1967-11-30

[Stage Direction]
Seventh, eighth and ninth reports of standing committee on transport and communication-Mr. H. Pit Lessard.
[Editor's note: Text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister inform the house when he will table the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and will he be making a statement at that time?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I received the report from the commissioners yesterday. I announced this to the cabinet this morning and arranged for copies of the report to be circulated to the ministers, so we could have a look at it and exchange views on it at the beginning of the week. I hope to table the report next Tuesday and at that time to make a short statement.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with reference to the vote in the United Nations last week. Why did the Canadian representatives abstain from voting on the motion to seat the Peoples' Republic of China instead of supporting that motion, as did the representatives of Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: My hon. friend has obviously been reading the Globe and Mail this morning in which the same point is made with the same lucidity and precision of my hon. friend's question.
The reason for the abstention was that in adopting the procedure followed last year, this seemed to us the wisest course to pursue in view of our policy, which is that mainland China should be admitted to the United Nations but that Formosa should not be expelled. A resolution was put forward by a number of countries calling for the seating of mainland China and the expulsion of Formosa. We could not agree to the expulsion of Formosa, but this resolution did meet part of our policy, namely that mainland China should be admitted. Because the resolution met part of our policy we therefore abstained. For this reason, and because it rejected another part of our policy, we ourselves did not put forward a resolution: because after canvassing the matter it was clear that a resolution in our terms would not gather much support.
So for the reasons I gave last year and which I reiterated in this house only last week, we followed the course pursued last year. It must be clear that we took the position that mainland China should be admitted to the United Nations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government of Canada professes to be in favour of seating mainland China and retaining the seat of Taiwan in the assembly, may I ask why the Canadian representatives did not move this proposition as an amendment to the motion?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I have just
explained that after canvassing the situation we were convinced that to move such a resolution in the form of an amendment would not gather any support. That, as my hon. friend knows from his experience at the United Nations, is not a wise course to follow.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: In the light of the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs today, as well as those made on many previous occasions,

November 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry when may we expect the Canadian government to give diplomatic recognition to the government of communist China?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the Prime Minister explained some months ago, this is a matter involving an appreciation by Canada of the situation in China, among other circumstances. The hon. member will appreciate that events in mainland China during the last year do not fully meet the criteria of recognition by one regime of another. As to the future, that will depend, among other circumstances, on events.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In the light of the other circumstances described by the minister does he not think diplomatic recognition might bring some stability to the government of mainland China?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is an argumentative question.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Minister of Industry?
Does the government intend to announce the enforcement of security standards in order to protect tires against blow-outs at high speeds?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that this question does not seem to be so very urgent and that it could easily be put on the order paper.
{English]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: In
view of recent reports, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the house whether a Greek-Turkish accord has been reached on the Cyprus issue, or whether satisfactory progress is being made toward that objective?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been a definite improvement in the Cyprus situation. I think I can say the parties are approaching agreement in principle on the contentious and 
immediate issues. However, there are some details to be worked out. The representative of the United States has had several long discussions with the head of the government of Cyprus. There are further consultations under way. I hope that before too many hours will have expired we may receive further definite indication of progress toward a settlement in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the resignation of Mr. McNamara as secretary of defence in the United States, and in view of the widespread concern as to the effect of this on the war in Viet Nam, could the minister inform the house whether the government has made even more urgent representations to Washington that this should not mean an escalation of the war in Viet Nam?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: On behalf of the many members of this house of Scottish extraction and therefore, momentarily, a self appointed spokesman for one of the two great founding races of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: -I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention this session to introduce legislation which would eliminate the odious anomaly whereby the house sits on the feast day of the patron saint of one of these two great races, while on the festive day of the other we adjourn.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We on this side of the house are paying a very special tribute to the patron saint of Scotland, Saint Andrew, by bringing down a budget today.


John Angus MacLean: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is bringing down a supplementary budget on St. Andrew's day in the hope that some of the Scottish thrift and capability in financial affairs will brush off on the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
November 30, 1967


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Scot I want to say it will give me great delight this evening to be able to display those virtues of thrift, of caution and of prudence that are so characteristic of people of my race.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Norihumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the figures made available by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showing that there has been no increase whatever in industrial productivity in Canada during the past 12 months, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to indicate to the house and the country what he and his department intend to do to overcome this serious situation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the hon. member on a number of previous occasions, there are a great many programs of the Department of Industry, as well as of other departments, having as their principal objective the increase in productivity of the Canadian industrial machine. I think it would take much longer to elaborate all of them, involving a general review of government programs, than a statement on motions would permit.


Mr.   Kees@: As a supplementary question, would the minister take an appropriate opportunity in the near future to make information on these programs available-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -because obviously they are not having the desired effect at the present time; and does he not think the time has arrived'-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -for him and his department, which costs $150 million to operate, to do something constructive?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last night on the English network of the C.B.C., while he was being interviewed-and I congratulate him on his answers to the questions, since he spoke as a true Canadian-the Prime Minister said he favoured the creation of a federal district. Is the government now taking measures to meet the authorities concerned so as to implement this project of a federal district?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the matter with the two provinces that would be concerned, and we would also have to discuss it with the municipalities that would be involved.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, will this matter be referred in any way for discussion by a committee of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would think that would be appropriate at the right time, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that a part of Hull will be included in this federal district, does the Prime Minister intend to consult the provincial authorities on the establishment of this national capital district?
[English1


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I have just said that, Mr. Speaker. That would be essential.



EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE ABOLITION On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Would he kindly advise the house whether consideration has been given, or is being given at the present time, to the complete abolition of the emergency measures organization, and any financial

November 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry assistance to the provinces involved in this type of program?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the position and functions of the emergency measures organization are currently under review. I think it would be wrong, certainly at this juncture, to contemplate the complete abolition of those functions. I think we will always have to carry on with contingency planning against emergencies.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a supplementary question, would the minister advise whether any reduction contemplated in this organization and its programs is for budgetary reasons?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if there is to be any reduction in the functions of this organization it will be because they have a lower priority than some other rather more urgent projects.
CTranslation1



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether it is his intention to place on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference the resolutions agreed to by the Estates General of the province of Quebec over the week-end?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received urgent representations from postal truck drivers in Vancouver who have been denied employment because they do not live in the Vancouver postal area, even though they have been discharging these duties for years? If so, what steps are being taken to correct this injustice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that the urgency of the matter is not readily apparent.


Grant Deachman: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FURTHER LEGAL OPINIONS AS TO OFF-SHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this question to the Prime Minister. On November 8, with reference to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on off-shore rights, I asked the Prime Minister if he would advise the house whether it is the intention of the government to seek further opinions from the court with reference to off-shore rights as they affect other provinces. The Prime Minister said the matter was under study and that he would be reporting to the house in due course. Is he ready now to make this report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I hope to do so early next week.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF OUTLOOK CONFERENCE On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this question to the Minister of Agriculture. I apologize for not giving him written notice, but I did communicate orally with his parliamentary secretary. In view of the interest on the part of all parties in this house in the problems of the farmers and rural dwellers, would the minister consider referring the subjects discussed at the annual federal-provincial outlook conference to the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the outlook conference in its make-up is a dominion-provincial conference. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for me to submit their findings under this format to the committee. Their report, however, is a public document and, since it is a public document, I feel very certain the committee would have every freedom to study its content if it so wished.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the question the minister was asked with regard to the agriculture committee. A few days ago I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether we could have referred to the committee the report of the Economic Council of Canada on ARDA, P.F.R.A. and M.M.R.A. and their effectiveness. Can the
November 30, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES
minister now report to the house whether he will have that report referred to the committee?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether the agriculture committee would be the proper forum to which the report of these good ladies should be referred, but certainly I shall be glad to take it up with the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development and give the hon. gentleman's suggestion every consideration.

SUGAR BEETS-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPORT PRICE On the orders of the day:


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) inquired about the subsidy to be paid to Canadian producers of sugar-beets for the 1966 crop.
The Agricultural Stabilization Board has decided to set the total amount to be paid at $4.83 per standard ton, including interim instalments paid the producers at the begin-ing of the year. Cheques will be mailed to eligible producers as soon as the final data have been received from the processors who have been advised of the amount to be paid. The cheques should be ready for mailing before mid-December, provided the processors do not delay in sending us the necessary information. As announced on April 7, 1966, the support price for the 1966 sugar-beet crop will be $14.35 per standard ton.



INQUIRY AS TO SIGNING OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence possibly the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance may have the information. This being November 30, the last day the international grains arrangement will be left open in Washington for the signatures of the various countries mentioned on page 43, article VI of the convention, could the Prime Minister inform the house whether all nations involved have signed the convention and whether it will be accepted to go into effect July 1, 1968.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I shall be glad to check into that and answer the question tomorrow. I understand that my colleague has an answer.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I might answer
immediately, Mr. Speaker. All signatories to the Kennedy round agreement on grains have signed both conventions of the international grains arrangement or have indicated their intention to do so before the deadline of November 30.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of fears of further lay-offs by the railways which have shaken Moncton and the Atlantic provinces, will the Prime Minister see that a top level meeting is convened immediately between the government and the railways to determine where this whole thing stops and starts in so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned; and will he make a report to parliament in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this matter with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport immediately.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I did not give him notice as this matter came to my attention just a few moments ago, but I believe it falls within his administrative responsibility. Is the government of Canada giving consideration to cutting out the international services of the C.B.C.? If so, in light of the fact that this service constitutes the voice of Canada to the outside world, will the government think again before taking this step?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this question.

November 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. lady on the treasury benches. I wonder whether she could advise the house, or at least allay the fears that have arisen in the last day or two, about a possible cut-back in the C.B.C. international service as a result of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was asked earlier this afternoon.
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of
State): In any event, Mr. Speaker, I think I would obtain a copy of the text of the Prime international service is a matter for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, not my department



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister say whether a decision has been made in respect of the recommendations of the Gill committee for the inclusion of hospital employees under unemployment insurance?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to implement any of the recommendations of the Gill committee in order to provide coverage for hospital employees. It is now open to hospitals to apply to the commission for coverage. Employees in several hospitals are covered.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Secretary of State for External Affairs was good enough to say he would obtain a copy of the text of the Prime Minister's remarks made in London at Mansion House and a transcript of the press conference of the president of France held the same day. I understand that the text of the Prime Minister's remarks has been circulated. Is the minister now in a position to make available the transcript of the press conference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lafulippe (Compion-Fronienac)r
Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Could he tell the house whether it is his intention to adhere to the recommendations of arbitrator Picard concerning the port of Montreal?
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Parliament has already accepted the changes proposed in the report.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday afternoon the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke inquired as to conditions on the docks in Montreal. I was able to give an interim report only at that time. I have since gone into the facts and find that the longshoremen have returned to work. There were some 60 gangs out yesterday, approximately the same number or more than on the day before. Work is progressing at an encouraging level as compared with the work level that existed at the time the Picard report was handed down.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obviously great contribution to the strengthening of confederation made by the confederation of tomorrow conference held in Toronto, would the Prime Minister consider it appropriate to send a telegram of appreciation to the prime minister of Ontario?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already telephoned, at lunchtime, the chairman of the conference to congratulate him on the work of the conference.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he might take a leaf out of the book of the proceedings of the confederation of tomorrow conference and hold the federal-provincial conference on the bill of rights, which
November 30, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
I believe is planned for January, partly in Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans
public so the public may get a view of the Affairs): No decision has yet been reached, important issues involved?	Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these of course are matters which will be decided by the conference. I appreciate the point made by my hon. friend.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the Prime Minister also to consider the procedure of the confederation of tomorrow conference whereby members of opposition parties were invited to attend as observers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They were invited, no doubt, because the conference was held in public.


George Harris Hees: When sending his wire of congratulation to Premier Robarts regarding the results of the conference just concluded in Toronto, will the Prime Minister also congratulate him on his great initiative and statesmanship in calling the conference in the first place?


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In discussing the arrangements for this conference with the provincial premiers, would the Prime Minister also take up the possibility of the idea of all members of this house being permitted to attend?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, provided we could get a room large enough.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister?
Since he called up the chairman of the Toronto conference to congratulate him, can he tell us if he got in touch also with the chairman of the Estates General?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has a decision yet been reached on the request for further interim increases in disability pensions and war veterans allowances pending the tabling of the commission and committee reports?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say whether progress has been made?


Mr. Teillel:: I can assure the hon. member that I am making progress.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaber-ry):: Mr. Speaker, because there has been a delay, my question becomes a supplementary question to those put by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).
As a matter of fact I wanted to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he can assure the house that he used fully his power of persuasion so that tonight's budget will include a major increase in the pensions and allowances paid to veterans.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that members of a criminal syndicate gang have been arrested in Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver, and this appears to be the first breakthrough in combating organized crime in Canada, would the Minister of Justice be prepared to make a statement on this matter? I did not have a chance to give him notice because this matter was brought to my attention when I came into the house. Perhaps the minister would make a statement tomorrow.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: am not aware of the facts, Mr. Speaker, and I will look into them before reporting.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would check at the same time into why the R.C.M.P. will not give any information to the news media with reference to this organized criminal syndicate.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, questions on the R.C.M.P. should be addressed to the Solicitor General.

November 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I put the question to the Solicitor General.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already put the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but the Minister of Justice referred it to his friend the Solicitor General. 1 wonder whether the Solicitor General would answer that question.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that the R.C.M.P. have been very active in this particular investigation, and if they did not make their activities public, it was in the public interest not to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs whom I would like to assist, as is my custom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would he inform the house concerning the world problems that he intended to discuss this morning at the external affairs committee, which had to adjourn because the Liberal members failed to attend?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the President of the Treasury Board. Has the government yet made its decision to increase the pensions of retired civil servants, as recommended by the joint committee on May 8?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not appropriate to get an answer to that question, Mr. Speaker?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer is the same as the one given last time; it is under consideration.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the junior member for Halifax asked me about the tenders for the new destroyer escorts. The tenders for these vessels were originally called for September 18, 1967. Subsequently, at the request of all bidders, an extension was granted to October 31, and consequent upon a second request for extension, until December 12. The tenders will now close on December 12.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Could the minister advise us of the direct or indirect share of Canada in the loans granted to Great Britain lately?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that question was put to me the other day, but I believe it is worth while clarifying the position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: No fresh obligation is laid upon the government of Canada to raise any money either by taxing or by borrowing for the purpose of giving support through the International Monetary Fund or through the Bank of Canada to the pound sterling. Exactly the same sort of transaction took place in 1962 when the International Monetary Fund and central banks around the world came to the support of the Canadian dollar. At that time no resources had to be put out to support the Canadian dollar. I do not expect that any resources of Canada will be needed to support the pound sterling. It has been represented, I believe, that somehow or other in my budget this evening I am going to be raising money for this purpose. I would like to deny that quite categorically.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question?
November 30, 1967

Could the Minister of Finance tell the house whether the alleged funds which the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) obtained lately in Europe under false pretences will be taxable after the budget this evening?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question related to the question I have already asked.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether Canadian currency will be needed precisely to guarantee, through the International Monetary Fund, the loans granted to England lately?


An hon. Member:: They are not loans.


Mitchell William Sharp: The transaction is as I
explained it, and I hope my hon. friend will understand and spread my explanation throughout the province of Quebec. I would like to add just this, that all the countries of the world who are members of the International Monetary Fund, including France, Germany, the United States and all the rest of the world, are standing behind the pound sterling as a means of promoting the international stability of the monetary system. I believe we should do this too. It will not require us to raise any fresh resources. We shall simply hold our reserves in one place rather than another.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since this is a debate, I do not think that the hon. member can-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Since the Minister of Finance and Receiver General denies that Canadian resources are needed for those loans to England, then could he tell us what is Canada's role?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I call the hon. member to order. This is a debate, since he is asking a third or fourth supplementary question, and the question is out of order.


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



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Can the minister advise the house on when he believes it will be possible to sign the agreement under the ARDA program with the province of Quebec?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the beginning of the hon. member's question.


James Russell Keays: Would the hon. minister tell the house when he expects to sign the agreement with the province of Quebec under ARDA?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the agreement between the province of Quebec and the federal government was signed in January or February of 1965. Negotiations between the two governments will soon begin as to an agreement concerning the development of the lower St. Lawrence territory and the Gaspe peninsula.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the hon. minister tell the house whether his department as well as that of the province of Quebec have made plans so as to conduct similar studies in other counties or areas of the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a very general question and the hon. member could easily place it on the order paper.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, November 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.- Mr. Pennell-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the house rose yesterday, the committee had stood the amendment to clause 3 as indicated in Hansard on page 4858 for Wednesday, November 29, and clause 4 of the bill was under consideration.
November 30, 1967

Amendment Respecting Death Sentence [English]
On clause 3-Transitional.


