1967-10-12

Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a copy of the correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the provinces concerning vocational training, as I had promised the hon. members for Royal and Winnipeg North (Messrs. Fairweather and Orlikow).


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Last Thursday I promised to table in this house the regulations under the Bank Act concerning interest disclosure. With the leave of the house I would like to table today copies in English and in French.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-160 entitled "an Act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, according to section 26 chapter 15 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1946 and sections 21 and 23 (a) and
(b) of the Canadian Citizenship Act, every Canadian citizen is considered as a British subject.
Furthermore, any passport issued in Canada specifically mentions that all Canadian citizens are British subjects.
Considering that since December 11, 1931, under the Statute of Westminster, Canada is no longer a British colony but has become a sovereign and independent country;
Considering that it is proper through political and constitutional evolution that Canadians should henceforth be recognized solely as Canadian subjects;
The present bill proposes that the Canadian Citizenship Act be amended so that the status of British subject which is now given to all Canadian subjects be changed so and that henceforth a Canadian shall be designated solely as a Canadian subject.
I hope that in this year of the centennial of Canadian confederation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The standing orders do not permit more than a brief explanation of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I presume is also Acting Prime Minister. It deals with the very serious allegations regarding Canada's medical aid program in Viet Nam made by Dr. Michael Hall. Can the minister advise whether Dr. Hall's charges are being thoroughly and promptly investigated, and whether the five man investigative team now en route to Viet Nam under assignment from the external aid office sought information from or made any contact with Dr. Hall regarding our medical program in the area prior to their departure?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with
3010

October 12, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry these charges, so-called, yesterday as far as they could be dealt with on orders of the day, when I was faced with a question by the hon. member for Royal. I indicated that we would be very happy to deal with Dr. Hall's views when the external affairs committee meets.
However, in fairness to the position and to the merits involved in the situation I wish to say there is no foundation for Dr. Hall's observations. Canada is contributing more to Viet Nam than any other country except two. I indicated that yesterday, and the detailed program of what we have done in the medical field-which was outlined in one of the morning newspapers and which I could not outline on orders of the day yesterday-is a pretty good indication of the invalidity of the observations made by Dr. Hall, about whom I will have something to say at the appropriate time in the appropriate place, the external affairs committee.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As a supplementary question, in view of this answer and in view of the widespread concern throughout the country as a result of Dr. Hall's statements, will the minister take an early opportunity to contact the chairman of the standing committee on external affairs so that Dr. Hall may be given an early opportunity to appear before it in order that the committee may hear in extenso Dr. Hall's information and impressions, and give the minister a chance to refute them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a reasonable suggestion and I have already acted on it. I may say incidentally that the fact that a representative of the Red Cross and a doctor representing the rehabilitation centre of Notre Dame in Montreal are now on their way to Viet Nam is a pretty complete answer to many of the things Dr. Hall alleged. I wish personally that when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation decides to make time available-


Mr. Nielsen:: Be careful now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -to people to put forward certain views, at the same time they would give an opportunity to others to reply.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in recent days the minister has said that this and several other matters would be referred to the external affairs committee and that he would answer fully at that time, when will he take steps to have this committee meet so these matters can be gone into without undue delay?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, no member of the government can control the actions of a parliamentary committee, but I have already taken steps which I hope will be persuasive and will result in such a committee meeting.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the minister whether anything has been referred to the external affairs committee which would make it possible for that committee to meet to consider these matters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I wonder whether the minister would like to give the house his assurance that Dr. Hall was supplied with the proper medical and surgical equipment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is asking a specific question. I am sure Dr. Hall was given every assistance that could possibly have been given in the circumstances. I asked Dr. Venema to come back from Viet Nam to report on a number of matters and I am satisfied that what Dr. Venema reported to me represents the true situation.


Mr. Heber E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Will the minister assure the house that in the meantime he will not continue condemning Dr. Hall by innuendo both in and outside the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question regarding his statement of yesterday that he had sought the advice and co-operation of both labour and management and other persons concerned with the present economic situation in the country. I should like to ask him whether this was a general invitation contained in the speech he made in the house or whether he has had some specific correspondence with these various groups asking for their co-operation and advice.


Mitchell William Sharp: The invitation I had reference to was the one
October 12, 1967



I made in the speech and on other public occasions. I have not yet had correspondence with these associations and groups, but I intend to do so when the time is ripe.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it the intention of the minister to set up an advisory committee, and is it his intention to invite the various groups who are concerned with the economy to be represented on such a committee so they will be in a position to advise him and so he will be in a position to secure their co-operation from time to time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government naturally would not embark upon a policy of trying to mobilize public opinion in the interests of greater stability in prices and wages without consulting all those concerned and seeking their advice and counsel.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it the intention in the near future to directly approach these groups and, if so, what groups does the minister intend to approach?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not in a position to answer that question, but I should hope the groups I invite to discuss this problem with me would be thoroughly representative of all sections of public opinion.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In the light of renewed speculation on the subject, can we expect an early announcement concerning the appointment of a president for the C.B.C.?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I hope some indication can be given by the Prime Minister when he returns tomorrow.



