks they must 

come to them and they must have facilities. They must be able to find motels, hotels and other such accommodation. At the present time there are 1,700,000 people visiting Banff national park annually. This park does not have the accommodation to meet that demand.
In the last while we have heard a great deal from the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). Over the years he has been just as critical as I in reference to the government's action in respect of the national parks, and what is being done to the people who serve the tourists. I dealt with this problem on November 18, 1966. At that time I said very much what I intend to say tonight, only along different lines. I referred to the misrepresentation on the part of the crown and the duress used to get leases cancelled and take property rights from people. What did the member for Medicine Hat say on that occasion? He said this:
The minister may say we have camping grounds. I took photographs of those grounds last year; they are good grounds, but when you have halt a mile of cars lining up waiting to get in-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree. X have seen that.
Although he spoke tonight with great affection in support of the Liberal party, as a new member, when dealing with this subject he said that he agreed with me and had observed the same things.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) came to Calgary and met in the Palliser hotel with various Liberals in different positions in the city of Calgary. They pointed out the abuses that had taken place in respect of individuals in national parks under the present minister. I am sure if Senator Cameron was a member of this house rather than of the other place he would be able to put this grievance to the house more ably than I-and he is a Liberal senator. At that time the Prime Minister said the government was going to give these people a fair and just hearing.
A standing committee of this House of Commons visited Banff for two days and Jasper for one day. The government has taken the position that these leases in perpetuity, in respect of motels, restaurants, hotels and other establishments, were not granted legally to these people who have been serving the tourists for years. When the members of the committee were in Banff they discovered a beautiful brief which set out the crown's position. I have a photostat
November 21, 1967	COMMONS
of page 6 of this volume, in which we find this most unusual statement:
On normal renewals of perpetual renewal leases, the department can probably be forced (legally) to issue renewal leases also containing the perpetual renewal clause, i.e. on a normal renewal of a perpetual renewal lease we cannot legally force the lessee to take less.
It refers to something less than a perpetual lease and means less than what was originally granted.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat suggested today that we ought to do our homework. I have done mine. I went back to the motel in Jasper. When we had the deputy minister before the committee I asked him about this statement and he stated that this was the legal opinion given the department of northern affairs by the Department of Justice. I suggest to the minister tonight that his department has flaunted this legal opinion received from the Department of Justice.
I have dozens of letters dealing with the sale of a motel or other property by one individual to another on the basis of one of these leases in perpetuity. The individual writes the department for consent to transfer the lease in question. The department delays answering for a number of weeks, to frustrate the sale, and finally answers by saying they will agree to the sale and the transfer if the purchaser will accept a 42 year lease and give up the lease in perpetuity. The brief filed with the standing committee by the department of northern affairs in Banff set out this legal opinion it received from the Department of Justice, to the effect that it could not refuse to renew these leases. This is misleading of the worst type and duress of the worst kind, because it is carried on in the name of the Queen.
I have in my hand a letter to Mr. H. Lloyd MacKay, barrister and solicitor in Banff, dated March 13, 1967 which reads as follows:
RE: Lot 13, Block 21, Banff townsite,
John Herbert Owen-lease.
Reference is made to your letter dated February 7, 1967 concerning the above subject matter.
I am advised that it is beyond the statutory power of the minister to grant a lease on land in Banff National park, which in effect, would be renewable in perpetuity. This provision is in essence what was requested in Mr. T. B. McMeekin's letter of July 22, 1966.
Therefore, the department is only prepared to grant Mr. Owen a new lease in the form offered in the general superintendent's letter to Mr. Owen, dated June 14, 1966.
This letter is signed by E. H. Weeres, townsite manager, Banff national park. He was referring to a 42 year lease. That letter
DEBATES	4547
Expropriation of Farmlands by C.N.R. is one of the many examples with reference to what is happening to the land in the Banff national park.
When the minister appeared before the committee I told him that people cannot get money in order to finance their enterprises because even the Industrial Bank will not lend them money, and nobody else will do so when there is no security of tenure. How can these people hope to serve the 1,700,000 people who are coming into Banff? Surely we need American dollars in this country at this time, particularly when the pound sterling has been devalued and even the United States dollar is being questioned by France, as I heard tonight. I believe there is even some question as to our Canadian dollar. The best way of obtaining American dollars is through the tourist industry, which is one of the greatest industries in Canada.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I do not have much time to place my case before the house because not much time was left to me. However, I should like to quote from the Edmonton Journal which has been not too unfriendly to the government, as the minister knows.