Mr, Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, when the
debate on this bill was adjourned at five o'clock yesterday afternoon I advised the house that I would take under consideration certain amendments which had been proposed to clause 3. I wish to advise the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, who proposed an amendment, and also the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre and Greenwood, that I did not lightly dismiss their suggestions. I wish too advise the house that together with my officials and the officials of the Department of Justice I gave lengthy consideration to these amendments. I also discussed with a senior official of the department of the attorney general for the province of Ontario the practical problems raised by the amendments. I understand that the same transitional provisions which are incorporated in clause 3 were used in 1961 when the house faced the same problem.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. May I ask hon. members to refrain from conversations or, if they have to converse, to do so in a lower voice.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The house faced the same problem at that time as we are facing today, and I wish to say sincerely and respectfully that I propose to follow the precedent set by the hon. member for Kamloops. It is a precedent which has been tried and proven. At the same time I recognize the possibility of some difficulties that were raised by hon. members. However, since I have such an excellent precedent before me I propose to follow it, and I respectfully ask the house to accept the clause as drafted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I hope I may be permitted to say that while I appreciate the tribute paid to me by the Solicitor General and through me to the draftsmen of that day, I am quite sure that if the provision should not work this time and if difficulties should arise the minister will accept the fact that it is because of his administration and not because of the drafting.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I accept what the hon. member for Kamloops has stated. If there is any praise to be handed out it should go to the officials, and if there is any blame I will accept it as the responsible minister.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the minister in seeing me earlier about this amendment. I recognize the difficulties which may arise in connection with it, and if the committee will give me permission I should like to state that I have the consent of my colleagues to withdraw the amendment I moved last night.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed by the committee that the amendment be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Solicitor General a question arising out of the statement he made a moment ago. Following the adoption of this procedure in 1961 were there any cases where a person's crime was dealt with under the former law to his disadvantage in the light of the improvement made in 1961? I have in mind the fact that at that time murder was divided into capital murder and noncapital murder. Were there any cases where the transitional provisions worked to the detriment of the accused?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am advised by my officials that they are not aware of any cases where the provisions worked to the detriment of the accused because of the transitional clause in the bill at the time. We propose to adopt the same procedure and to contact the attorneys general in the several provinces so that we can arrive at a date which we hope will avoid the necessity of any action being taken under clause 3(l)(a).


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, as the Solicitor General said yesterday, it is his hope that from the day this law is passed its letter and its spirit will be adhered to in all cases now pending.


Lawrence T. Pennell: That is my hope, Mr. Chairman.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the Solicitor General for taking the trouble to look into this matter carefully, and I would like to say that now he has decided to make no change we will not persist in this matter. If trouble arises, as it may well do, let the blame be on his own head for following the precedent set by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Fulion:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the amendment previously before the committee has now been withdrawn? If so, I should like to put another amendment before
November 30, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	4881
the committee having to do not so much with the working of the clause as it now stands but rather introducing a new provision.
I am quite sure that the amendment I intend to propose will be of interest to the hon. member for York-Humber and also to other members of the committee because it deals with the matter of compensation to innocent victims of a crime, a subject matter which I believe is one of the most urgent ones requiring consideration in connection with amendments to the Criminal Code. I think that this subject and consideration of the law of insanity as a defence to a criminal charge are two matters urgently requiring consideration and amendment.
Members of the committee will of course appreciate that it is not possible to compensate the victim of a murder, the dead man. But I do think that concern should be had for his family and any other persons dependent upon him. I believe it is only just and equitable that when a murderer has assets he should be required to compensate at least in part the family and dependants of his victim. o (3:20 p.m.)
I have always said I did not believe in citing the deterrent argument in support of my stand for the maintenance of capital punishment. I put it on another base. On the other hand, I do not believe that the deterrent argument has ever been disproved. I just do not think it is capable of proof one way or the other. As far as a case may be made for saying that the penalty formerly provided had a deterrent effect, the penalty has now, of course, disappeared. But I do not put this amendment forward so much on the basis of its possible deterrent effect, I put it forward on the basis of justice and equity, on much the same basis as I rested my position with regard to the retention of capital punishment generally.
The amendment speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman, so accordingly I will read it and then ask you to put it to the committee. I move:
That clause 3 be amended by renumbering the present subsection (3) as subsection (4) and by Inserting the following as subclause (3) thereof:
(3) When in any proceedings referred to in subsection (1) or (2) hereof, any person is convicted of the offence with which he is charged, the court shall, in addition to any other sentence imposed, and after first making inquiry as to the existence and material circumstances of any family or other dependants of the individual in respect of whose death such person has been convicted (hereinafter called the victim), and as to the existence and material circumstances of any family or other dependants of such convicted person and as to 27053-3081
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence
the material assets, if any, of such convicted person, make such order and award for the maintenance of the family or other dependants of the victim out of the assets of the convicted person as to the court shall seem Just and equitable under the circumstances disclosed by such inquiry.
It will be appreciated by the committee, Mr. Chairman, that what I am suggesting in this amendment is this. At the time the court is passing sentence on a criminal convicted of a crime which, but for the passage of this bill, would have subjected him to capital punishment, and which will now subject him to a sentence of life imprisonment, this provision requires the court to make inquiries, first, into the question whether the victim, the murdered person, left any family or other dependants. If so, the court makes inquiry into their circumstances and material assets with a view to establishing whether they are in need of assistance with respect to their proper maintenance.
The second branch of the inquiry would be this: Does the murderer have any family or other dependants and, if so, what are their circumstances? In my view it would not be right or just or equitable to punish the family or dependants of the murderer for an act for which they were not responsible by depriving them of their assets if those assets are limited. The purpose of this branch of the inquiry, therefore, is to find out what are the circumstances and needs of the family of the convicted person.
The third branch of the inquiry is, of course, whether the convicted person has any assets in fact and, if so, what they amount to and whether there is enough over and above the needs of his own family to provide for the needs and maintenance of the family of the victim. Then after making those inquiries the court would be empowered to make such order and award for the maintenance of the family and other dependants of the victim out of the assets of the convicted person as to the court shall seem just and equitable under the circumstances disclosed by that inquiry.
There is room here for the court to exercise proper equity in dividing the assets, if they are sufficient to be capable of division, between the family of the murderer and the family of the victim, or if there are only enough to provide for the family of the murderer and the court does not think it equitable to deprive his children of the means of maintenance, under those circumstances the court will make such order as justice and equity indicate is appropriate.
4882	COMMONS
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I am in sympathy with the spirit of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops and it is somewhat in keeping with section 628 of the Criminal Code which now makes provision for the making of an application for compensation for loss of or damage to property. However, the amendment as drafted leaves certain questions unanswered, such as how one determines whether or not a person is a dependant. The amendment does not set out whether it is to be a person aged 16 or under, and as presently drafted it would pose considerable administrative problems for a criminal court.
I can assure the committee that the matter is now under active consideration both by my department and the Department of Justice. Hon. members are also aware that several provinces have taken action in this field. I would therefore respectfully suggest that the matter be left for further action pending completion of the study of the officials in the Department of Justice and in my department. As I stated, the amendment would pose certain problems for the court. The court would have to refer to a definition section. We would also wish to consider compensation for victims of crimes other than murder.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, the members of the New Democratic party agree in spirit with the amendment set forth by the hon. member for Kamloops but like the Solicitor General we see many problems which would confront the court. During the emotional imnact of a murder trial it would be very difficult to discuss questions of compensation for the victim of the crime. The Solicitor General is quite correct in saying that the provision should also extend to the victims of other criminal offences. The motion put forward last week by the hon. member for York-Humber which was referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs should, I suggest, be studied fully, because I think the proper procedure would be to set up a compensation board which would determine the compensation to be paid to the innocent victims of criminal offences.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I think the hon. member for Kamloops would agree that most murderers have a few assets. To determine what compensation is to be paid to victims an inquiry would have to be set up to examine the murderer's assets and decide whether paying compensation to

DEBATES	November 30. 1967
the victim's family would deprive the murderer's family in any way and thereby place them in an awkward financial position. I think the state, rather than the murderer's family, should be responsible for compensation. I do not think the murderer's family ought to be penalized.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Broadview has brought to my attention a matter that the hon. member for York-Humber has before the house. I think it would be useful to the ministry to have the report of the committee on this point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I only wish to say, in reply to the point that has been raised, that I agree it would be desirable to deal with compensation to victims of crimes other than murder. I agree with that as a general statement. In this bill, nevertheless, we are dealing with murder only and on this clause it might be out of order to deal with compensation to victims of other types of crime. In any event, not having the assistance of the professional draftsmen who are available to the government it is difficult for me to draft such a comprehensive amendment. I do not think I am qualified to draft such an amendment. I think I was able to draft an amendment dealing with compensation to victims of the type of crime which is being dealt with in this bill, so I confined the amendment to compensation of victims of what would otherwise be capital murder.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. The Chair is in doubt about the relevancy of the amendment to clause 3. Since no one is willing to bring up a procedural point I think we might take the vote on the amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, just a word to say that the amendment would not mean much for the family and dependants of the victims of murderers.
I understand the intention of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) very well. He wants the criminal to pay compensation for the damage he has caused out of his own money or his property but, to my mind, if one examine the crimes that are committed and the environment in which the criminals live, I cannot see how a study by a judge at the time of sentencing could possibly enable him to find funds that might really help the survivors of someone killed by a criminal.
So, I support the idea of the member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and I think that the
November 30, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4883
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence
opinion of the majority of members is that we should ask for special legislation providing compensation for the victims of various crimes and ask the government to be more definite. Now, most cases would be provided for and the result would be more objective.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 43; nays, 69.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the
amendment lost. Shall clause 3 carry?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not think we could pair with other members in committee.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, now that we are back on clause 3 of the bill I wish to make some further remarks along the tenor of those that I addressed to the house yesterday afternoon. First, I should like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. He made a statement, when opening discussion on the bill a few moments ago, in which he expressed the indebtedness of the present cabinet to a former minister for certain words that were used in a transitional provision in 1961, I believe. I noticed that when referring to clauses 3(l)(a) and (b) he said that the words are practically the same as those used previously. The Solicitor General should supply the house with an exact copy of the words used in the transitional provision of five of six years ago so that we could compare them with these paragraphs in clause 3 of the present bill. I noticed specifically that he used the words "practically the same". Why did he use the word "practically" if the words are not exactly the same?
I have already said that the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the cabinet to show that clauses 3(l)(a) and (b) were not specifically designed, when the bill was presented on October 19, 1967, to relieve the cabinet from what they might consider their duty in commuting the sentences of two revolutionaries who, when the bill was presented, were under sentence of death. In developing that thought yesterday I quoted extracts from the official reports of the trial in Montreal to show what type of people were under sentence of death at that
moment. I cannot believe that the administration prior to this one was faced with any such situation as now exists in the Dominion of Canada when it was preparing its transitional clause five or six years ago.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I understand that if one is a lawyer one is supposed to say: "With all due respect to the Solicitor General". I bow to the usage of these words, but I still would like to see that transitional wording because the burden of proof is on the cabinet to show that these two clauses have not been inserted specifically so as to place on parliament as a whole the responsibility for abolishing the death sentence on two revolutionaries. If the original conviction had not been sustained on appeal and a new trial had been ordered, under clause 3(1) (b) those concerned would not be subject to the death penalty although the crime was committed as long ago as 1964.
I quoted from the official records of the courts with regard to these two men, Schirm and Guenette. Hon. members may recall that during the discussion of this bill yesterday I asked the Solicitor General the following question as reported on page 4858 of Hansard:
Can the Solicitor General tell us what other new trials have been ordered, besides Schirm and Guenette, in the whole of Canada at this time?
The Solicitor General replied:
I am not aware of any other convictions that have been set aside and new trials ordered.
The exchange continued:


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Since I am not allowed to mention names of particular cases-
I was not allowed to do so, yesterday.
-might I be allowed to say that I submit that the burden of proof is on the cabinet to show that clause 3(1) (b) was not inserted for the specific benefit of the only new trial so far ordered in all of Canada.
I showed yesterday that the murders were committed in August, 1964, and I read from a Montreal dispatch in the Toronto Star of August 31, 1964, and a Montreal dispatch in the Ottawa Journal of September 4, 1964, pointing out that these men were described by the police as revolutionaries, as having revolutionary tendencies, as separatists and members of the R.I.N. I should now like to draw the attention of the committee to a report which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of September 30, 1964. When the trial was in progress the Journal carried a report of the evidence given by two crown witnesses
4884	COMMONS
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence who described the activities of the new terrorist group-


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for York-Humber, but may I refer him to standing order 59 (2) which says that speakers in committee must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. I would ask the hon. member's co-operation and invite him to refer strictly to clause 3 which is now before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I drew the attention of the Chair yesterday to the fact that clause 3 (1) (b) refers directly to circumstances in which a new trial of a person for an offence punishable by death has been ordered. I am referring now to the only case, according to the Solicitor General, in which a new trial has been ordered. No trial is yet in process. I wish to comment on this new trial which the Solicitor General said yesterday is the only one affected by this clause.


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I would ask him to comment on the clause and not on a particular trial. I think the hon. member's remarks should be relevant to the clause before us.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I submit that the burden of proof is on the cabinet to prove that this clause was not put into the bill in order to cover specifically the cases of Schirm and Guenette, convicted revolutionaries who were sentenced to death, appealed to the Supreme Court of Quebec and are now waiting for a new trial and a new charge to be laid against them. I can surely refer to the courts of this land when we are discussing capital punishment Bill C-168, particularly when I am referring to the only case which is covered.
In the Ottawa Journal of September 30, 1964 there is a report of the evidence given by one Tardif who turned Queen's evidence and is now serving a life sentence in connection with those charges-


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member appears to be referring to the evidence given in a particular case in which a new trial has been ordered and which is before the courts. I submit it is wrong and improper for him to refer directly or indirectly to this case. It might well be prejudicial to the administration of justice if this committee were to discuss a case pending before the courts.

DEBATES	November 30, 1967


Mr. Otto:: On the point of order, I do not intend to advocate the position adopted by the hon. member for York-Humber. As you know, Mr. Chairman, he and I are on opposite sides of this question. But the point of order which has been raised is an important one. It seems to be covered by citation 149 of Beauchesne which states that an hon. member may not bring up any matter on which a judicial decision is pending. If the Chair were to interpret this rule as meaning that where a trial has been held and a judicial decision is pending no discussion in the house can be permitted, I would have no quarrel with that ruling.
In the particular case referred to by the hon. member for York-Humber, however, I understand that though a new trial has been ordered it has not yet commenced. There may have been an indictment, but that is all. If the ruling of the Chair is that the prohibition in Beauchesne extends to every procedure of litigation or criminal prosecution, we must decide whether it is to be limited to criminal prosecutions or interpreted as covering the whole gamut of civil proceedings as well. If Your Honour rules that it applies to all proceedings, then any subject which is a matter of litigation at any stage, even privately, becomes taboo in this house. If this is the case I cannot understand how this house can function. For example, it is obvious that where it is intended to abandon certain railway lines, any individual can sue the C.N.R.


Mr. Graffley:: The legal mind at its worst.


Steven Otto: Yet if this rule were strictly applied the house would be prevented from discussing the subject. In his notes I believe Mr. Dawson refers to four examples, two of them in 1897 when, criminal cases being in process, a speaker was denied the right to bring up the subject. The other two cases were in 1927 and 1942. The first had been referred by the government itself to the Supreme Court of Canada. The second_ one was a judicial inquiry in 1942, also instituted by the government and it was ruled that that subject, in a very limited way, might be discussed.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
But, Mr. Chairman, if you rule that any matter under court jurisdiction, or any matter that is under review by the courts resulting from the issuance of a writ, cannot be discussed then I suggest to you that the House of Commons is going to find it very difficult to function. I suggest that if you rule at all you should interpret the provision in a
November 30, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4885
very strict sense, namely, that where a judicial decision is pending, where proceedings have been completed but a decision is pending, then an hon. member should be allowed to speak on the matter.


Maurice Rinfret: I thank the hon. member for York East for the submission he has put before the Chair. I certainly heard it with interest and I will read it with greater interest tomorrow, but I think the fundamental rule which should be applied at this time is the rule of relevancy. This was mentioned to the hon. member for York-Humber yesterday, and I would like him to adhere to the rule of relevancy during consideration of clause 3 now before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I have always considered the relationship of relevancy and I am considering it now. What is more relevant to clause 3(l)(b) of the present bill than a murder case in the city of Montreal, which the Solicitor General himself has said is the only one he is aware of where a new trial has been ordered? I wish to refer to that one new trial, which is the only one at the present time covered by clause 3(1) (b). That is what I was doing yesterday and that is what I am doing today. I wish to point out some of the legal background concerning that one new trial which the Solicitor General said yesterday was the only one covered by this clause. My argument is that the cabinet should prove to us-the burden of proof is on their shoulders, to use another phrase of the Solicitor General-that this clause was not put in the bill to take the fear of the death penalty away from the minds of these two men.
I have been endeavouring to read an extract from the Ottawa Journal of September 30, 1964, where a report appeared concerning one Tardif who had given evidence. As I said before, he is doing a life sentence now as the result of a conviction in connection with the same case. I read the following: Tardif said he heard of the A.R.Q.-
The Armee Revolutionnaire du Quebec.
-in mid-July. Its goal was to "liberate the country." The group decided to "requisition" arms from armouries or stores.
Tardif said he and Edmond Guenette, 20, and Francois Schirm, 32, met at a camp near St. Boniface 80 miles northeast of Montreal to "discuss what was going on in the province." Schirm was the chief, the rest were "soldiers."
The members of A.R.Q. contributed their own funds. Tardif said he spent $400.
Gilles Brunet, father of six children ... said that obtaining weapons was mentioned at two early
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence
A.R.Q. meetings and that Schirm was armed when he visited the remote camp. Brunet identified all the accused as being present at the camp on one of his trips.
Brunet said the camp's aim was to "form character" for persons planning separatist demonstrations in Montreal-
Previous witnesses testified to finding a large quantity of communist and separatist literature near the St. Boniface camp. One edition of Resistance-Independance ou Mort	(Resistance-Independence or Death) was sub-titled 1837-196?-
L'Armee de Liberation du Quebec was smashed last spring following arms raids on armouries in Montreal and Shawinigan, Que.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I have risen three or four times asking him to co-operate with the Chair and the committee. I ask him to please refer strictly to clause 3 and not refer to one trial in particular. I ask him to be relevant to the clause before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the burden of proof is on the cabinet to prove that this clause was not specifically worded to relieve them of their responsibility, as they would call it, of commuting any death sentence on these two men and instead placing the responsibility upon the whole parliament of Canada by bringing in this bill so soon after the definite vote in April, 1966.
As I said before, I place a great deal of importance on the word "practically" that the Solicitor General used a moment or so ago. It is only one word but it can mean a great deal. Yesterday I quoted a speech of the Prime Minister of this country in which he said that this parliament, the parliament now sitting in this chamber, would be given the opportunity of ruling once and for all on the question of the death penalty. In reading Hansard yesterday in the form in which it is before it goes to the printers, I noticed that the Hansard reporter had struck out the word "this". I put the word "this" back in because I had quoted the Prime Minister as saying "this parliament". As I say, one word can mean a great deal.
I have already asked that the Solicitor General show us the transitional provision that was introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops when he was minister of justice so that we can see where it differs from clause 3 in this bill. The Solicitor General says they are practically the same. I would like to see the specific differences. In addition, I submit that the burden of proof is on the cabinet to show that this bill was not rushed into this
4888	COMMONS
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence house in October, 1967, for one specific purpose.