Arthur Laing: I wish the hon. member would give me five minutes to answer him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister can have five minutes to speak on this matter when he brings in his legislation. I must speak now. I see the minister has a bill on the order paper. He is going to set up a special corporation. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing? Mr. George Steer, Q.C., one of the leading lawyers in Edmonton, who has been a Liberal all his life and has held positions in the Liberal party, met the citizens of Banff and Jasper and said to the minister in their presence that the minister is acting illegally and contrary to the advice of the Department of Justice. Yet, in spite of that he is breaking the law and is using duress and misrepresentation of the worst kind to browbeat the owners in Banff and Jasper.
The minister is asking for five minutes to answer me, he had 25 minutes when he was in the committee. In fact, I think he had most of the morning. He did the talking and we tried to answer the questions.


An hon. Member:: What did he say?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He never said very much. There is one thing he will not do. He has been invited to speak to the council in Banff. He refused, and when he met some members
November 21, 1967
4548	COMMONS
Expropriation of Farmlands by C.N.R. of the organization, he browbeat them and said to them that unless they apologized to him for their remarks he would not listen to their grievances. What kind of minister is he? The minister knows as well as I do that he has used duress and misrepresentation to browbeat the people in Banff and Jasper. Even more than that, he has had his own propaganda boys writing articles to back up his position.


Arthur Laing: Will the hon. member answer one question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, because I have only five minutes. I will listen to the minister when he brings in his legislation, which is to make legal what he is now doing.


Arthur Laing: I will tumble the hon. member's arguments with one question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have the floor and I intend to keep it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I should like to read from the Edmonton Journal, and I know the minister is most anxious that I read it. It reads in part as follows:
This newspaper has said repeatedly that Mr. Arthur Laing's national parks policy is not a valid policy so far as it governs commercial leases. Here's a case in point:
An Edmonton group planned a 77-unit motel at Jasper, assembled $450,000 in cash, arranged $550,000 in mortgage funds, obtained the parks department's approval of a site in Jasper town-then cancelled its plans. The reason given: no compensation when the lease expires. The money is still available; so is the building site. But until there is compensation for cancelled commercial leases, say the investors, they won't go into Jasper.
There is a shortage of facilities both in Jasper and in Banff, and the minister knows it. I saw this summer in July, and I have seen for five consecutive summers, even when we were in office, people lining up for a mile and a half to get into the camp grounds in Banff. I have heard from the R.C.M.P. in these areas that sometimes more than 100 or 200 visitors must leave Banff each day and drive over to Calgary, because they are unable to get any reservations in July and August. There is a great shortage of facilities, and the minister and his department know it. The fact is that nobody will put money into these parks except for certain "friends", and I wish I had more time to deal with these friends. Nobody will put money


into the parks to enable the people to build motels, hotels, restaurants and other facilities for the tourists.