Lawrence T. Pennell: 
Mr. Alkenbrack:: Arising out of the minister's remarks I would like to ask him one question. Of the 17 men who at the time of the second reading of this bill were under sentence of death, how many were under that sentence for murdering a policeman or prison guard?


Lawrence T. Pennell: To the best of my knowledge, and this is confirmed by one of the officials beside me, none.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: 
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, section 17(l)(a) as set out in the Criminal Code-Capital murder-reads as follows:
(a) subject to paragraph (b), the offence shall he dealt with, inquired into, tried and determined, and any punishment in respect of that offence shall be imposed, as if this act had not come into force;

DEBATES	November 30, 1987
I suggest that this follows very closely the wording in clause 3(l)(a) of Bill No. C-168.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Duration and expiration of act.
Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I
should like to put a short question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). At the end of clause 4, it is said that this act-
-shall then expire unless before the end of that period parliament, by joint resolution of both houses, directs that it shall continue in force.
I should like to know what the minister has in mind. Would it be a government resolution or a resolution by a private number or a member of the other place? I think it is rather important to know.
[En glis h]


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I believe the resolution could be proposed by a private member or it could be a resolution introduced by a member of the government.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, has the minister anticipated in this case that it should be a bill proposed by the government, since the bill now under consideration is a government order, having been introduced by a government member, because it is customary-but not mandatory-that a bill be repealed by another legislation introduced by the government?
I wonder, therefore, whether the minister, under the provisions of this clause, intended that abolition be provided also in a government bill?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, if this bill should pass, I think in the light of experience at the end of the proposed five year trial period the government would take the appropriate action. It could if it wished, I suppose, introduce a bill dealing with capital punishment. I do not see that this particular provision ties the hands of parliament five years hence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Solicitor General could give us the benefit of the consideration he gave overnight to suggestions that were made yesterday. I have in mind in particular the suggestion I made that clause 4 might be so worded
November 30, 1967	COMMONS
as to make the situation equal five years from now between the two sides rather than being loaded one way as I think it is.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I hope that my very brief reply does not appear to indicate that I am being discourteous to the hon. member. I went so far as to look at the provision in the Bill of Rights, which contains a clause somewhat similar to the one suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, after considerable consideration I felt that perhaps I ought not to make any change or offer any amendment to the bill as it is now drafted. I wish to thank the hon. member. We had a conversation about this point after the house adjourned last night at which time I said I would give the matter further thought, but I am still of the same opinion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for his courtesy too. As he realizes, some of us are still of the opinion that it would be better to draft clause 4 in such a way as to make it completely equal in 1972 or, failing that, that clause 4 should not be there at all.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Solicitor General this question. Having regard to the indefinite life of this government, can he guarantee that there will be no more ameliorating amendments to the Criminal Code brought forward by this government?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difficulty of bringing in amendments on this point but may I ask the minister whether he is satisfied that there is no way in which we can prevent in five years another full-scale debate on this subject?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I have always felt that parliament is master of its own procedures and rules. I shall not forecast what parliament may or may not do five years hence.
Clause 4 agreed to on division: Yeas, 58; nays, 16.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the clause carried.
On clause 5-Coming into force.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask what I believe is a very obvious question and one which I hope you will permit me to put. Clause 5 states that this act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
DEBATES	4887
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence Lest there be any suspicion that there might be any retroactive element in this clause I am sure the minister can state that the date to be fixed will follow the passage of the bill by this house rather than a retroactive date.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I can give that assurance to the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, can the minister give the assurance that proclamation will be effected as soon as possible after the bill has been passed?


Lawrence T. Pennell: As I said earlier, we will confer with the attorneys general and it will be brought into effect as soon as it is practicable to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported.
e (4:10 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When
shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Lawrence T. Pennell: the third reading of the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the position that Bill C-168 has been given second reading and has been considered by the committee of the whole house, embodying approval in principle of the maintenance of capital punishment for those who deliberately murder policemen or guards. I have not advanced arguments in favour of retaining capital punishment as a deterrent, but as the government feels this feature should be retained in so far as policemen and guards are concerned it is my belief that the house should determine whether the death penalty for the crime of murder should also be exacted in respect of those who deliberately murder children. The instances may not be many but the disaster to a family is appalling. The Lindbergh case will come to mind. We must also consider the deliberate killer who by means of a bomb deliberately destroys an aircraft, some of whose passengers are likely to be children.
It is not my intention to debate this matter at length but I think the house should have the opportunity to express its opinion by a recorded vote. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth-Clare (Mr. Bower):
That Bill C-168 be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of

November 30, 1967
Division
the whole house with instructions that they have the power to amend section 1, subsection 2 thereof by the addition of a new paragraph with the words "any child under sixteen years of age".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif). All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Call in the members.
[And the members having been called in]
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that the vote might be taken as in committee of the whole and that we start with the first row to my left.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.	
November 30, 1987


Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Fisheries. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Verdun. If I had voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Addison:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Speaker, I abstained from voting because I was paired with the hon. member for Northwest Territories.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired.
Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rosemoni):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired; otherwise, I would have supported the amendment.


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


Mr. Roberl McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment. My remarks will be brief and if there is no disposition on the part of the house to debate it we can immediately proceed to a vote.
There was discussion in the committee not only of the class of person just considered in the last vote but also of cases where women are murdered or people who go to the assistance of police officers are murdered and whether the murderers in such cases should be required to pay the supreme penalty. While attendance in the committee was large,
I recall there was still only about two-thirds of the total membership present, and perhaps it is important that the house make a declaration on this point. I therefore move:
That Bill No. C-168 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the various categories of persons whose murder is considered to be capital murder, as set out in clause 1, subsection 2, of the said bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I should bring to the atten- it. tion of the house that there appears to be serious doubt as to the amendment from a procedural point of view. Perhaps hon. members have arguments for the guidance of the Chair, but I must say that this amendment appears to go beyond the terms of the bill, 27053-3091
Division
the principle of which has already been accepted. However, I will entertain arguments if hon. members have views to express on this very point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the amendment does go beyond the bill. The bill sets out a principle which states that persons who murder certain categories of people shall be subject to the extreme penalty. All the amendment is asking the house to consider, as I understand it, is sending the bill back to the committee for reconsideration of the particular clause. It might well be that the clause would be reduced in scope rather than enlarged. I do not think it follows that the clause would be enlarged.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members that throughout this debate both in committee and with the Speaker in the chair we have tried to be as lenient as possible in the consideration of procedural points. Perhaps it would be the disposition of the house, in spite of the reservations I have about the amendment, that the question should be put.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member has not heard me say that I have decided to accept the amendment submitted to the house.

Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is there a disposition on the part of hon. members to call the vote now without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
4890	COMMONS	DEBATES	November 30, 1967
(Division		
The house divided on the amendment (Mr.	LeBlanc (Rimouski)	PetersMcCleave) which lowing division:	was negatived on the fol-	Lefebvre Legault Lessard	Pilon Reid Rideout (Mrs.)YEAS	Lewis	RochonLoiselle	RoxburghMessrs:	MacDonald (Prince)	SaltsmanAlkenbrack	Leblanc (Laurier)	MacEachen	SauveAsselin (Charlevoix)	Lind	Mcllraith	SharpBell (Saint John-	MacEwan	Me William	ShermanAlbert)	Maclnnis (Cape Breton	Marchand	SmithBower	South)	Martin (Essex East)	StaffordBrand	MacLean (Queens)	Martin (Timmins)	StanfieldCaouette	MacRae	Mather	StewartCaston	McCleave	Matte	TardifChurchill	McIntosh	Morison	TeilletClancy	McKinley	Munro	Tremblay (Matapedia-Code	McLelland	Nasserden	Matane)Comtois	Madill	Neveu	Tremblay (Richelieu-Cowan	Monteith	Nicholson	Vercheres)Crouse	Moore	Nowlan	TrudeauDanforth	More	Nugent	TurnerDionne	Muir (Cape Breton	Orlikow	WahnDuquet	North and Victoria)	Otto	WalkerFane	Patterson	Ouellet	Watson (Chateauguay-Gauthier	Pugh	Pearson	Huntingdon-Laprairie)Godin	Racine	Pennell	WhelanGundlock	Rapp	Pepin	Winch-114.Harkness	Rvnard	Hees	Scott (Victoria (Ont.))	[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)	Horner (Acadia)	Simpson	Horner (The Bat-	Smallwood	Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.	tlefords)	Starr	Irvine	Stefanson	Mr. Flemming:	I was paired with the Min-Keays Kindt Korchinski	Thomas (Middlesex West) Webb	ister of Fisheries. Had I voted I would have supported the amendment.	Lambert	Woolliams-57.	Mr. Ballard: I	was paired with the hon.NAYS	member for Verdun. Had I voted I would	Messrs:	have voted in favour of the amendment.	Allmand Andras	Douglas Drury	Mr. Tucker: I	was paired, Mr. Speaker.Asselin (Richmond-	Dube	Had I voted I would have voted against the	Wolfe)	Emard	amendment.	Badanai	Enns	Baldwin	Ethier	Mr. Addison: I	was paired with the hon.Barnett Basford	Fawcett Forrestall	member for Hamilton West. Had I voted I	Bechard	Gendron	would have voted in favour of the	Beer	Germa	amendment.	Bell (Carleton)	Gilbert	Benson Berger Blouin	Goyer Granger Grafftey	Mr. Haidasz:	I abstained from votingbecause I was paired with the hon. member	Boulanger	Gray	for Northwest Territories.	Brewin	Greene	
Brown
Byrne
Cadieux (Terrebonne) Cameron (High Park) Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The-Is-lands)
Cantelon
Cantin
Cashin
Chatwood
Chretien
Cot6 (Longueuil)
Deachman
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale

Harley
Herridge
Honey
Hopkins
Howard
Hymmen
Isabelle
Jamieson
Johnston
Jorgenson
Knowles
Laflamme
Laing
LaMarsh (Miss) Langlois (Chicoutimi) Laniel


J. Antonio Thomas: Mr. Speaker, for the same reason as earlier, I was paired. Otherwise, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
November 30, 1967


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, only two words before the vote on third reading, to say that this bill, which will likely be law in a few minutes, does not reflect the will of the Canadian people at all.
In fact, questionnaires have been sent and referendums held, not only in the province of Quebec, but throughout Canada. I even received letters from people in British Columbia and Alberta, who were opposed to abolition of the death penalty.
At Montreal Expo, where the question "Are you for or against the death penalty?" was put to the public-I understand that some people may have voted twice as we can see on election day in the old political parties-five million and a half said they were in favour of the death penalty while 19,000 only were for its abolition.
The other day, while in the hospital in Montreal, I heard on the radio programs on which the listeners were asked the question and invited to phone in their answer and I did not hear a single one call in and say: I am for the abolition of the death penalty. All, without exception, stated that the death penalty should be maintained in Canada and gave their reasons.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, before this vote is taken, I want to state very clearly that I am against the abolition of the death penalty, in order to respect the opinion of the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour, will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Division
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to take the vote without ringing the bells?


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Speaker, I point out that in
my opinion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -those who voted against these amendments today have voted actually-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot reflect on a vote. Unfortunately, the question has already been put.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: On a
point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The question has been put and I suggest to hon. members that it may now be difficult to move points of order.


Donald MacInnis: On a
question or privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: I draw to Your Honour's attention that the hon. member who spoke just before me was on his feet before Your Honour put the question.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Donald MacInnis: He was
trying to make himself heard and he could not be heard.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I did not see the hon. member. In any event, I must bring to the attention of the hon. member who spoke previously that his remarks were out of order since he was attempting to reflect on a vote. That is against the rules of the house.


Donald MacInnis: On a
further question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Donald MacInnis: ____the
hon. member could not express his opinion. Retentionists on the back benches claim they saw him trying to catch Your Honour's eye.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are the bells ringing, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.

November 30, 1967
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr, Flemming:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Fisheries. Had I voted I would have voted against third reading.


James Roy Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Peterborough. Had I voted I would have voted against third reading.


John Hollings Addison: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton West. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Royal. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Verdun. Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I refrained from voting because I was paired with the hon. member for the Northwest Territories.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. November 30, 1967

Prud'homme). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.

Bill read the third time and passed.



JUDGES ACT


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: the second reading of Bill No. C-185, to amend the Judges Act.


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few brief words on this bill. I support the principal purpose of the bill because I have personal knowledge of the need for the appointment of more judges to the bench in the province of British Columbia as the result of the backlog of court cases which has arisen owing to the increase in the population of British Columbia and other developments.
I must say I have had quite a lengthy experience with and personal knowledge of members of the bench in British Columbia in the supreme court, county courts and magistrate's courts. I think I can properly say that their code of conduct has been of a very high order indeed. While in principle I am opposed to the partisan appointment of persons to the bench, I am not quite sure just what is the best way to correct this.
I should like to give an illustration to point out how fair I found a magistrate to be on one occasion. Along with ten other farmers in my riding I was charged with failure to have a dog licence. We appeared in court before the magistrate. We were all fined $2.50 apiece. After the others had left the court room the magistrate, who had asked me to remain behind, said, "Herbie, you are the president of the B.C. Liberal Association and I am a lifelong member. I was appointed by the Liberal government, but regardless of that the law is the law." He could not deviate from the law. I gave him credit for this.
There have been suggestions that appointments to the bench be made by the Canadian Bar Association. I cannot agree with that. Why should the bar association be given the right to choose such persons? Why should it not be the working people? Why should it not be the small business people or those in other occupations? I cannot agree with the principle that one group in our society should
Judges Act
have the right to make these appointments. I believe we would then have another form of political or partisan appointments because they would be looked at from one point of view. To have persons occupying prominent positions on the bench through appointment by the bar association, the law society, or whatever it is, would be just like asking the grocers in Canada to appoint the men who inspect weights and measures. I believe there would be just as much reason in that.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I am not certain what can be done about this problem. I have heard persons discuss it. Many people are endeavouring to think of another way by which persons might be appointed to the bench. Perhaps the government might appoint a board representing the major segments of our society including lawyers, farmers, trade unionists and businessmen. In this way the government would not be subject to the accusation that it makes political or partisan appointments. In this regard I am not clear about the best thing to do. Let me hasten to say that to date, on the basis of my experience in British Columbia, with very few exceptions those who have been appointed to the bench have served this country well.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) would make a statement when introducing this bill. I doubt that many members are opposed to the appointment of more judges. The increase in population is accompanied by an increase in the number of cases and in many provinces court calendars are far behind schedule. In some I understand it takes one, two or even three years before a case comes to trial. The old adage that justice delayed is justice denied certainly applies. One welcomes the increase in the number of judges in certain provinces.
I thought that the Minister of Justice would make a preliminary statement regarding the method of appointing judges because it is most important. I must congratulate the minister on the appointments he has made since assuming his cabinet position. The old criticism that judges were appointed along party lines as party supporters appears to be diminishing. It is my understanding that in one province particularly the minister has crossed party lines by appointing a judge not because of political affiliation but because of ability, merit and experience. The minister is to be congratulated in this regard and I hope he will continue this procedure.

November 30, 1967
Judges Act
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is opposed to the bar association appointing members to the bench. The Canadian Bar Association has taken the position that it should never have the prerogative of appointing members to the bench and that it should always remain with the Minister of Justice. What the association has said is that through a committee of the association they should present nominees for judgeships, which would not be binding on the minister, and that the minister should at least consider those names when deciding whom to appoint. This is a good idea because it removes the matter from the realm of political partisanship such as has prevailed in the past. This has made the job of the judge more difficult when he takes his place on the bench.
The minister is very forward-looking and I thought he would make some suggestion regarding the procedures for the removal of judges. A recent case certainly indicates the necessity for amending the procedures in this regard. It is one thing to have security of tenure but it is another thing when, because of difficulties, a judge should be removed from his position. We should update our machinery in this regard.
My final point relates to the training of judges. Under our Canadian system most judges have experience both as barristers and solicitors but in many cases the weight of their experience is on the solicitor side. When they accept an appointment to the bench they have to deal with many branches of the law in which they are not experienced. It is my hope that the Minister of Justice can devise some system whereby an individual appointed as a judge may sit with a senior judge for a period of time in order to acquire experience in the procedures of every branch before presiding over cases.
Again I welcome the appointment of additional judges. I hope the minister will continue to be forward-looking and will bring about other corrections.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a very few remarks to make about the level of pay for judges. Let me point out to those people who point the finger at the level of pay for parliamentary members that the level for judges has been increased twice since the increase in pay for members of parliament some four and a half years ago and exceed it by $9,000 per annum for superior court judges.
Let me raise another point which I have raised previously with the Minister of Justice

(Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). I refer to what I believe is a discrimination arising in respect of two superior court judges, one in the Northwest Territories and one in the Yukon. Some considerable time ago they received a northern allowance to compensate them for the very high expenses they incur. This is true not only in the case of their regular duties but also to compensate in respect of their non-appointment, similar to their colleagues, to head up various judicial inquiries and commissions. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has advanced the proposition that judges should not be used for these purposes. However, judges are being used and I do not understand why these two judges should be doubly penalized. Anyone who suggests that the justices of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are receiving sufficient remuneration in comparison with their colleagues in the southern part of Canada should live in the north for a while to find out just what I mean.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the provisions of this bill in respect of the appointment of more judges in the province of British Columbia where they are needed because of the great time lapse between a case being set down for trial and actually coming to trial. I feel that I should make one suggestion in this regard. Judges have a responsibility to assure that the matters before them are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. While the administration of our courts is technically a provincial matter, I should like to suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) that in British Columbia, and I assume the same is true of other provinces, the courts take a long two months vacation in the summer, July and August. This is a terribly antiquated and outdated court procedure which should be eliminated as quickly as possible. Except in the case of an emergency, or motions in chambers, the courts do not sit for those two summer months. At that time no case can come to trial. This works a great hardship on the legal profession as well as the litigants involved. It also makes it difficult for judges to schedule their trial work. While the minister has no direct responsibility in this regard, I hope he can encourage the provincial attorneys general to do away with this long vacation. I hope that the judges of British Columbia will also encourage the provincial attorney general to change this procedure of taking long vacations in the summer.
November 30, 19S7


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the minister was about to get up to speak but he was buttoning his collar button and being unaccustomed to having his collar buttoned he had difficulty in getting up in time. The minister is very avant-garde in this respect and does pretty well.
Some comment has been made about the appointment of judges and the method by which they should be appointed by the minister. It seems that anyone who has taken an interest in politics is now being condemned and relegated to such a position that he cannot occupy a seat on the bench. I think this is quite wrong. I do not think that just because a man has become involved in politics he should be condemned as a potential judge.
I believe this attitude demonstrates a concern that should be very carefully considered. In my opinion it does not matter what political party a person supports. If he has the necessary qualifications he should be appointed to the bench. To suggest, as did the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), that judges should be appointed after special consideration of a list of names submitted by the bar association or the benchers in Ontario would, I think, be a great mistake.
Throughout history butchers have always wanted to have complete command over the appointment of meat inspectors. Gasoline purveyors have always wanted complete control over the inspection of gasoline stations. This is customary. In most provinces the bar association is really a very tight union for the protection of lawyers, although it is alwavs supposed-and this idea is promoted -that it is really for the protection of the public.
I recall getting into a bit of an argument at one time with the Upper Canada Law Society in connection with searching titles and conveyancing. I was then representing an insurance company which was quite willing to guarantee all the titles in Canada at a very nominal fee. This would have meant that anyone selling or buying a house would not need a lawyer. You would be amazed at the great controversy this brought on because, after all, lawyers charge $250 for their services in the sale or purchase of a house. This is the bread and butter of the profession. But this was not the reason given by the law society; the reason given was that what they did was for the protection of the public.
Judges Act
Pav little heed, Mr. Minister, to the urgings of the law societies. If you want an opinion I suggest that the judges now sitting on the bench can give you a very accurate summary of the nominees you have. After all, they have heard them plead cases and pretty well know what sort of a judge a person will make. A judge must be a person who has a great respect for the law. This is essential. I suggest that the minister would do much better in this field if he took notice of their ideas with respect to nominations.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on some of the remarks made by hon. members, mainly concerning the appointment of judges. I did not stand up to speak first on second reading, though I was prepared to do so if no one else had risen. When I saw hon. members were rising I preferred to let them speak first. As a matter of fact, I thought they would congratulate me on the way in which I have been appo;nting judges. In fact, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) did have some very kind words to say. I want to clear up the matter of the appointment of judges because hon. members seem to be unaware of the procedure I have been following. I have publicly stated what this procedure is.
Hon. members know that practically every year since 1952 the question of amending the Judges Act has come before the house. Reading some of the past debates I have seen that generally the minister of justice, at least this was the case last year, has been strongly urged by various hon. members to consult some sort of committee before appointing judges or, rather, recommending that the governor in council appoint them. In fact, at the meeting last September of the Canadian Bar Association I sat in at a press conference given by the president of the judicial nominations committee of the association. At that press conference, which obviously did not receive the attention of the members of this house, it was stated that it has been my practice since becoming minister to consult with the president, and through him with the

November 30, 1967
Judges Act
members of that committee of the Canadian Bar Association, before appointing any judge.
I think I can say that without exception, to my knowledge and memory, I have not appointed a single judge since becoming minister without having at least asked the opinion of this committee. I stated at that time that this was as far as I intended to go then. I wanted to try out this mechanism personally before committing the government to it officially. I was doing it on a trial basis. I must say, incidentally, that as far as I am concerned it has worked very well. The members of this committee have been extremely helpful to me in making sure that any person I have named at least did not have a black mark against him with the bar. Again, to the best of my memory, I have made no appointment of a person which had met with the disapproval of this committee.
That does not mean I am bound to continue in this direction. I think the law on this point is well understood by hon. members. The governor in council has the responsibility for nominating judges. This is the way I think it should remain. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) used some very good metaphors indicating why this should be the practice. I think it is quite right that the people responsible to the citizens of this country should in the final analysis make the nominations and bear the blame if their nominations are bad.
I do not agree that a committee should submit a list of names to the Minister of Justice in order that he may choose judges to be appointed. In this regard I do not agree with some of the suggestions, made constructively I am sure, by some of the members of the New Democratic party. My policy is not to choose a judge from a list of names submitted to me. My policy is to go to this particular committee of the Canadian Bar Association and say:	I am thinking of
appointing so-and-so; I should like to know whether in your opinion he is qualified.
I think this is the only proper procedure under the constitution. I should not be limited in any way as to the names I should consider. Even if I did not agree with the recommendation of the Canadian Bar Association I would feel free to proceed with the nomination anyhow. But in fact I have not made any appointment which did not meet with their approval. As far as I am concerned, this has been a very helpful and constructive procedure. It has permitted me to make sure that I was not choosing people
.
whom the members of the bar association did not feel were qualified.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As to the political character of the appointments, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) mentioned that I had made an appointment in one province at least of a person who is not of our political persuasion. He referred to the fact that in one province I had named a person who, rightly or wrongly, has been associated with the hon. member's political party. I think this might be true of other appointments of judges in other provinces who have been associated with a party other than the Liberal party. However, I am not too concerned about the political past of the appointee. If he is a good person and is qualified for the bench, then these are sufficient qualifications and they are the ones that are uppermost in my mind. It has happened on occasion that I discovered post facto that a certain appointee was of such and such a political persuasion, but this is not the most relevant consideration in my choice.
I am very grateful for the contribution which the Canadian Bar Association has made through this committee which, as might be recognized, must be fairly burdensome to them because it is composed of at least one member from each province and in some cases of more than one. The committee is rather large and the members consult among themselves. I believe they do it with as much secrecy as possible. I am very grateful for their help in that regard.
While I am on my feet I should like to touch on one or two other matters which were raised. First, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) commented on the increase in judges' salaries. I am not quite certain whether I understood him correctly but in case I did I should like to set the facts straight. Under this bill no increase in salaries has been provided.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He said there had been two increases since members of parliament received their increase.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is what he said, then he may be correct. This bill relates to the appointment of more judges but not to an increase in their salaries.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question at this stage? In increasing the number of judges in the various provinces did he seek advice from the chief justices
November 30, 1967

and did he receive an affirmative answer in that regard? If he did, I think he has performed his duty properly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly answer the question. What happens in fact, as the hon. member well knows, is that this is an area where the jurisdiction is divided. In each of the cases in which I have recommended an increase in the number of judges I have only done so after having received the advice of the attorneys general of the provinces concerned with regard to a new opening. I did not make new appointments until such a request was made.
Each of the provinces seeking the appointment of additional judges has, over the past year, amended its law. These laws bear various names but all of them have to do with the administration of justice, and during the past year they have asked that provision be made in the federal law for the salaries of additional judges. Of course, under our constitution the provinces decide on the number of judges necessary to administer justice, and under section 96 the federal government appoints these judges and provides for their salaries.
This reminds me of a point made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) who spoke about the long vacations enjoyed by judges. He said quite correctly that this matter was not under my jurisdiction, although under the Judges Act the Minister of Justice must give permission to a judge if he is to be absent for more than 30 days. However, the provision of vacations for the courts in the various provinces is determined by the provincial governments. I will certainly consider the matter raised by the hon. member and although I would not presume to tell the provinces how they should administer justice I will gladly raise this point informally when I have the occasion to meet the provincial attorneys general.
I think that covers the main points Mr. Speaker. 1 see the clock advancing and I hope the bill will be given second reading now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one word with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard when he spoke about holidays for
Judges Act
judges. I can only speak for my own province in that regard but I should like to say that the chief justices in the various courts in my province have been most co-operative and have always arranged for a judge to be on duty during July and August. This is not a holiday for them. During the summer they have an opportunity to write their reserved judgments and to catch up on their work.
I should like to be fair to the courts in that regard and say that so far as Alberta is concerned I have always found, and other lawyers from that province will confirm what I say, that there has always been a judge on duty during the summer vacation. In fact sometimes during July and August justice is administered more expeditiously because at that time it is possible to go directly to the court clerk at a moment's notice. I was glad to hear the Minister of Justice say that he would speak to the attorneys general about this matter. I am well aware of the fact that in this regard provincial legislation comes first and that federal jurisdiction comes next but the federal government pays the bills and therefore we are responsible when legislation is passed.
There is one further point I should like to make. I agree that it is a good idea to receive guidance from the law societies. I have nothing but respect for our law associations but it must be admitted that there are politics in every organization. It may not be of the same variety as the politics exercised here but nevertheless it exists.
I agree with the hon. member who said that the fact that a man has served in public life should not disqualify him for an appointment to the bench. In this connection I should like to refer with some respect to a former member of the house who is now deceased but who was a judge of both the Queen's Bench division and the court of appeal in Saskatchewan. I refer to the late Judge McNiven who was one of the finest judges we have had. Not only was he highly qualified but his experience in public life and in dealing with people added to his humane approach as a judge. So it does not seem to me that the fact that a man has served in a provincial legislature, in the House of Commons, or in public affairs should in any way debar him from appointment to the bench. Such service should be taken into consideration by the Minister of Justice because if a man has received the approval of his peers at home we can be certain that he will make a good judge and will be humane in making

November 30, 1987
Business of the House
decisions and in exercising the responsibility given to him. I agree with the person who said that the most important qualification of a judge is a humane approach, and if he knows a little law he is all the better for it. Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: the third reading of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: As it is
six o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack) -Agriculture-Milk-Alleged hardship through minimum quotas; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) 

Housing-Montreal-availability of Habitat '67 at Expo site.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that there has been an agreement to suspend private members' hour and to continue with government business.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, the first private bill on the order paper stands in my name and concerns the Co-operative Trust Company Limited of Saskatoon. I wonder whether it would be the disposition of the [Mr. Woolliams.l
house to deal with it first and then to proceed with whatever business the government might like to take up.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. The whip has just advised me that the understanding was that we would rise at six o'clock and return at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence T. Pennell: This seems to meet with enthusiastic approval.


Edward Nasserden: This is news to me, Mr. Speaker; I heard of it just a moment ago. The bill to which I referred has been considered in committee both in the Senate and in the House of Commons. There is an amendment dealing with the qualifications of directors. I do not think the bill is contentious and I would appreciate it if the house would pass it this afternoon and then adjourn for dinner until the budget is brought down.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the hon. member's request. I think it a reasonable one. I gave him the right of way on one occasion and I should like to do so again. I do not think it would take very much time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The understanding is, then, that we take only the time that is necessary to deal with item No. 1 and then rise for a recess.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house order that we suspend the sitting after consideration of Bill No. S-20?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-20, respecting Co-operative Trust Company Limited-Mr. Nasserden-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 30, 19S7


Edward Nasserden: the third reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I thank hon. members for their courtesy and kindness.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Pursuant to the order made by the house this sitting stands suspended until eight o'clock.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 6.09 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


Mitchell William Sharp: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this being St. Andrew's day, and being a Scot, I did not observe one of the customs of the Minister of Finance, who is supposed to buy a new pair of shoes when presenting the budget. Being a Scot, and this being the second budget I have presented this year, I am wearing the same shoes that I wore when I presented the budget on June 1.


Mr. Starr:: The minister cannot afford a new pair of shoes.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this statement is to present to the house the fiscal measures which the government considers necessary at this time to achieve three urgent, and closely related objectives: first, to restrain the inflationary increases in prices, costs and the cost-of-living that are undermining our prosperity; second, to ease the disturbing strains in the capital market that threaten our continued economic growth; and third, to meet in a non-inflationary way the costs of continuing public programs essential to social security and long-run national development.
I might recall that in my speech introducing the budget of June 1st, which is still before the committee of ways and means, I noted that our budget policy was to assist in the transition from the rapid economic
The Budget-Mr. Sharp expansion of recent years to a steady growth in employment and production at levels near capacity. Our budget was therefore intended to exert a moderate sustaining force upon the economy. It provided for a deficit of about $300 million in terms of our national economic accounts, excluding operations of the Canada Pension Plan. Tax reductions proposed in that budget were designed to contribute to a decrease in certain key prices, particularly those of machinery and equipment in order to improve industrial efficiency, and in those of drugs, to relieve the group of consumers in the country most deserving of such assistance.
The budget involved over-all net cash requirements for the current fiscal year of $1,590 million, to be financed by borrowing and by the reduction of our cash balances. These high financial requirements were due not only to the deficit in our budget accounts, which was forecast at $740 million, but also to a large volume of government loans and investments, particularly for house building. The housing loans were intended to bring and did bring a recovery in house building from the low levels to which it fell last year as a result of the severe competition for funds from other borrowers.
On October 4th I made a second statement in the budget debate. In it I said that the outlook for production and employment this year was much as expected at the beginning of June. There were, however, two major problems. The first was the continued high rates of increase in costs of production and in prices. These increases were much too high. The second problem was the very disturbed state of the capital markets, where high and rising interest rates continued to prevail in Canada, as in other major western countries, despite a substantial rate of expansion in the money supply. I said that the expectation by investors of continued inflation was contributing to this extraordinary condition of the capital markets. We had to find some way of bringing the inflationary movement under control. This would require the exercise of restraint on increases in prices, wages, other money incomes such as rent and dividends, and government expenditures. I noted that the government, in preparing next year's expenditure estimates, was making an early and extraordinary effort to limit the growth in its spending programs and its demands on the capital markets.
On the 10th of this month I announced in the house that our budgetary expenditure programs for next year would be held to

November 30, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Sharp $10,300 million. This would be apart from medicare which would be financed by new revenue raised for the purpose, and the writing off of the Expo deficit in our accounts which does not represent any new disbursement. By this action, by the reductions in our lending programs, and by some tax measures, we would hold our overall net cash requirements and our consequent demands on the capital market in the next fiscal year to less than $750 million, apart from unforeseen requirements for our foreign exchange reserves.
I stated then, Mr. Speaker, that these various measures would be a part of an integrated program to check the inflation of prices and costs occurring in Canada and to reduce the excessive pressures upon our capital markets. Tonight it is my duty to carry forward the program by reporting more fully on our situation and on the government's intentions, and to propose those tax measures we consider necessary.
Economic Situation
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)

First, I will note briefly the economic situation and prospects, though these are not substantially different to what they were when I spoke in October.
During 1967 there has been a deceleration in the rapid economic expansion which took place in the last few years. Our gross national product has nevertheless continued to expand, and for this year I expect the increase will turn out to be approximately 7 per cent. In terms of volume, however, the increase will be less than half of this, as prices have continued to increase at excessive rates. The expenditures of consumers, supported as they are by rising wages and salaries, are at a high and increasing level. The expenditures of governments and municipalities on goods and services continue to rise this year although not as rapidly as heretofore. In the first half of 1967, exports reached a record level, although in recent months they have been declining, both in the case of wheat and, to a lesser degree, in the total excluding wheat. This has of course reflected to some extent the slowdown in expansion in the United States and overseas as well as the special circumstances of the wheat market. For the year as a whole, however, exports will reach the target set by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters). Business capital expenditures have also been declining in recent months, both on construction and on machinery and equipment.