Arthur Laing: I know now why the hon. member will not answer a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will listen to the minister when he brings in his legislation. I do not intend to waste any more time with him. On the face of it, this looks like pressure play. If the minister wishes to ask questions, let him ask Senator Cameron. Although Senator Cameron is a Liberal senator he went to the Prime Minister and told him that the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the worst minister who has ever headed that department. If the minister will not answer any questions, then I am prepared to answer them because I am presenting the true facts to the people in western Canada.
I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that he is afraid to meet these people from the parks. He does not dare meet them because, as I have said, he has used misrepresentation and duress to get the cancellation of leases which were granted by the crown in perpetuity. This was a sacred contract by the crown, and yet these leases in perpetuity were cancelled, and the people were told there was no consent to any transfer, unless they took a 42 year lease in place of the same. The minister knows exactly what happened. In fact, in Waterton in July and August signs were put up on restaurants saying "closed because of crown regulations by Arthur Laing". That is what met the American tourists in western Canada this year.
We have a real grievance. I can understand why the minister is upset. He does not want to hear the truth in this chamber because he has allowed his department to run rough-shod over the people who have served the tourists who bring American and other dollars into the Banff and Jasper national parks.


Arthur Laing: Will the hon. member now answer a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, Mr. Speaker, because I want to finish reading this article. It is now nearly ten o'clock. The minister will have time to speak on this matter when he brings in his legislation very soon. This is the club to end his good friend, Mr. Steer's lawsuit, and to test its validity. I have asked the minister whether he is ready to test his right,
November 21, 1987

even though he will not listen to the Department of Justice. Will he test his right in the Supreme Court of Canada and let the crown pay to find out whether the minister is right? In answer he told me that he had no intention of doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock it is my duty pursuant to paragraph 4(f) of section 56 to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the house. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: It being after ten o'clock, shall I rise and request leave to sit again at the next setting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: I wish to ask the government house leader what he intends to bring before the house tomorrow, Thursday, and Friday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will call the second reading of the capital punishment bill. For the remaining days of the week, we will call the Gold Mining Assistance Act; the Post Office Act; the Industrial Development Bank Act and the C.N.R. bill. These will be the items that will be called for the remainder of the week, but not necessarily in that order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being after ten o'clock we can do no further business
Business of the House
unless we have the agreement of the house. The hon. member might state what business he has in mind.


Michael Starr: Before the house rises, I want clarification of the answer given by the government house leader. When he enumerated the other pieces of legislation to follow the capital punishment bill, can we take it for granted he meant that after all the stages of the capital punishment bill had been completed, this other business would follow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would reserve the right possibly to call any of these items on Thursday. At present I hope we will be able to continue with the capital punishment bill, but I am not certain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with the
debate on the capital punishment bill tomorrow, I wonder if between now and tomorrow the house leader would canvass the possibility of getting agreement to postpone private members hour, if there is a possibility of concluding the second reading by six o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I will be glad to consider that suggestion.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS BILL OF RIGHTS-TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO CONFERENCE

John Ross Matheson: With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief explanation with regard to the papers that were tabled by me at six o'clock this evening on behalf of the Prime Minister. I should like to explain that the premier of British Columbia has requested that his reply to the invitation to attend the federal-provincial conference on a constitutional bill of rights for Canada, which he accepted, be not tabled, as he regards its contents as confidential.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
November 21, 1967


[Stage Direction]
November 14, 1967.
The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada,
Government of Canada,
Ottawa.
Confidential
Mr. Prime  Minister@: My colleagues and I have taken cognizance of your letter of August 15, 1967 proposing that a special federal-provincial conference be held early next year to consider the possibility of giving Canada a constitutional Bill of rights providing especially a wider definition of and greater guarantees for the official languages.
Quebec has long been wishing that the rights of French in Canada be enlarged and that their observance be guaranteed by the constitution. Consequently, we can only rejoice at any initiative likely to produce such a result and I can assure you of the active participation of our government in the conference you propose.
However, I wish to draw to your attention that the changes that you seem to advocate will be difficult to implement unless the whole constitutional question is considered and resolved. Indeed, it is difficult to see how such a Bill of rights could be included in our constitution before the latter is repatriated. The unfortunate experience of the Fulton-Favreau formula has shown that such repatriation cannot be effected until agreement is reached on the outlines of constitutional reform.
I must add that even if it were possible to guarantee even more fully the rights of French under the constitution, the basic problem concerning Canada's future would still be far from being solved.
Our government deems it necessary to discuss a Bill of rights within the framework of a comprehensive study of our constitutional structures, rather than as a preliminary step to that study, as implied by your letter. Fortunately, the Confederation of tomorrow Conference which will be held in Toronto at
the end of the month, will give us the opportunity to undertake such a comprehensive study, thus enabling us to consider both questions at the same time and to make the necessary parallels.
Finally, I point out that, pursuant to its election platform, our government intends to include in the Quebec constitution a charter stipulating the fundamental rights and essential freedoms of man. As stated in your letter of February 10 last, the provinces do have an obvious interest in the matter.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Johnson



GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR THE PREMIER ST. JOHN'S

[Stage Direction]
August 30, 1967.
Confidential
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, P.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you for your letter setting forth your thoughts on a special Conference to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada. As always, my colleagues and I will do anything within our power to assist you and you may count on our full co-operation in this matter. I stand ready to come to a conference whenever you should choose to call it.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely yours, Joseph R. Smallwood

[Stage Direction]
September 28th, 1967.
My dear Prime Minister:
I have received your letter of August 15th outlining your proposal for the establishment of a Constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada.
November 21, 1967
[Stage Direction]
I would expect the Legislative Assembly to convene in Prince Edward Island by mid-February, and I would, therefore, indicate my preference for a mid-January Conference along the lines suggested.
Yours very truly,
Alexander B. Campbell, Premier,
Prince Edward Island.
Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson, P.C., M.P.
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.

[Stage Direction]
August 25, 1967.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
In the absence of Hon. R. L. Stanfield I acknowledge your letter of August 15th concerning a special Federal Provincial Conference.
I think you may take it that Nova Scotia would be prepared to attend such a conference and that a date not later than early February would be satisfactory. A date later than early February would be likely to be inconvenient to Nova Scotia.
Yours sincerely,
G. I. Smith Acting Premier
The Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa, Canada

[Stage Direction]
H. J. Clarke, general manager-directeur general, Toronto local time-heure locale


[Stage Direction]
Confidential
Toronto, Ontario, September 14, 1967.
My dear Prime Minister:
I have your letter of August 15, 1967. Certainly the Government of the Province of Ontario would be happy to meet to consider the possibilities of embodying a Bill of Rights in our Constitution.
I would be glad to meet with you, as you suggest, and I would suggest that some date in February of 1968 would be most convient.
Yours sincerely,
John P. Robarts
The Right Honourable L. B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Canada.


[Stage Direction]
August 26, 1967.
My dear Prime Minister:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of the 15th in regard to the holding of a special federal-provincial conference to consider the establishment of a constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada. I note that you are considering the holding of such a conference at a date in January or February next.
I shall consult my colleagues and write to you again shortly to let you know our prefer-
[Stage Direction]
November 21, 1967
ence as between the two months you have mentioned.
Yours sincerely,
Duff Roblin.
The Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, P.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
East Block,
Ottawa 4, Ont.


[Stage Direction]
September 4, 1967.
My dear Prime Minister:
Since writing to you on August 26th in regard to your suggestion that a special federal-provincial conference might be held to consider the establishment of a constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada I have had an opportunity of consulting my Cabinet colleagues.
It is our recommendation that the month of January would be most convenient for the Manitoba government in setting a date for the proposed federal-provincial conference.
Yours sincerely,
Duff Roblin.
The Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, P.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
East Block,
Ottawa 4, Ont.

[Stage Direction]
Room 226, Legislative Building October 4, 1967
The Right Honourable L. B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
OTTAWA, Canada.
My dear Mr. Prime Minister:
Federal-Provincial Conference Canadian Constitutional Bill of Rights
I have your note in connection with the above. If you convene such a Conference, I will try to be present.
Failing this, we will send our Attorney General.
With kindest personal regards,
Yours sincerely,
W. Ross Thatcher.