The result of these recent changes in the sustaining forces in the economy has been a slowing down in the rate of growth of production, a slight downturn in total employment, and a rise last month in unemployment. The economy has ceased to be under the serious strain it experienced last year, and has developed a small amount of spare capacity.
These developments, however, have not put a check on prices and costs; the excessive rates of increase in wages and in other costs continue unabated. The consumer price index has declined fractionally during the past two months, chiefly because food prices fell as they normally do at this season. Still, the underlying movement remains strongly upward. Excluding food, the consumer price index is up by 4J per cent over a year ago. Costs have been rising rapidly and profits have been squeezed. Our most comprehensive measure of prices-the price component of the gross national product-showed an increase in the second quarter of this year of 5 per cent over the second quarter of 1966.
Canada is now finding it harder to achieve price stability and full employment at the same time than earlier thinking had led us to suppose. Even with unemployment at levels we do not regard as satisfactory, prices and wages are rising too rapidly. They are rising more rapidly than those in the United States, more rapidly than those in most other western industrialized countries. No group in Canada can afford this erosion of our international competitive position.
Moreover, and even more important, the expectation that prices and costs will continue to rise is creating an inflationary psychology which is having serious effects on both the capital market and the labour market. In the labour market this psychology is leading to continued demands for wage increases that are clearly far in excess of any prospective increase in productivity, and therefore clearly inflationary. Increases in major wage settlements negotiated in Canada over the first nine months of this year are reported by the Department of Labour to have averaged 8.7 per cent a year over the life of the agreements. A roughly comparable average for the United States is 4.4 per cent per year. In the capital market the same psychology is leading to an unwillingness to lend money for long terms on bonds and mortgages except at very high interest rates.
Both the labour and the capital markets must work efficiently if we are to continue to be prosperous and to develop our economy.
November 30, 1967

In particular we are a nation which must save and invest about one-fifth of our total national output each year, mainly through the medium of the capital market. In addition we expect to obtain a net annual inflow of capital of nearly a billion dollars or more. We run our economy on the basis of such expectations, and this continued flow of savings and investment is essential to the productive employment of our growing labour force. It is vital therefore that our capital market continue to work effectively and in a proper relationship to the central capital market of the world, which is in the United States.
fEnglish]


An hon. Member:: And now a little gimmick for St. Andrew's day for the Scots.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to say to the hon. member that this is one of the groups which has made an enormous contribution to this country, even rivalling that made by the two founding races. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether one of the founding peoples was not the Scots.


An hon. Member:: Where are the Scots on the front bench?


Mitchell William Sharp: November 30, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Sharp meantime the government is having to make the basic decisions which will be reflected there, along with those expenditures arising out of statutes. It is essential that the house and the public recognize the nature and severity of the problem that confronts us and the need to cope with it.
Since this government took office it has been putting into place, as it stated it would, the major reforms required to complete Canada's social security system. On our recommendation, parliament has also authorized a substantial increase in the contributions to what is now Canada's first priority, higher education. This was done both in the form of expenditures and in the form of a special fiscal transfer to the provinces for this purpose. We have deliberately transferred to the provincial governments additional resources so that they and their municipalities could provide the rapidly expanding services required of them. We have pressed forward with measures to promote scientific research, industrial development, and the improvement of those areas in the country which have suffered from slower growth and lower incomes than elsewhere.
We made no secret of the fact-and the house was aware-that all these reforms would involve substantial increases in public expenditures. Indeed, we were urged to go even further. I made it quite clear last year and this year that the requirements of a growing and developing Canada in which these economic and social reforms were proceeding would involve increased claims by governments and their agencies on the national output. Even so, I pointed out the growth in the public sector of our economy was not going to be so rapid as to require more than a portion of the growth in the national output as a whole, although it would and did involve higher tax rates.
Let me illustrate. In the last fiscal year our total federal government expenditure on the comprehensive basis used in the national economic accounts amounted to $9,846 million, which was 16.8 per cent of the gross national product. Five years before, in 1961-62, when the party opposite was in office, it was 19.2 per_cent of the . gross national product, and five years before that again, in 1956-57, the totaTwas $5,126 million, which was 16.4 per cent of the gross national product.. Thus it will be seen that although our expenditures over the same decade had increased by 92 per cent, they were about the same share of the gross national product as they were ten years ago, and a smaller share than they
[Mr. Sharp.l
were five years ago... Moreover, during this penod"we reduced our tax rates in favour of the provinces, as I mentioned a moment ago. In addition, parliament has during this period enacted the Canada Pension Plan which is not reflected in these figures. It is a separate, fully contributory, funded plan in which at this early stage the contributions far exceed the payments and produce a large investment fund which is placed at the disposal of the provincial governments to help them meet their capital requirements. Now let me look at the expenditures of provincial governments and municipalities.
The expenditures of provincial governments and municipalities have been rising much more rapidly over this past decade than those of the federal government. Again using the figures as produced for the national economic accounts, provincial and municipal expenditures together show a total in the last fiscal year of $10,942 million, which was 18.6 per cent of the gross national product. Five years before that, in 1961-62, they were 16.3 per cent of the gross national product, and five years before that again, in 1956-57, they were $3,474 million, which was 11.1 per cent of the gross national product. In other words, in contrast with federal government expenditures which have maintained a constant proportion over the last ten years, provincial and municipal expenditures between them have risen from 11.1 per cent to 18.6 per cent of the gross national product. The average annual growth rate over this period of provincial plus municipal expenditures has been 12.1 per cent as compared with the average growth rate in federal expenditures of 6.7 per cent. I should add here that the federal expenditures I have given include contributions to the provinces and municipalities which would have to be eliminated before one added the figures to get a total, since the provincial and municipal figures include expenditures made from monies received from federal sources.	^
While it will be noted that these rates of increase of provincial and municipal expenditures have been substantially greater than our own, I am not criticizing the provinces in any way for this. It is well known that many of the increasing demands for public facilities and public services arising from the rapid growth of our population, our labour force, and our economy generally, as well as from the shift of population from the rural to the urban areas, fall upon provincial governments and their municipalities. This is a fact of life which must be taken into account in
November 30, 1967

evaluating the rate of increase in government expenditures as a whole.
In appraising the situation this year, and taking into account our various commitments including medicare, the government decided it would have to impose much more severe limits on the growth of expenditure than have applied for many years in the past. This restraint is necessary if we are to check the inflationary influences in the economy, reduce our demands upon the capital market, and minimize the increase in taxes. Consequently we decided, as I stated earlier this month, that we would hold the increase in our budgetary expenditures, apart from medicare and the writing off of the Expo deficit, to some 4| per cent, a rate of increase much smaller than in the three previous years. Once this has been achieved and medicare has also been put into effect, then I believe the future growth in our public expenditures can be held to a level which can be met from the increasing revenues resulting from a growing economy without inflationary consequences. There will be many important programs to be pressed forward by the federal government, particularly in the fields of manpower training, research and economic development, but I think they will not involve the rapid, massive increase in expenditures that we have seen in this past decade on the health and social security programs.
To make this transition we must this coming year make a downward adjustment in our spending programs-apart from medicare-from the rapid rates of increase that we have had recently to more sustainable rates of growth, just as we have been endeavoring in the past 18 months to adjust our rates of economic expansion. This will not be easy. To some it may appear at first blush that the ceiling on budgetary expenditures next year of $10,300 million-which allows an increase in the neighbourhood of $400 million over the revised forecast of this year's expenditure-is not a difficult one to meet. Indeed, I have seen comments like this in the press, that submit we are not setting ourselves a very difficult target. In fact it means that over large areas of the government's operations we will be wielding the axe.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Let me illustrate. We make a large number of substantial transfer payments to the provinces and municipalities, such as equalization
The Budget-Mr. Sharp payments, hospital insurance, aid for education and the Canada assistance social welfare plan, most of which increase automatically under statute or agreement with the provinces. We have in addition (apart from old age security which is financed separately) major programs consisting of transfer payments to persons, including family and youth allowances, veterans' pensions, and adult training allowances. All of these are also mainly fixed by population factors and by statute. Finally, there are the public debt charges which will inevitably rise if we assume that interest rates will remain at present levels. Taken together, these expenditures require unavoidable expenditure increases of something over half of the total increase of about $400 million to which we are holding.
When expenditures in these categories are deducted from the total forecast for this year, it leaves about $5,640 million of other expenditures which can increase only 3.3 per cent within the ceiling set for next year-a margin which will largely be required to meet the increased costs of higher pay rates and prices.
In the face of these unavoidable increases in our payments to provinces, in payments to individuals under statutory programs, and in public debt charges, and the increase in pay and prices, it is clear that our other expenditure programs as a whole, under our normal budgetary control, will have to be restrained severely next year. The reductions must be large enough to make way for a number of new things that we will have to undertake, such as the program in Cape Breton. I am thinking about the Cape Breton Development Corporation, the Atlantic Development Board expenditures, and so on. Consequently we are going to have to cut back or cut out a number of things that we have been doing. Some programs that we have been carrying on for years will be dropped, some major construction projects will be postponed, some subsidies will be reduced, some expansion of programs-including some the government has promised-will be held back. In planning our programs we are taking account of the greater unemployment in the Eastern areas of Canada and the fact that expenditures there are less likely to be inflationary than they are in Canada generally.
My colleague the President of the Treasury Board, who is in charge of this expenditure control program, will speak in the budget debate next week and give the house some of

November 30, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Sharp the detailed decisions on these cuts. I expect he will deal with the plans for restraining the growth of the public service, about which many people have expressed concern. I would make only one point about that to keep the subject in perspective. It is that the size of the federal Public Service has for the past 15 years-whether there were ceilings on or off-remained very close to one per cent of the population of Canada and for the past half dozen years has been declining as a percentage of the Canadian labour force.
I have seen suggestions, and probably will hear some suggestions that we should be cutting back government expenditures. I am sure I have the support of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in saying that this is unrealistic, because I have here a report of an interview with the Leader of the Opposition which appears in the most recent issue of Executive Magazine, in which he says:
I think anybody who suggests that you can cut down on government spending or offer a substantial reduction in taxes isn't being very realistic. But any government can control the rate of the increase in expenditure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That is the point.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Leader of the Opposition can try to convince us that our rate increase is too high, but all he was able to do was increase the last increase, and his last increase was much greater than ours.
Government Lending Programs
Our problem in regard to the demands we make on the capital market arises, as I have indicated, not only from our spending programs but also to a large extent from our lending programs. In the current fiscal year for example, we are lending from the treasury to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing and related purposes a net amount of $608 million, after taking into account repayments we receive. We are lending to the Farm Credit Corporation for farm mortgages a net amount of $167 million. We are advancing to the Veterans Loan Board for housing and farm credit purposes $60 million. The size of these lending programs will have to be restricted. I am confident we can do this without serious economic effects, when account is taken of the better flow of mortgage funds we can now expect the capital market to provide.
Another demand upon our funds is Air Canada. It is having to expand rapidly its

fleet of aircraft and its various ground installations in order to meet the growing traffic demands on it. The Minister of Transport and I recognize that it will be necessary to exercise restraint on what the government lends to Air Canada in future years, requiring that company to seek sources of capital funds other than the govermnent. On the other hand, two of our large lending programs will come to an end in 1968, that for Expo and that for the Municipal Development and Loan Board, and we can expect some recoveries in future of what we have lent under both these categories.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the government is applying rigorous restraints on its spending and lending as part of our program to check the inflation of prices and costs, to reduce excessive pressures in our capital markets, and to minimize increase in taxes.
Budgetary Outlook and Policy
Given the situation I have described, we have come to the conclusion that some increases in taxes are essential in order to meet our growing expenditures even under the restraints we have imposed, and to reduce our over-all cash requirements to what we can reasonably expect to finance in the market. Our large cash balances of last April were down to rock bottom at the beginning of this month. Fortunately the Canada savings bond campaign has succeeded in raising a substantial amount of new cash during November, despite the very adverse circumstances under which it had to be carried on. I wish to take this opportunity to express my admiration and gratitude to those who have organized and carried out this campaign this year. We will need to come frequently to the market in the next sixteen months, both for refunding and for cash. We face an unusually large maturity of savings bonds in 1968, and will consider making an offer to holders of these bonds to convert them into a new issue of savings bonds in advance of their maturity on November 1st. I feel we must ensure that our over-all cash requirements, apart from the effects of unforeseen changes in our exchange reserves, should be kept well within our $750 million limit for 1968-69.
To attain this objective is going to require the virtual elimination of our budgetary deficit next year. This is because, even after the reductions proposed in our lending program, our net non-budgetary requirements next year will be large, including as they should some repayment of the 1966 refundable tax
November 30, 1067

on corporate cash flows. In addition it is important to build up our cash balances from the low levels they are likely to be at in March 1968.
Our budgetary expenditures in the current fiscal year-this year-are now expected to be about $9,900 million. Our revenues, before taking into account tax changes I am proposing tonight, are likely to amount to about $9,070 million. Although these figures are different from my June budget forecast, I intend that our tax and expenditure measures will hold the budgetary deficit as close as possible to what was planned at that time. It now appears that our over-all cash requirements for the year as a whole-apart from the refunding of our debt and on the basis of the current level of our exchange reserves -will be about what I expected in the budget speech of June.
Outlook for 1968-69
The best preliminary forecast I can make of the yield next fiscal year of our revenues under our current tax laws-which of course at this early date is more uncertain than is usual in normal springtime budgets, is about $9,700 million. With our expenditures at the level of $10,300 million where we have decided to hold them, apart from medicare and Expo, our budget deficit would be $600 million. I believe we can and should aim to eliminate most of this deficit.
The fiscal restraints that are essential now may limit somewhat the increase in our production next year but such a limitation now is far better than a serious recession later. If we cannot, as individuals and organizations, exercise the restraint that is now called for in price, cost and wage increases then there is no alternative but a collective fiscal restraint exercised by parliament. This is a case where the proverbial ounce of prevention now is far preferable to a pound of cure later. When the government and parliament have taken the action we should to hold our expenditures in check and to meet our expenditure requirements by tax revenues, then we should, as I said in October, support such action by a determined campaign to achieve by voluntary co-operation a large reduction in the unacceptably high rate at which prices and costs are increasing, including wage settlements.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We must bring to an end the present round of inflationary price and cost increases, and move to a situation in which all Canadians
The Budget-Mr. Sharp can work and buy and bargain and invest in the expectation that their money over the years will maintain its real value. To the extent that we can mobilize public opinion effectively in support of this objective, and against the actions of those who clearly exploit their market power to obtain inflationary increases, then we can have a higher level of employment, production and incomes along with price stability. This would be, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, "a more civilized way to control inflation". I think that we can do it. The government is planning to organize a temporary program of this kind-after we have done our part here in parliament to restrain our spending and to impose the taxes necessary to finance, in a non-inflationary way, the expenditures which we in this house have judged to deserve the priority that is implied in our approval of them. When these measures have been approved I would then propose, with several of my colleagues, to initiate discussions with leaders of labour, of management, and other main elements of the economy, as to the manner in which we could most effectively organize this program of restraint.
The Tax Reform Program
Before putting forward my revenue proposals I think it is desirable to say what I can now about our plans in regard to the tax reform program on which we have been working and about the reactions we have received to the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation.
In the first place it must be recognized that our tax reform program must be undertaken under circumstances quite different to those contemplated in the terms of reference of the royal commission and its work. The commission was designing a system to yield a revenue comporable to that of 1964. Clearly we will need a tax system in 1969 and subsequently which will produce more revenues that that of 1964-even after allowing for the growth in our economy since then, and the consequent increase in prices and incomes and in our federal revenues.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What growth?


Mitchell William Sharp: Somebody said "What growth". I do not think there has ever been a period in our history when there has ever been such growth. There has never been a greater rise in the real economy, and there has never been a greater rise in employment than during this period.

November 30, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Sharp


An hon. Member:: There has been a tremendous growth in taxes and unemployment.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the other hand we can and will take account of the arguments the commission made regarding the relative incidence of the tax on various income and other groups.
In accordance with our invitation to all Canadians to send us their views concerning the commission's report we have received many hundreds of briefs and letters on the subject. Many individuals and groups have talked to me, and to the Minister of National Revenue, and to other ministers and officials about the report and its proposals. I wish to express our appreciation to all the individuals, businesses, trade unions and associations who have given us their views on this difficult and controversial subject.
I have been particularly impressed that four points have played a central role in the public discussion of the report, and in the submissions made to the government. The first is the sweeping extent of the changes recommended by the commission, and the difficulty of predicting the effects that sudden changes of this magnitude would have on the economy and ultimately on the position of various taxpayers. We have encountered this difficulty ourselves. The second point is that the commissioners have suggested for Canada a tax system quite different from that of other countries, and in particular quite different from that of the United States with whom we have an integrated capital market. This could give rise to economic difficulties, as well as to technical problems in drafting an effective law. The third point is somewhat related to the second, although it has connotations in other areas as well. It is that Canada will need to generate and invest a large volume of savings over the next decade in order to carry out the economic growth and development we want, and we shall need to attract substantial amounts of foreign capital to supplement our own savings. Many people feel the commission did not give adequate weight to this consideration in deciding on its recommendations, and I am inclined to agree. The final point is a widespread concern over the regional impact of the commissioners' proposals, particularly those related to the mining and petroleum industries.
Many of the briefs which we have received contain suggestions for modification of the commission's proposals, or alternatives to the commission's proposals. We are now studying these suggestions, in addition to completing

our own work on tax reform and the report of the commission.
The government believes that substantial reform is necessary if its revenues are to be raised as fairly as possible and with a minimum of interference with the proper development and functioning of the Canadian economy. I believe that the report of the royal commission will turn out to have been of great value to the government, to parliament and the people of Canada in helping us all to recognize the deficiencies in our present tax system and to devise sensible ways to reform the system.
However, the work we have done within the government, as well as the analyses we have received from others, leads us to the conclusion that while the reforms we will place before parliament and the public in the form of a White Paper and ultimately in draft legislation will undoubtedly be influenced by the monumental report of the royal commission, they will be more in the nature of reforms of the existing tax structure rather than the adoption of a radically different approach. They will not necessarily be limited to items which the commission has recommended.
In the meantime our current tax proposals must of course be made in a form that relates to our present laws.
Personal Income Surtax
I come now to my tax proposals. My first proposal relates to the personal income tax. I am asking the house to approve a special surtax of 5 per cent of the amount of the basic tax assessed on an individual in excess of $100. This surtax will take effect January 1st and would remain I expect until we have completed the transition to a slower rate of growth of expenditures or until economic and financial conditions call for a change in our fiscal policy.
This change will be made in such a manner as not to affect provincial revenues. As was done in 1965, I propose that the maximum change in tax resulting from this amendment be limited to $600. The surtax is so defined that it will not apply to single persons with incomes of less than $2,000 a year nor to a married man with two children having an income of less than $3,600. The increase in tax for a married man with two children and a typical income of, say, $100 a week would be 23 cents a week. I would ask permission at this point to insert in Hansard tables to illustrate the effects of this change
November 30, 1967

upon taxpayers with incomes of various sizes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the tables referred to by the hon. minister be inserted in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[The tables referred to above are as follows:]



TABLE 1

[Stage Direction]
To Illustrate the Proposed Surtax on Personal Income Tax
Single taxpayer-no dependants
Income	Present	Proposed
	tax (a)	surtax
$	$	$2,000	115	-2,500	202	33,000	292	73,500	394	114,000	499	154,500	612	205,000	727	257,000	1,244	4610,000	2,060	8715,000	3,850	17720,000	6,045	28625,000	8,295	39950,000	21,185	600(a) This is	the combined federal and pro-	vincial income tax, including	the old agesecurity tax,	in all provinces except Quebec,	Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The taxpayer is	assumed to	take the optional	standard deduction of $100 in lieu of deductions for medi-	cal expenses	and charitable donations.	TABLE 2	To Illustrate the Proposed Surtax on	Personal Income Tax	Married taxpayer-no dependants	Present	ProposedIncome	tax (a)	surtax$	$	$3,000	115	-3,500	202	34,000	292	74,500	394	115,000	499	157,000	984	3510,000	1,764	7215,000	3,450	15720,000	5,595	26425,000	7,845	37650,000	20,635	600
The Budget-Mr. Sharp (a) This is the combined federal and provincial income tax, including the old age security tax, in all provinces except Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The taxpayer is assumed to take the optional standard deduction of $100 in lieu of deductions for medical expenses and charitable donations.

[Stage Direction]
To Illustrate the Proposed Surtax on Personal Income Tax Married taxpayer-two children
eligible	for family	allowancesIncome	Present	Proposetax (a)	surtax$	$	$3,500	102	4,000	184	34,500	274	65,000	373	107,000	828	2910,000	1,608	6415,000	3,210	14520,000	5,325	25025,000	7,575	36350,000	20,305	600
(a) This is the combined federal and provincial income tax, including the old age security tax, in all provinces except Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The taxpayer is assumed to take the optional standard deduction of $100 in lieu of deductions for medical expenses and charitable donations.
Mitchell William Sharp: For the information of hon. members who are listening to me now I might give a typical example, taking a current taxpayer with two family allowance children. The increase in the tax for a man with a $5,000 annual income is $10 per year; with a $7,000 annual income, $29 per year; with a $10,000 annual income, $64 per year, and with a $15,000 annual income, $145 per year. This gives an index of the incidence of this tax.
My officials estimate that this surtax will increase our revenues in the fiscal year 196869 by $185 million: the effect on the current year will be to increase our revenues by approximately $25 million.
Liquor and Tobacco
My second proposal is to increase the taxes on liquor and tobacco. The effect of the proposed changes would be generally to raise the weight of the federal tax on spirits, beer, wine, cigarettes, cigars and tobacco by approximately 10 per cent, effective immediately. This would be implemented by a number of measures.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is all windfall.


Mitchell William Sharp: Since some companies may have difficulty determining their actual tax liability within two months of the end of the year, they will be permitted to make a final payment adjusting their estimate of tax to their actual liability at the end of the third month following the year. The change will not affect the date for filing corporation tax returns, which will remain six months after the end of the year.
The corporations will make the transition to this payment schedule by increasing their first ten payments for their next taxation year beginning after tonight. Under the present law these payments would each be one-twelfth of the estimated tax for the year; during the year of transition they will each be one-tenth of that amount.
We estimate that this change will increase the cash receipts of the government by approximately $290 million in the fiscal year 1968-69, of which $240 million will be nonrecurrent budgetary revenues and $25 million will be old age security revenues.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: That is just a phony.


Mitchell William Sharp: The remainder will be credited to the provincial tax collection account from which payments are made to the provinces under our tax collection agreements. There will be an additional $50 million of receipts in fiscal 1969-70.
Special Refundable Tax
Hon. members will recall that in 1966, as a measure to restrain the boom in capital expenditures then in progress, we introduced a refundable tax on cash profits. Under the law, the payments must be refunded with interest not later than 36 months after they were due, or after they were received if they were late. They could be repaid as much as 18 months earlier if the government so decided. Consequently the amount collected-some $230 million in all-must be repaid some time between today and June, 1970. Clearly it would be difficult to make repayment in in the next few months, but I believe we should not put off the repayment entirely until the last possible date for that would add seriously to the burdens to be faced during the 1969-70 fiscal year. I believe the measure I have proposed in regard to corporation taxes will provide us with enough cash receipts to permit us to repay a substantial amount of the refundable tax during 1968-69.
November 30, 19G7

We now propose to begin the refunding process in June of 1968, refunding then the payments received before June 30, 1966. Every second month thereafter we will refund one month's receipts; in August 1968 we will refund payments received in July, 1966; in October, 1968, receipts of August 1966, and so on until February, 1970. The final payments will be made in May of 1970 refunding amounts received in May 1967, as the law requires, and late payments.
In order to reduce administrative costs, we should refund with our first payments in June the total amount received from those corporations whose aggregate refundable tax did not exceed $1,000. We will be asking parliament for authority to do this.
This program would require payments of approximately $105 million, including interest, during fiscal 1968-69. During the following fiscal year it is estimated that the payments will be $139 million-leaving a few million to be paid in May 1970. These payments are not budgetary expenditures, but repayments of debt.
Conclusion
Mr. Speaker, the substantial proposals which I have put forward would increase our revenues in the current fiscal year by some $45 million and, together with the reductions in expenditures to be announced, will hold our budgetary deficit this year close to that forecast in the budget of June 1. It will hold our estimated over-all cash requirements for the current year-apart from any changes in our foreign exchange reserves after today-to about $1,550 million. This will leave us with a substantial amount to borrow from now until the 1st of April, but I regard that as manageable.


Richard Albert Bell: What amount?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall be glad to answer a question in that context later. I should like to conclude my speech.
For next year the changes proposed will add about $520 million to our budgetary revenues-including the large non-recurrent revenue arising from the change in the timing of payments by corporations. This will bring our estimated revenues for next year up to within about $80 million of the level to which we intend to hold our expenditures, apart from medicare and the Expo write-off. These tax changes will also increase our cash receipts during the fiscal year 1968-69 by approximately $570 million. It should enable us to hold our over-all cash requirements,
The Budget-Mr. Sharp including the repayment of the refundable tax, well under the ceiling of $750 million I announced on November 10.
Six months ago, in presenting the main budget, I said: "There is no one-shot economic nostrum guaranteed to keep us healthy through the coming year". That budget of June 1 marked a stage in the continuing process of economic adjustment, in the process of managing our prosperity. So do the measures I have placed before you tonight, made necessary by the persistence of inflationary increases in prices and costs, both in Canada and abroad, that threaten to erode the foundations of our prosperity.
The federal government cannot by itself control inflation. What this government can do and is determined to do-with the support of parliament-is to keep its own finances in order, take action to steady the economy and give leadership to the other governments in Canada and to the country at large. This task is difficult and involves some tough decisions. But, as I remarked earlier, an ounce of prevention now is far preferable to a pound of cure later.
Income Tax Act Resolution
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act to provide among other things:
. That for the 1968 and subsequent taxation years, in addition to the income tax otherwise payable by an individual under the Income Tax Act, a special surtax be payable equal to the lesser of
(a)	5 per cent of the amount of the basic tax as determined under section 33 of that Act in excess of $100, or
(b)	$600.
2.	That for the taxation years commencing after November, 1968, a corporation shall during the 12 months period ending two months after the close of each taxation year, pay to the Receiver General of Canada
(a)	on or before the last day of each of the 12 months in that period, an amount equal to one-twelfth of the tax as estimated by it at the rate for the taxation year
(i)	on its estimated taxable income for the year, or
(ii)	on its taxable income for the immediately preceding year,
(b)	on or before the last day of the month ending three months after the close of each taxation year the remainder of the tax payable on its taxable income for the year at the rate for the year
4910	COMMONS
The Budget-Resolutions and that for the taxation year commencing in the period after November, 1967, and before December, 1968, a corporation shall during the ten months period ending two months after the close of its taxation year pay to the Receiver General of Canada
(c)	on or before the last day of each of the ten months in that period, an amount equal to one-tenth of the tax as estimated by it at the rate for the taxation year.
(i)	on its estimated taxable income for the year, or
(ii)	on its taxable income for the immediately preceding year,
(d)	on or before the last day of the month ending three months after the close of its taxation year the remainder of the tax payable for the year at the rate for the year.
Excise Act Resolution
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend	the Excise Act and to provide
among other things:
1.	That	effective	December	1,	1967,	the
duty of excise on spirits distilled in Canada be increased from thirteen dollars to fourteen dollars and twenty-five cents per proof gallon.
2.	That	effective	December	1,	1967,	the
duty of excise on Canadian brandy be increased from eleven dollars to twelve dollars and twenty-five cents per proof gallon.
3.	That	effective	December	1,	1967,	the
duty of excise on all beer or malt liquor be increased from thirty-eight cents to forty-two cents per gallon.
DEBATES	November 30, 1967
Excise Tax Act Resolution
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide among other things:
1.	That effective December 1, 1967, the excise tax on each five cigarettes or fraction of five cigarettes contained in any package be increased from two and one-half cents to three cents.
2.	That effective December 1, 1967, the excise tax on each pound of manufactured tobacco, including snuff but not including cigars and cigarettes, be increased from eighty cents per pound to ninety cents per pound.
3.	That effective December 1, 1967, the excise tax on cigars be increased from fifteen per cent to seventeen and a half per cent.
4.	That effective December 1, 1967, an excise tax of
(a)	two and one-half cents per gallon on wines of all kinds containing not more than seven per cent of absolute alcohol by volume, and
(b)	five cents per gallon on wines of all kinds containing more than seven per cent to absolute alcohol by volume,
be imposed in addition to any other excise tax imposed by the said act payable at the time of sale by the Canadian manufacturer and at the time of importation or withdrawal from bonded warehouse by the importer or transferee who takes imported wines out of bond for consumption.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
13. Resolved, that the Customs Tariff be amended by adding thereto a section as follows:
There shall be levied, collected and paid as a Customs duty on all goods hereinafter enumerated in this section when imported into Canada or taken out of warehouse for consumption therein, in addition to the duties otherwise establisnea, an amount determined as follows:
(а)	in the cane of goods enumerated in tariff items 15605-1, 15610-1, 15615-1, 15620-1, 15625-1, 15625-2, 15630-1, 15635-1 and 15640-1, one dollar and twenty-five cents per gallon of the strength of proof; and
(б)	in the case of ale, beer, porter and stout enumerated in tariff item 14700-1, four cents per gallon.
14. Resolved, that any enactment founded upon the foregoing resolution shall be deemed to ha ve eorne into force on the 1st day of December, 1967, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said resolution importea or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day and before the 1st day of January, 1J68, ano to nave applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before the 1st day o	,
19G7.
Hon. J. W. Monleith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin my remarks by saying to the minister on behalf of all Canadians, "A merry and prosperous Christmas to you, too."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: After tonight's budget it will certainly be less so for most of us, and indeed somewhat more spiritless.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
November 30, 1967


Jay Waldo Monteith: I, too, would like to pay my tribute to St. Andrew's day, or St. Andre's day, as the minister now calls it. I must say that I was very much impressed with that part of his speech which he delivered in Gallic. Having been made aware of the full content of his budget message, taxpayers all across Canada have a very much closer relationship to the "Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled". Now it is, "Canadians wha hae for Mitchell bled."
It has become a common thing for the minister to produce these fiscal afterthoughts and having to correct errors in his earlier budget, or to compensate for his failure to predict correctly what was happening in the economy. Last December 19 the minister brought in a so-called mini-budget practically on the eve of Christmas. As we had expected, he increased taxes. Now tonight, roughly a year later, he presents not a mini-budget but a meany-budget. Again, almost on the eve of Christmas, he increases taxes.


Mr. More:: 
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, when is this complete disregard for the plight of the Canadian taxpayer going to stop? The minister has asked us to place our confidence in his judgment. How good has it been in the past? The following is the minister's statement made last December 19, at the time when he presented his mini-budget, as recorded on page 11332 of Hansard:
My judgment is that the economic expansion now taking place is more in line with the capability of our economy to grow steadily without inflation.
Later on he said:
-I now believe we can expect some moderation in the trend of wage increases and further restraint in pricing policies.
What has happened actually? Consumer prices have risen 3.6 per cent since then. We have inflation, a sagging economy, higher and higher prices, and extraordinary government expenses, mostly non-productive in nature.
The minister has attempted to lay the blame for the present situation on world wide conditions. He said the whole thing was talked over in Rio last autumn. I will wager he did not tell the other ministers of finance the whole story as regards Canada. Subsequently I intend to review in greater detail just how the government has brought us to this precarious situation.
The Budget-Mr. Monteith
First let me admit freely that there is turbulence in the financial and economic community at large. Then I must say that Canada's troubles have been accentuated to a very dangerous point by the complete ineptness of the government in its monetary and fiscal approach to our problems. Never have so many financial statements been made by a government; never have so many warnings been issued; and never has there been such contradiction and deterioration.
Last June we were presented with a budget in which the minister gave his usual reassurances that all was well, except for a possible danger of inflation which he was confident he could manage. On October 4 we had substantially the same message, that all was well, that there were some problems but they were being managed under this government's policies. The minister stuck a pin in his own balloon on November 10 when he had to rise in the house and say that he needed more money.
The sole purpose of this budget is to raise money for the government's extravagant expenditures. Again tonight we have had a lengthy statement containing the minister's exhortations on what we must all do, but no indication of an awakening to reality by the government. Where is the restraint in this budget? The London Economist said the only policy left to this government is restraint. It urges restraint on everyone else but does not practise it. We have had message after message, statement after statement, exhortation after exhortation, and yet the situation continues to deteriorate.
All the government has done tonight is to go to the taxpayer once more and to turn the screw a little tighter. The minister has dressed up that simple operation with a mass of verbal gymnastics. All that can be accomplished by these measures is a further damping down of the economy at a time when a number of indicators are beginning to sag. I will not quote many people this evening, but let me quote John Meyer from this morning's issue of the Montreal Gazette. This is what he said:
It's difficult to Imagine the timing for the budget being less fortuitous than it is. The economy has lost way and is wallowing in the cross currents of indecision.
The public mood is one of weary resentment of government fumbling. The budget itself can offer nothing to inspire. It is, after all, hardly more than the belated correction of a gross miscalculation, or rather a series of gross miscalculations, over the past two years.
4912	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Monteith
The minister has said that next year he will increase his spending by 4.5 per cent, without taking into account medicare, Expo, or old age security. The budget expenditure, he said, will be $10.3 billion. This means we will continue to have inflation and unemployment in a sagging economy.
The government's measures have been unrealistic and haphazard, with the result that we now have uneasiness, lack of confidence and a growing concern about the economy. We in the official opposition, while being as constructive as we possibly can in the face of this government's fiscal inadequacy, are nevertheless conscious of great uneasiness for many reasons, of which I will just mention three or four.
This budgetary statement does nothing to get the economy back on the track of stable growth. It shows no realization of the damaging effects of inflation, and very little intention to discipline and organize government spending. It is obvious that what we have had tonight is simply a device to help finance an unrealistic level of government spending. The minister's inability to curb his colleagues or to persuade the Prime Minister to curb them indicates that the considerations behind the fiscal policy of this government are not economic but political.
It all comes down to one basic fact. The government has grossly overspent. Later I intend to deal in some detail both with the spending record of the government and with its disgraceful record of increasing taxes throughout its term of office. What then do we face because of the government's complete disregard of any sense of thrift or of any trust placed in it by the Canadian people that it will spend their money wisely and carefully? The Liberal government has so overspent that it can no longer use taxation as a measure of fiscal policy. This has put unbelievably severe pressures on any possible monetary control of the economy, and because of loss of confidence it can no longer borrow the required sums without paying exorbitant rates of interest. I refer of course to the sums it requires because of its huge deficit in turn caused by its spendthrift ways.
The government's prime need is cash -cash pure and simple-to pay its bills. We have witnessed a desperate attempt by the minister in the last few months to instil some confidence in investors for Canadian securities. The minister began by saying that in next year's estimates there will be huge savings. How silly can he be, and how naive does he think Canadians are? How could we