[Stage Direction]
September 26th, 1967.
Confidential
Right Honorable L. B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
My colleagues and I have had an opportunity to consider carefully the contents of your letter of August 15 th in which you propose a conference early in 1968 to explore the possibility of establishing a constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada. We are much interested in such a conference and favor a date as early in January as possible.
It might be helpful if I indicated to you at this time our general thinking on this important matter. We agree fully with your observation that "the traditional rights and liberties of citizens are maintained at as high a level in Canada as in any country of the world." This fact, in our view, minimizes the practical need for a constitutional Bill of Rights in that it will do little more than confirm within the Constitution itself a fact of Canadian life that already exists and which is in little, if any, danger of being challenged.
The entrenchment of these unchallenged rights in the Constitution itself has a number of far-reaching implications which in our view require the most serious consideration. In a sense it means circumscribing the parliamentary and legislative powers of the federal and the provincial governments in that the constitutional Bill of Rights would supersede the present right of Parliament and legislatures to legislate in this field.
It is doubtful under present circumstances if unanimity could be obtained for the proposition that such an overriding provision should be inserted into the Constitution. There also is the question of whether such an addition to the Constitution should precede the adoption of an amending procedure.
It is a matter of sincere regret that the amending procedure agreed to unanimously by the federal and provincial governments and endorsed by most of the provincial legislatures, was rejected by Quebec which province thereby prevented its enactment.
Consideration also should be given to the fact that a constitutional Bill of Rights raises the danger of subversive groups challenging society's right to call their actions into question even when they obviously are designed
November 21, 1967
[Stage Direction]
to undermine the foundations of our free and democratic way of life. The protection of society against flagrant abuses of fundamental rights is readily available as long as such rights gain their legal status through enactments of Parliament or the provincial legislatures. The situation would be very different if subversive elements could claim immunity from prosecution on the ground of an entrenched constitutional right.
In your letter you make specific reference to the question of language and the matter of language having an official status. In this matter it is our firm view that no attempt should be made to give official status to the French language by means of a constitutional provision other than the existing guarantee given to the Province of Quebec at the time of Confederation that French will be recognized, together with English, as an official language in Quebec.
The Government of Alberta does not accept the proposition that Confederation was a union of two races and two cultures. We hold the historic fact to be that Confederation was a union of provinces and that in the negotiations leading to Confederation the concept of the union being one of two races, two cultures and two languages was not a factor and certainly was in no sense a condition of the union.
The fallacious concept of relatively recent origin that Confederation was other than a union of provinces has done more to create divisions in Canada than it has to bring about national unity. The fact that almost one-third of Canadians are of neither English or French origin points up the serious disruptive long-range consequences which would result from designating French as a second national official language.
We, therefore, would be opposed to any amendment to the Constitution which would give further credence to a concept which we submit has no validity in history or in fact.
I make these observations at this time because I feel in all fairness you should know the considered opinion of the various provinces when assessing the desirability and possible value of the type of conference you have proposed.
Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) Ernest Manning Premier.
This letter also sent to Premier of Quebec.
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, November 1, 1967.
My dear Premier,
Needless to say that I am aware of the circumstances which have kept you occupied lately and that I understand quite well why you have been unable to answer immediately my letters of August 15 and September 27.
In those letters, I invited your government as well as those of all the other provinces to a federal-provincial conference whose object would be to consider the principle and terms of a constitutional bill of rights. Most provinces have already answered and I would be quite pleased if you were now in a position to let me know your opinion.
We would like to hold that conference early in 1968, which seems generally acceptable to the other premiers. May I expect to hear from you in the near future?
Yours truly (Signed) L. B. Pearson
Hon. Louis J. Robichaud,
Premier of New Brunswick,
Parliament Bldgs.,
Fredericton, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Similar letters sent to the Premiers of Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in English and to the Premiers of Quebec and New Brunswick in French.
Ottawa, September 27, 1967. My dear Premier:
You may recall that following the discussion I had with you and the Premiers of the other Provinces at my house on July 5th, I wrote you on August 15th to propose and invite you to participate in a Federal-Provincial Conference on a Canadian Constitutional Bill of Rights to be convened early in 1968. I have already received a number of replies but before proceeding further with arrangements for this important meeting, I would appreciate having at an early opportunity an
[Stage Direction]
November 21, 1967
indication of your response to the detailed proposals contained in my letter.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
L. B. Pearson
The Honourable L.-J. Robichaud,
Premier of the Province of New Brunswick,
Parliament Buildings,
Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Similar letter sent to all Provincial Premiers in English and to the Premiers of Quebec and New Brunswick in French.
Confidential
August 15th, 1967.
My dear Premier:
You will recall that, in the course of the discussion I had with you and the Premiers of the other provinces following our lunch together at my house on July 5th, I said I would be writing to each of you about my proposal to hold a special Federal-Provincial Conference to consider the possibility of establishing a constitutional Bill of Rights for Canada. I had referred earlier to this possibility in the House of Commons on May 10th. I have now discussed the matter further with my Colleagues. We believe that a conference on a Bill of Rights could be a most constructive step in working toward the kind of modification in the constitution of Canada in the field of fundamental rights for all Canadians that seems clearly to be necessary as we move into the second century of our federal existence.
At the present time, the traditional rights and liberties of citizens are maintained at as high a level in Canada, I am sure, as in any country of the world. One cannot, however, but be aware of the fact that the formal guarantees of these rights and liberties are not endowed with the full constitutional sanction that seems to be desirable. The Canadian Bill of Rights passed in 1960 emphasizes the legal rights of citizens in respect of life, liberty, security of the person and so forth and also states a number of the basic political rights, including freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. It constituted as much protection in the matters it dealt with as could be given at the federal level without
constitutional amendment. However it is, of course, statutory and has therefore no force against the possibility of future action by Parliament. Obviously, as a federal statute it is not binding in any way on Provincial Legislatures.
The federal Bill of Rights of 1960 provides for equality of all citizens before the law and has other guarantees against discrimination. Most provinces also have anti-discrimination laws covering employment and other matters. These egalitarian rights are, as in the case of political and legal rights, not protected in any formal constitutional manner. So far as economic rights are concerned, few have been enunciated in any legislation in Canada and in the society of today it is worth considering whether they require some form of definition and guarantee.
Beyond the rights to which I have referred, which could, perhaps, be regarded as basic for any society of free people, we have to consider rights that are special to a country like Canada, which was founded on two distinct linguistic and cultural groups. To refer only to one matter, I think we have in the last few years become aware, in all parts of Canada, that language has a special importance as the instrument through which the cultural identity of a people is preserved and developed. We have not, I think, adequately considered whether, and, if so, what, constitutional consequences should flow from this fact. At the present time, the provisions in the British North America Act on language are extremely limited. I think we should consider whether we need to provide a broader definition and more extensive guarantees in respect of the official languages.
This brief outline of some of the matters that have to be considered will indicate how important and basic a discussion of a Bill of Rights could be for any future examination or our constitutional framework in a more general way. If we can achieve agreement on essential rights and on the way to define and protect them in all parts of Canada, I think we shall have made the most important single step that is required for the achievement of a satisfactory constitutional framework.
When we spoke on July 5th, I said I would suggest that the conference be either late in 1967 or early in 1968. On a matter as fundamental as this, it may be difficult to have adequate preparation in a matter of weeks. I am wondering, therefore, whether a meeting quite early in 1968 would meet with general convenience. It would be most helpful if you
November 21, 1967
[Stage Direction]
could let me know whether a date in January or February would suit from your point of view and, if so, whether you have any particular preference.
What I have in mind is a meeting for a few days in the first instance of myself with you and your fellow Premiers along with the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General. I would visualize that, after our initial conference, there might have to be further meetings of the Minister of Justice and the
Attorneys General. I would hope that those sessions would lead to a further definitive conference later in the year at which decisions on substance and method could be taken.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) Lester B. Pearson
The Honourable Louis J. Robichaud, Q.C., Premier of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, New Brunswick.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 22, 1967