DEBATES	November 30, 1967
know what savings will be made next year? No one outside government circles has ever seen the coming year's original estimates. I would think the original estimates for every year since confederation have been cut and frequently slashed before the final figure was presented by the government. Despite all this fancy footwork by the minister, he said that next years spending will be 4.5 per cent above this year's, a year in which spending has been the highest ever. I ask, why? The press across this country is worried, as we have seen in recent weeks and months, and I would like to read a few words out of an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 14, 1967, which read as follows:
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Finance Minister Sharp has been sanctimoniously parading a four-and-one-hall per cent increase in government expenditures next year as thrift incorporated.
By this government's standards, 4| per cent is peanuts. But this is 41 per cent on top of 12 per cent last year which in turn was on top of 14 per cent the year before. All Sharp and the government are doing is to slow down the rate of spending which got out of hand years ago.
If the government had said that it was going to reduce its spending by 41 per cent or even keep it the same as last year, the protestations of a return to fiscal responsibility could be taken more seriously.
This is an example, Mr. Speaker, of the majority opinion across Canada today that this government has mismanaged fiscal and monetary affairs.
If I may summarize, Mr. Speaker, fiscal policy-that is, the attempt to control the level of economic activity-has been tossed out of the window. These taxes have nothing to do with the over-all requirements of the Canadian economy. Indeed they may well do a lot of harm to economic activity. The government simply needs money-lots of money -to pay for its extravagances. It cannot borrow any more. Despite this, it still intends to spend more. This present attempt to bolster confidence in Canada's financial policy by raising taxes should have been unnecessary. The required confidence would have been there had the government acted prudently on the matter of expenditure over the past few years.
When this debate is resumed, Mr. Speaker, the minister's so-called message will have been given the most careful attention. I do not intend tonight to delve into his tax changes; certainly there will be plenty said
November 30, 1967

about them next week. May I simply conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that here again we have had another Scrooge budget with which to face Christmas. I suggest that the taxpayer's lament at this time might well be: "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas-bled white by this government".
May I adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker?
On motion of Mr. Monteith the debate was adjourned.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the second reading of Bill No. C-184, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-2, to establish a corporation for the administration of the national museums of Canada.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the minister not going to make a statement? We would like to hear her speak tonight.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do have a lengthy speech, but since hon. members are in such a good mood I shall not continue at length. I should like to say to hon. gentlemen that this bill has been before the other place and been to a committee in March of this year. It was reported back unamended, and now appears before the house.
This is an interesting bill, dealing with some of our oldest institutions-the National Gallery, which goes back to 1913, and the museums of Canada, which go back to 1842, some four years older than a similar institute, the Smithsonian, in the United States.
The principal purpose of the bill is to bring together under one administration all national museums, including the National Gallery. There is to be set up one board, which is not to be composed of experts but a board of generally cultured people to represent the country. The members of the board may be replaced from time to time, instead of the
4913
Administration of all National Museums board being a sort of self-perpetuating organization as is the case with some boards. The legislation also provides for the setting up of advisory councils of experts in various disciplines. These it is expected will be of assistance to the board.
This situation is somewhat similar to that at the Smithsonian, which as some hon. members may know is a loosely knit series of museums. Some of them are run completely by government appointed officials; others by individuals who have privately made very substantial donations, such as the board of the national gallery in the United States, which has been set up almost completely through Mellon money.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the legislation deals with the National Gallery and the museums. As hon. members know, some new museums have been opened, including one in a temporary home, the Museum for Science, which was opened a week or so ago and is already proving extremely popular. There is also the new aircraft museums. In fact, there are three kinds of museums in existence. All three branches of the museum, together with the gallery will be placed under a single board of trustees and its officers. There will be a senior administrator who will be designated secretary general, and the purpose of designating him is to bring all the administration into one place to relieve people who become directors of the gallery, or of the museums, and who themselves are experts in a great deal of administrative responsibility and routine.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We think this will lead to savings of money and to a more economical and improved administration. It will free the director of the gallery and directors of the museums, and allow them to devote their full time to the professional development of their museums. We hope that this type of administration will improve the interest in and support of all our national galleries. The legislation will set up a board of trustees to run our galleries. It will set up a single administrative body, with the persons composing it reporting to the under secretary of state.
The provisions of this bill deal with moneys that will be voted by parliament for the purposes of the corporation, through normal estimates and appropriation procedures. The cost of the administration and operational programs of the corporation will be financed and controlled in exactly the same way as if the corporation were a department
November 30, 1967
4914	COMMONS
Administration of All National Museums of government. There is a normal provision for a revolving fund to cover the holding of publications and their sale to the public. We also provide in the bill for two special accounts in the consolidated revenue fund, both of which will be interest bearing and non-lapsing. The first is a purchase account for the acquisition of objects for the collections on the advice of, and with suitable delegation of authority to, individual directors. As hon. members may recall, in times past money has lapsed if it has not been used in a fiscal year. As I say, purchases will be made on the advice of directors, who will assist in these purchases.
The second account is a special trust account which will enable the trustees to accept, if they see fit, and to administer, donations and bequests of any kind, in accordance with the conditions which may be attached to those donations. In the past it has not been possible to accept conditional gifts. For instance, in the past if someone wanted to leave something to Canada but wanted what he left to be kept in a certain part of Canada, or if he wanted the gift to be used for a particular purpose it was not possible to accept it. We hope that now a much wider group of Canadians will have the opportunity to benefit from the national collections.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the bill are to ensure that the national treasures of Canada are preserved, added to and made available to Canadians as a whole. This bill, which has already been scrutinized by members in the other place, deserves speedy passage through this house, and I commend that course to hon. members.


Thomas Miller Bell: Before the hon. lady resumes her seat, would she indicate whether she is prepared, after second reading, to send this bill to one of the standing committees -perhaps to the committee on crown corporations-for study? The hon. lady's answer might enable us to give some indication of what we might do on second reading.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I refer my hon. friend to the volume of the other place where this matter was debated.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have read the debate, thoroughly.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is obvious that the learned gentlemen of the other place perhaps have more time, and some might say, more proclivity-


Thomas Miller Bell: Perhaps they have not more wisdom.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been taught that my elders necessarily have more wisdom than I have.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That means that my hon. friend is wiser than I am-though only by a month or so. Since this matter has been scrutinized by those in the other chamber, who perhaps have more time than we have for such scrutiny, and since this matter was before a committee, and this bill has been examined for more than six months, perhaps hon. members of this chamber might deal with the bill expeditiously at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit another question before she sits down? Can she tell the house whether this legislation envisages that any of these museums will have branches in various parts of Canada, so that the things we collect for Canada can be seen by more of our people?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not specifically. As my hon. friend realizes, a new museum building has long been promised for the capital area. That is becoming necessary.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Hear, hear.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: First, we must have a building for display purposes. We now have considerable additional storage area. Of course there is no purpose in having national treasures if they are not out where people can see them. In the past the National Gallery has spent much money and has done laudable work for art shows. It is contemplated that the treasures which are owned by the people of Canada, and are permanent deposits here, will be made available to as many Canadians as possible. I think that all directors of museums and galleries are anxious for our people to see our treasures. A good example of the kind of thing being done can be seen in the centennial train and caravans, which have brought matters of interest to our people in their home environments.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, after the harrowing experience we have gone through tonight, after listening to the Minister of Finance, I am interested to know if the Secretary of State can define "cultivated people"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend would
qualify. It means, people of culture.
November 30, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4915


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could I ask the hon. lady if it is contemplated to reach an understanding with provincial museums whereby the most important art treasures in Ottawa can be made available, on loan, to provincial museums? This would be particularly useful in bringing some artifacts in other parts of Canada to Ottawa. The provincial areas involved would be willing to co-operate if there were some basis that would enable the exchange of art treasures between the provinces and Ottawa.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Nothing in the bill prevents that. There has been a sort of renaissance in our museums and the gallery; which has been stimulated by centennial year. I thank hon. members for supporting, by their attendance, centennial openings of museums, and for their attendance in the gallery. There seems to be an intensified interest this year in these matters, with greater exchange and co-operation between national and provincial institutions. I am sure, if it is parliament's wish that there be more active programs of exchange, that the directors would be happy to know of this, and happy to know that they have parliament's support.


Richard Albert Bell: I had hoped that the minister would agree to referring this bill to one of our standing committees, before which we might take evidence. We could try to determine what the future of the national museums, the National Gallery and other organizations that will come under the aegis of this new bill, will be. I confess that I have grave reservations about the proposals made in this bill.
We, as Canadians, have been tremendously neglectful of our history and traditions. We do not seem to understand that we have one of the most romantic histories of any country in the world. We are inclined to play down the history of our nation and to say, "We are dull people; we do not count in the great march of history."
Anyone examining our country, whether that examination is confined to the great march of history, to archaeology, or to the history of the last 300 or 400 years, will find that ours is one of the most exciting and romantic histories. We need to let our young people understand this. If they do understand, I believe we shall have some unity in our nation. It is for that reason that this bill is of greater importance than, perhaps, hon. members realize.
Administration of all National Museums [DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The bill received a very cursory examination in the other place. I hope you will not call me to order, Mr. Speaker, but that is the type of examination which the other place is giving to all legislation, and if the other place does not give better examination to bills than it has been doing in the last two years it will forfeit its right to be considered a second chamber of any distinction whatever.


An hon. Member:: It has already done so.


Richard Albert Bell: I opened on the basis of our history and how important it is. Now we come to consider the problems faced by the National Museum over the last number of years. It is foolish to say there have not been very grave problems indeed. The minister has experienced them, and so did her predecessor. Before this bill goes to committee I think it is important that we should ask: How will it change or help to solve problems of a personality nature? Such a change will not be brought about simply by appointing a new board of directors.
I have a clipping in front of me with the headline; "Glover's Statement-Museum Bill Cause for Resignation." There have been many resignations from the National Museum over the last three or four years. Why? I think we should be given an explanation. How will this bill improve matters? I see the minister pointing to one of her predecessors in this connection. These problems should be clarified, and that is why I would like the bill to go to the committee.
The major reservation I have in connection with this measure is that it would bring the National Gallery under a board of trustees which would have responsibility for all our museums. I shall need a great deal of convincing that this is the best course to follow. I confess I do not believe that the type of persons who would agree to serve on a board and who would be interested in geology, paleontology, in the National Aviation Museum, in ethnology, archeology or various subjects of that kind would be persons with the judgment and discrimination required to make a first class job of running the National Gallery of Canada.
Perhaps we have not gone as far as we should in building up our National Gallery. I shall have to take my full share of responsibility, as a minister who once reported for the gallery. I think we have been inclined to downgrade its affairs, to say that art is for the arty folk and that not too much attention
November 30, 1967
4916	COMMONS
Administration of all National Museums should be paid to it. The minister shakes her head. I give her full credit for the approach she has taken since she has been responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Albert Bell: We must recognize the National Gallery as something that our grandchildren-I hope the great grandchildren of the minister-will regard as one of the great assets of the nation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My grandchildren?


Richard Albert Bell: No, the minister's great grandchildren.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I had better get started.


Richard Albert Bell: I do not want to give the minister any incentive tonight.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member always has.


Richard Albert Bell: I am getting in deep, I can see.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How about getting back to the bill?


Richard Albert Bell: We should look upon the National Gallery as one of the truly great assets of this nation in the years ahead. My point is this: Can we hope to get a board of directors composed of men and women sufficiently sophisticated and sufficiently knowledgeable in relation to National Gallery matters, whom we should also appoint to the board of the National Museum with its special interests in paleontology, zoology and so on? I will need some convincing.
I am aware that this is the situation in the Smithsonian Institute. I have been there and I recognize it is one of the most magnificent institutes in the world, one of the finest series of buildings I have ever visited. But I wonder whether we could duplicate such a board in Canada. I fear we cannot. I think, therefore, we should retain a board responsible for the National Gallery, and that we should have a separate board responsible for the National Museum. In my opinion the step proposed in this bill is a retrograde one. I think we shall suffer as a result of it, and that the future will show its lack of wisdom.
It is true there has been much pettiness in the National Museum and we want to get rid of it. The suggestion here is that we should


wipe the slate clean and have a new board. But I wonder whether the result will be the one it is hoped to achieve. I trust the minister will give serious consideration to these words, which are sincerely spoken and which reflect my concern about whether it is wise to bring the museum and the gallery together. Would it not be far better to keep them separate, and to give distinct responsibilities to those who are prepared to serve the two institutions.
I had not intended to speak on this subject. I would have much prefered to speak tonight on the budget. But I want at least to indicate the most serious reservations with respect to this legislation, to tell the minister why I hope it will go to the committee, and why, if it gets to the committee of the whole, the hon. lady should give us explanations far more complete than those which have yet been presented to us.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My
hon. friends in this party were somewhat surprised when I indicated that I wished to say a few words on this bill. Perhaps, because our policy does not allow me to accept an appointment to the Senate, they were wondering whether I was not asking to join a museum.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: First of all, I want to repeat the compliment which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) paid the minister. It seems that since the hon. lady became responsible for the museum a great deal of the pettiness and professional jealousy which went on in the past has been dissipated. We support the principle and purpose of the bill. We are not sure what experience will prove with respect to its administration but we do think it is a great improvement over the situation as it has existed in the past.
I have been interested in this subject for a number of years. People in other countries have been interested in it also. I have received dozens of letters from people interested in museums across Canada and the United States expressing concern at the events which have taken place in our National Museum. I should like to quote briefly from one of these letters because it shows that others, outside Canada, are interested in this question.
November 30, 1937	COMMONS
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I have a letter here from Dr. Vernon Leslie, director of the Pennsylvania Institute of Anthropology dated December 26, 1963:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
For some time I have been intending to write to you relative to the situation which has unfortunately been allowed to develop at the Canadian National Museum. Many scholars in the United States have been observing events there for several years-in fact, since the resignation of one of America's most brilliant young archeologists, Mr. Thomas E. Lee.
Since science knows no international boundaries and because of the fact that your name has been mentioned as a champion of the effort to clean up this museum mess once and for all-
I did not know I was a champion of anything really.
-I am taking the liberty of writing to you on the matter. It is the feeling here that every effort should be made to restore the museum to its former status as a research institution.
I judge that is contemplated in the terms of this bill.
Then I have another letter here from the Director of the Instituto Interamericano, of Denton, Texas, dated November 13, 1963:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
We have been interested in the affairs of the National Museum of Canada for some time since our organization is dedicated to the study of man and his activities, past and present, and the dissemination of knowledge thereof. We have kept in touch with the museum's stormy affairs through the Canadian press. I enclose a copy of our current newsletter that you may see how things look to us at the moment. See page 5.
I read the newsletter and it indicated at some length their, shall I say, grief at what was happening in our national museum at that time.
While our area of interest is world wide, we are perhaps best informed on the U.S. and Latin America. For this reason we are curious about certain points and facts which seem uniquely Canadian.
Then he went on to write:
A third point involves the museum staff. It is rather odd that twice within four years there should be wholesale resignations either voluntary or forced. Is this due to internal stresses or is it also a matter of politics as also has been suggested by published articles?
I suppose that all of this is really none of our affair but we are intensely interested and greatly involved in anthropology in the Americas and this museum matter affects Canadian anthropology gravely. Moreover, we have always had a very warm feeling for Canada and her people.
Sincerely yours,
Carl B. Compton, Director.
DEBATES	4917
Administration of all National Museums
Then I had another letter from the director of The Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Inc., who wrote on January 3, 1964:
Dear Sir:
The writer has noted with growing concern the adverse effects of the present controversy in Ottawa with regard to the control of archaeological work in that area. This attempt by certain professional archaeolgists to obtain complete control of the field is by no means confined to Canada.
I think in this letter he was referring to certain United States citizens who could not take the oath of allegiance to Canada and who had a very prominent part in our museum at that time.
Witness the treatment accorded to Dr. Vernon Leslie in this country for publishing an article entitled "Fraud in Ontario Archaeology."
This shows that what happened in our museum aroused the interest of museum directors in many places in the United States as well as in Canada. I have one more short letter here, and I want to quote briefly from it in view of the minister's statement that the purpose of the museum is to preserve things of great value to Canada, artifacts and things of that sort. The letter is from Mrs. Robert L. Needham, who is a bachelor of science and a master of arts, sent from 647 River Road, Corunna, Ontario, on January 30, 1964:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
Would you please send me a copy of Hansard containing your speech re the national museum disgrace?
I am an American with a Canadian husband, living in Canada. Canadians criticize Hoffa. We Americans have no greater national disgrace, at least until Kennedy's assassination, to equal that museum scandal.
Canadian artifacts being given by McNeish to American museums is something Canadians are going to resent in a very big way.
Further on she wrote:
Dr. Rousseau and Mr. Tom Lee could make that museum a place of which Canadians could be proud.... The government has let the Canadian people down most shamefully.
That was the government of the hon. gentleman from Carleton, who was speaking a few minutes ago. Then she added:
-we, my Canadian husband and I, admire you for trying to do something about it.
I just brought to the attention of the house certain facts given to me by the staff of the museum at that time. Then came this paragraph:
Dr. Rousseau and Mr. Tom Lee could make that museum a place of which Canadians could be proud, instead of the pathetic shambles it is, losing its good men to the U.S. because they can't stand the disgrace of it. We've admired Tom Lee's
November 30, 1967

Administration of all National Museums absolute honesty, integrity and courage to fight for Canada while being soundly booted by the country of his loyalty.
I just wish to give one more quotation from the Anthropological Journal of Canada, volume 5, No. 3, 1967, which is the quarterly bulletin of the Anthropological Association of Canada. The editor is Thomas E. Lee who, I understand, is now professor of anthropology at Montreal University. In it he has an article entitled, "Members of Parliament, Lend Me Your Ears." It reads in part:
Readers of this Journal have long been aware of editorial concern over the problem of foreign control of archaeology and the archaeological profession in Canada. In general, references have been oblique, often obscure, out of certain knowledge of human nature that to mention the citizenship of an involved person is to raise the hackles of well-meaning but poorly informed friends, and to be branded as "anti" something or other. The international character of the Anthropological Association of Canada and its published bulletin, of its associates, and of its long record of co-operation, should tell all reasonable persons that, as applied to either the association or myself, the charge would be false. But, as one who was hounded from a civil service position, into long years of unemployment in my own country by the activities of non-Canadians and those who served them well, I feel eminently qualified and informed to speak on that subject. And one might even dare hope that thoughtful Americans would share the concern and resentment of their Canadian counterparts and of the victims themselves-
The peculiar placing of R. S. MacNeish of Brooklyn in the civil service of Canada in 1949-an act with which J. B. Griffin of the University of Michigan proudly told our government years later he had "something to do"-was the beginning of a process that has produced an institution and a profession in Canada that is anything but Canadian, although supported entirely by Canadian taxpayers' dollars. What parliament apparently was unable to determine, then or later, was the extent to which infiltration by non-citizens had occurred in university departments and other institutions across Canada-
Yes, Canadians have been pathetically apathetic- indifferent to what has been going on around them and among them. They might do well to look at page 7, The Interamerican, volume v. 14, No. 4, 1967, Denton, Texas. "By a vote of more than 13-1 the Fellows of the American Anthropological Association have adopted a statement which deplores the employment of anthropological research as a cover for foreign intelligence activity."
I just wonder whether any of these gentlemen were placed in our museum staff, or in other museums in this country, as a cover for foreign intelligence agencies. I have had quite a few discussions with a number of people who have come to my office from Montreal, Toronto, and other places, and this is of serious concern to some of them.
[Mr. Herridge.I
Further on the article reads:
But if anyone raised the matter of citizenship, this is not indicated. And it ought to have been raised. This is no innocent little get-together of a group of professional men co-operating across the border. This "Council For Canadian Archaeology"- composed of persons "concerned with work in Canadian archaeology or working in Canadian institutions" is very heavily loaded with United States citizens-as was the group of 12 meeting in Reno, Nevada, at an earlier date to hatch up the scheme (although the birthing pangs are happily and conveniently attributed to a Canadian-born holder of a Michigan degree).
* (9:50 p.m.)
I have quoted briefly from some of these letters and this article in order to indicate what has happened in the past and what has caused many Canadians a great deal of concern, particularly those who are interested in this subject. This is the reason, when I rose to speak, that I congratulated the minister. The tenor, the tempo and the development since this department has come under her jurisdiction have been greatly improved. I trust that the board of trustees for the administration of this and other museums will clear up the situation once and for all, and that the numerous citizens who are qualified will have the first opportunity to serve the government of Canada, rather than those who are sent in from other places at the direction of anthropological organizations outside of this country.
That is all I have to say at the present time. I may have a few words to say when we deal with the various clauses of the bill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the second reading of this bill, nor do I wish to prevent other members who have indicated an interest in this bill from having an opportunity to speak in respect of it. In view of the fact that there are several other members who wish to speak tonight, I think perhaps the suggestion already made by the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Bell), to the effect that we might well refer this legislation to a suitable committee following second reading, would be an excellent one. I say this because I did have some responsibility for museum matters for a short period, not during the period referred to by the hon. member who has just spoken, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), but following that period of difficulty, when plans were afoot to put the National Museum of Canada on a basis that would be adequate for the stature of Canada at this particular time.
November 30, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4919
It had been the hope that by our centennial year we would have a fine new building and a fine new organization, such as is outlined in this legislation, as one of our major centennial projects. If I might be permitted to quote the bard on St. Andrew's night, "The best laid schemes o' mice and men Gang aft a-gley". I might take this measure as a step forward. However, unfortunately I have found myself in precisely the same position as the hon. member for Carleton. I have searched the records of the debates of the other place and I am forced to say that the discussions there were quite superficial. I believe that if we referred this matter to a committee the interest generated there, both on the part of the members and the press would have a beneficial and educational effect in influencing the public of Canada as to the importance of preserving their historic past.
Even though we are dealing with artifacts and the Canadian past, it is almost impossible to find published information on the operations of the Canadian National Museum. I am sure members would be only too happy, in coming to grips with this situation, to take the necessary time 'to examine the legislation, which on the surface seems to be reasonable enough so far as the personnel organization is concerned. I do not believe that merely to state it is patterned after the Smithsonian Institute is too informative. One thing of course which we will not have is the facilities and buildings which house the Smithsonian Institute. This is an important aspect of any museum project.
At this stage I would support the hon. member for Carleton and hope that the minister would refer this matter to a committee for further examination.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believe that the committee system is quite valuable in examining pieces of legislation, but I cannot quite share the imaginative enthusiasm of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) in his suggestion that it would excite the imagination of the many members of the press to have this bill referred to a committee. I think we could do just as valuable an assessment of it here as could be done in a committee- and perhaps a more valuable one. As the minister put it, we do not all fall within the class of people who have the detailed interest which one would have to have in a subject such as this.
Administration of all National Museums
I am one who on a number of occasions has had cramps in his legs from visiting museums, because I enjoy the materials contained therein. I have a particular interest in them. I should like to mention certain items of artistic and historic value which usually are contained in museums and which emanate from the native Indian people on the west coast. These people developed an artistic form which is equal to perhaps anything in the world. I believe it was the people of the early west coast tribes, with their artistry and imagination, who did the murals and totemic carvings which contributed a tremendous amount to artistic matters and art forms. It has been mentioned by someone far more learned than I that the totemic works of the west coast Indians were the only original North American art forms developed here and that everything else had been developed in another nation. This particular form is extremely original.
A program of totem pole restoration is being undertaken all along the Skeena river. This is a program in which the provincial government assists financially. I do not know whether it is conceivable that the museums might be able to participate in this program, but it would seem to me that this would be a very worthwhile project for the corporation or some of the museums to participate in. In this way they would be able to help preserve some of the value and quality of these totem poles on the sites where they originally stood.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there is a desire to proceed or to call it ten o'clock. In view of the fact that some other members have indicated a desire to speak, I think I might call it ten o'clock and return to this subject another day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. It is now ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government house leader if he would give us some indication concerning which matters will be discussed tomorrow on government orders, and the order in which they will be taken up.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue with the second reading of the bill to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Museums of Canada. Then we will have the committee stage consideration of Bill No. C-151 with

November 30, 1967
Business of the House
regard to the financing of the Canadian National Railways system. The next order of business will be the second reading of Bill No. S-19, respecting the boundary between the province of British Columbia and the Yukon and Northwest Territories. This will be followed by second reading of Bill S-18, an act to amend the Publication of Statutes Act; second reading of Bill S-3, an act respecting the armed forces of countries visiting Canada; the resolution preparatory to amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, and the resolution preparatory to amending the National Parks Act.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Michael Starr: When that is finished what will we do?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that is finished at any time tomorrow afternoon I would be glad to move the adjournment of the house.
On Monday I should like to call the resolution now on the order paper preparatory to amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and, hopefully, the resolution on divorce, prior to resuming the budget debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may we have some indication as to the time when the budget debate will be resumed? Will it be on Tuesday in any case, or is this day like a movable feast day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tonight it is movable, but perhaps by tomorrow evening I will be able to say definitely that we will not call it until Wednesday. I should like to get these two resolutions passed before we begin the budget debate, so that members will have an opportunity to examine the bill on divorce and the bill in respect of the Industrial Disputes and Investigations Act. It may be that if the house takes the full time allotment on each of these resolutions we will not be able to proceed with the budget debate until Wednesday. Perhaps by consultation we may have some indication as to whether we can call the budget debate for Tuesday or Wednesday.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if I may be so bold as to suggest some change in the order of business which might help expedite the completion of this business, perhaps we could take second reading of the bill in respect of the national museums, and then proceed to number 11 on the order paper followed by number 41, number 43 and number 29.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently there are lots of movable feasts.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no objection to that rearranged order. I agree that we call the items mentioned in the suggested order, and then the C.N.R. bill, followed by the business in the order I suggested.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening as a result of a question I posed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) last Friday, asking him whether he had received representations from the milk producers pointing out that the government dairy policy with regard to minimum quotas is creating grave economic hardships, especially among small producers. This question was unanswered at the time and I now appreciate the opportunity of putting it again this evening.
I have received many protests, both verbal and written, from milk producers and milk processors in Prince Edward-Lennox. Indeed, this government is placing the producers, especially the small producers, the processors and the small cheese and butter factories in jeopardy. My question last Friday was urgent.
If the Minister of Agriculture and this government do not change their policies and abolish this discriminatory 50,000 pound minimum quota, the small milk producers of this country will not only be soon forced out of business but, indeed, many of them will inevitably have to ask for other forms of assistance. Let me quote the letter I received on November 15 from the executive of the Elmbrook Cheese and Butter company of Picton, Ontario, in Prince Edward county. It is from Mr. A. Ackerman, the secretary treasurer of the Elmbrook Cheese and Butter company, who says:
Dear Sir:
Enclosed please find a "resolution" that the board of directors of the Elmbrook Cheese and Butter Co. Ltd. made at a meeting recently.
If all our patrons under the 50,000 lb. quota are cut off from subsidy it would sure hurt our factory.
Would you please see what can be done about this?
Thanking you in advance for giving this your attention, we are, yours truly-
November 30, 1967	COMMONS
Here is the resolution:
Be it resolved that we are not in favour of the
50.000	lbs. milk quota. We have about 68 patrons and of that number one third are under that quota. In order to operate our factory we need the small patrons as well as the big senders.
Mr. Speaker, this letter from the Elmbrook Cheese and Butter Company Limited is proof enough that this government seems determined to drive the small producer and cheese and butter factories from the market and out of business. Such policies cannot be tolerated, for they endanger the very economy of a vast section of rural Canada. The minister may say that a farmer or rural landholder producing less than 50,000 lbs. of milk per year is not running a viable or economically successful business.
The minister may arrive at his conclusions because of some of these modern, yet not necessarily sound economic doctrines which now try to dictate that to be successful one must be big. I refute this dogma, which is an unreliable concept. Several businessmen at home in Napanee and Picton-dealing in the farm trade, the feed dealers, the farm supply dealers and the farm implement dealers, tell me that this concept is not always so. They tell me that for the most part their best accounts and their soundest credit lie with the small farmer and not always with those who, like mushrooms, have suddenly sprung overnight into big business.
Most of these small milk producers are the owners of the smaller farms of 100 acres or less. They are men and women who are too old to attempt to venture into expansion but who are not yet of pensionable age. They are people who keep from six to ten milking cows, and quite often the reason they do not produce more than 50,000 lbs. per year is that they are feeding calves which they rear for market. These may be for either veal or for future milk cows. The calves are either pail-fed or suckling. This type of farmer in his farm practice is producing just as much, and perhaps more, toward the betterment of the country's economy as the man producing
75.000	or 100,000 lbs. of milk.
But no, this government will not give the small producer any subsidy or recognition. This is nothing but discrimination against approximately one third of the farmers of eastern Canada. The hon. member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Moore) informs me that the same applies to western Canada.
One of my constituents said to me the other day in protest when I met him on the street in Napanee, "My wife and I milk six 27053-311$
DEBATES	4921
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion cows. We have been sending our product to the Forest Mills cheese factory for many years. We use the money from our milk cheques to pay the taxes, insurance and grocery bills at the village store. We have 100 acres of farm and we must use the grassland for some good purpose. Now I understand we will not receive the $1.10 subsidy because we do not produce enough to suit the government. We are not going to part with our cows, and we are going to continue to send milk anyway and get what we can from our small operation, despite the sting of discrimination as practised by this government."
Mr. Speaker, I find that this man is not alone. There are others sending to the same factory who will continue to send milk even though they do not receive the subsidy. What a travesty of trade results from the lack of use of good Canadian common sense on the part of the minister and his department. Now we will have one farmer for example who produces 51,000 lbs. of milk per year receiving all the government largesse in subsidies, but another one producing 49,000 lbs. of milk gets nothing from the government; and if he continues to send milk he takes $1.10 per hundred less for the same product. I say to the minister, stop this discrimination immediately.
I have made other inquiries and am informed that Pet Milk Canada Ltd. in Napanee, a large processor, has about 400 patrons. Of these patrons between 75 and 100 are small producers of less than 50,000 lbs. per year. What about the butter industry and the cream producer? Canadian butter production for 1967 has decreased in comparison with 1966. This is directly attributable to the present dairy policy of the government. I understand the dairy commission announced that the limitation of 50,000 lbs. for a producer to be eligible for subsidy in 1968-69 would not apply to cream shippers, and that there would be consultation with proper organizations as to a minimum quantity of cream to be eligible for subsidy next year, c (10:10 p.m.)
This is a very indefinite promise which will not give the cream shippers and the smaller creameries much hope. Does the minister not realize that without the $1.10 subsidy the cream shipper only receives $2.20 per hundredweight for standard 3.5 milk? This is a far cry from the promised $4.75 per hundredweight.
November 30, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


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


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I did not start until six minutes after ten o'clock and it is not yet 10.13.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
allotted time for hon. members during the adjournment debate is seven minutes.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet spoken for seven minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to inform the hon. member that he has spoken for seven minutes.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the implication in the hon. member's question is that small producers are now suffering hardship as a result of the minimum quota policy of the Canadian Dairy Commission for the current year ending next March 31 is of course completely wrong. In fact, quite the reverse is the case. When the commission established the principle of limiting the total amount of subsidies to the requirements of the domestic market, and giving each shipper a subsidy quota for the amount of manufacturing milk or cream which he delivered last year, it made one very significant exception. The exception was that if a shipper delivered less than the equivalent of 50,000 pounds of 3.5 per cent milk last year, he was given a subsidy quota of 50,000 pounds for this year. This meant that if a shipper delivered, say,
10.000	pounds last year, he could get a subsidy on deliveries of up to 50,000 pounds this year. This can hardly be regarded as discriminating against the small shipper.
Presumably what the hon. member had in mind in his question was the statement of the Canadian Dairy Commission on April 14 last that it proposed not to issue quotas in 1968-69 to producers who delivered less than
50.000	pounds of milk in 1967-68.
In answer to his question I can say that representations have been received from farm organizations and from dairy groups with respect to this. I can say also that almost without exception they support the principle that there should be some minimum level of production to qualify for a federal dairy subsidy.
In taking this position they agree with the fundamental point that milk and cream production and subsidies must be related to the

needs of the domestic market, and that the available subsidies should be directed to help develop more efficient production units. This of course was the reason why the commission this year gave quotas of 50,000 pounds to those who shipped less than that last year, so that the commission would put no obstacles in their way to reach the minimum volume which it proposed for next year.
There is of course some difference of opinion as to what that minimum quantity should be. The commission itself announced some time ago that the proposed figure of
50,000	pounds of milk would be reviewed with respect to cream shipments. That review is still going on and as soon as possible, after taking into consideration all representations and all the factors involved, a decision will be taken and an announcement made.



HOUSING-MONTREAL-AVAILABILITY OF HABITAT '67 AT EXPO SITE

Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 27, I asked the Minister of Labour the following question:
Since there is a certain shortage of housing in Montreal, and since Habitat '61 is almost completely vacant, will the minister state whether C.M.H.C. intend to take over Habitat '67 or whether they would consider making it available to low and middle income families at least on a part time basis?
In reply to this question the Minister of Labour said that he would have to take it as notice. Under ordinary circumstances I would not have pressed the point further, but since I felt action was required immediately I put the question on the agenda for the adjournment debate.
This month there was an article in the Montreal Star written by Charles Lazarus in which he pointed out that out of the 115 completed units at Habitat '67 only 12 to 15 are still rented, and only two of these will be rented for the winter. He also pointed out that while it was originally hoped to rent these apartments after the conclusion of Expo, this proposal was cut back by the government's hope to reduce Expo costs. In his article Mr. Lazarus said:
The decision announced a few weeks ago by Michael Preston, administrator of Habitat for Expo '67, that the $300 to $715 monthly rent scale would be continued after the exhibition, has been suspended pending further action to place the project under the jurisdiction of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
If and when that happens, it is expected that the range of rents will be considerably lower than the $300-$715 scale.
November 30, 1967

Then Mr. Michael Preston was quoted as saying:
The problem ... is that we cannot negotiate leases since we are waiting for some specific decision by the federal government, which is taking over the project.
It is my proposal that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation take over Habitat as quickly as possible and make it available to medium and low income families, especially those families which have been displaced by renewal projects in Little Burgundy, Lower Westmount and elsewhere. Many of these families have been put out of their homes to make way for these projects, and I understand are having difficulty finding new homes at similar rentals. If no one is going to use Habitat, I cannot see why it cannot be made available to some of these people as quickly as possible.
If there is going to be action, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be taken very quickly. Rents could be scaled to incomes and to meet the cost of services and upkeep. Once the urban renewal and public housing projects to which I have referred have been completed, these same families could be moved back into them and Habitat used as originally planned.
Some might say that we cannot use a luxury project like Habitat for this sort of thing, or set the rents as low as I propose, but it seems that it is better to get some rent from this project rather than get none at all. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are providing housing for families who are now living in deplorable conditions.
In support of my question the Montreal Star in an editorial dated November 29, 1967 had this to say:
-what use could better reflect the whole spirit of Expo, which gave birth to the project?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Which, Mr. Speaker, is "Man and His World".


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member who has just spoken for having raised this question. It is timely since I realize full well that people have begun asking questions about the future of Habitat, which played such a useful part during Expo '67.
I am sure the hon. member will be interested to know that negotiations are proceeding now with representatives of the city of Montreal, the province of Quebec and the federal government for the disposition of certain Expo assets, including Habitat. These negotiations should be completed very shortly, and it is quite possible-I will not say probable, but it is certainly possible-that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may become responsible for the administration of Habitat '67. If this is the case, it would be the intention of the corporation to make Habitat available for rental, but I am afraid, that having regard to the very substantial investment and also to the expenditures involved in winterizing such units as are not now occupied, they are likely to become available at a high quality rent rather than a rent which would fit in with incomes of people in the lower or middle income brackets.
The three levels of government have very substantial investments in Expo '67 and it was the hope that certain of the facilities provided would be disposed of, or put to reasonable economic use. That therefore should be the objective of C.M.H.C. were that body, as may well be the case, to take over this operation.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Friday, December 1, 1967