TIME OFF FOR STAFF TO VOTE IN ONTARIO ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I could not answer that question, Mr. Speaker.']
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the government house leader, the Minister of National 27053-1911
Inquiries of the Ministry Health and Welfare. Will he make arrangements with his fellow members of the internal economy commission, including Your Honour, to provide members of the staff of the House of Commons and the library with appropriate time off to assure them of the opportunity to exercise their franchise in the Ontario provincial election next Tuesday, October 17.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of his contention on the C.B.C. last night that the onus is on the United States to explain its position in Viet Nam to the people of the world, will the minister tell the house whether he has articulated this interesting attitude to Washington and, if so, what was the reaction there?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will read the story, the headline of which constitutes the basis for his question, he will see that I said if the bombing stopped the onus would then be on Hanoi.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that he had not recently received any indication from Hanoi as to whether they would agree to come to the negotiating table in the event of a cessation of bombing, may I ask him whether his emissary to Hanoi, Mr. Chester Ronning, brought back any assurance from the government in Hanoi that they would come to the negotiating table providing there was a cease fire?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that as a result of commitments made during the discussions we had regarding this matter, including those in Hanoi, it is not possible to reveal the nature of the exchanges which took place. I am sure my hon. friend would not press me any further, but in asking that there be a stop to the bombing at this time, I naturally took into account my assessment of the situation.

October 12, 1367
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to press the minister unduly, but in view of his statement yesterday in the house as it appears at page 2980 of Hansard, to the effect that he had received no recent assurance, is he now telling the house that no such assurance was transmitted to him by Mr. Chester Ronning?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was not necessarily referring to Mr. Ronning when I made that reply. I have no further comment to make.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's statements yesterday and today in reference to the governments' position, does the minister take the position that if they do not come to the negotiating table the United States should withdraw from Viet Nam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question appears to be in the form of debate and is out of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, the minister was about to answer, and I suggest this is not a debate but a very important question. I should like to debate it at ten o'clock.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question. Is it not the position of the government that even now there is at least an equal onus on North Viet Nam to try to bring about a peaceful solution of the Viet Nam problem?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course there is, Mr. Speaker, and this is what I said at the United Nations.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of all that has been said on the Viet Nam question in the last 48 hours, can the minister tell the house whether the authority for initiating a bombing pause has now shifted from Washington to Saigon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I could not answer that question, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, while I am on

my feet I should like to answer a question put to me by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who asked whether I had received any communication from Secretary Udall regarding pollution of the Niagara river.
I have no knowledge of any such communication, and none has come in. I may say that the International Joint Commission has received a report on this subject from its international advisory board on lakes Erie and Ontario. The commission is now considering this report in consultation with the provincial, state and federal authorities of both countries. I am informed that the commission expects to make an announcement shortly concerning the course it intends to pursue in order to encourage early and effective control of pollution in this international waterway.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Has the minister been advised that, at the Dorval airport, certain concessionaries, such as the duty free shop, prevent and dispute the use of the French language on the part of the customers who shop there and will he take immediate steps to ensure that no discrimination is exercised with regard to the two official languages of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member made representations in the second part of his question which doubtless the minister has noted. As for the first part, I suggest that it be put on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Pritfie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attempted to ask the Minister of Justice a question concerning the suspension of the licence of a Vancouver newspaper. Your Honour ruled my question out of order. I have checked Hansard and found that both Mr. Speaker Macnaughton and Your Honour have usually allowed questions concerning civil rights. My question has
Ociober 12, 1967



to do with the arbitrary suspension of a publication. I wonder whether the question might be in order today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows what his rights are. If he feels that a question which has been ruled out of order should have been allowed, he can give notice for the question to be dealt with at the adjournment debate. I realize that we have a difficult situation at this time, in that because of the budget discussion there is an accumulation of questions to be debated at the time of adjournment. In view of this special circumstance the hon. member's question might be allowed.


Robert William Prittie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister did receive notice of my question. It has to do with the suspension of the licence of the hippie newspaper in Vancouver, Georgia Straight. Has the minister taken note of the implications of press censorship involved in this action, and has he received representations from interested groups in connection with this matter?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: On the second part of the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, I had received no representations up to the time the question was asked yesterday. I will have to check to see if any such representations were received today. With respect to the first part of the question, as to whether I have taken note of the implications in regard to civil liberties, the answer is yes. But it is not obvious to me from the report which appeared in the newspaper, namely the suspension of a licence because of alleged obscenity, that this is a matter of civil liberties over which the federal government has jurisdiction.



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
I would like to know if he gave his support yesterday or the day before to the representations made at his office for the institution of lotteries in Canada?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minisier of Justice: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and also on previous occasions, I did meet people who made representations to me in this respect. I took note
Inquiries of the Ministry thereof, and I even indicated that it was the intention of the government to introduce for this purpose a bill to amend the Criminal Code.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader. On Tuesday last, on behalf of the government, the minister tabled a list of legislation which the government wishes to have discussed during this session. Would it be possible for the government to also indicate now which items of this legislation it feels should be considered by the standing committees of the house, so the necessary preparatory work can be undertaken and the work of the committees properly planned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider that suggestion.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the defence department presently engaged in or planning for a reorganization of the infantry component of our forces which will result in the disappearance of some of the regiments and a reduction in the number of battalions of others?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the situation generally, but a report to the minister's level has not yet reached my office. Therefore I have not had the opportunity of making any decision in this respect.


Heber Edgar Smith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether the report that is being prepared will have the effect of diluting the French Canadian character of the Royal 22nd regiment?

October 12, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 wonder
whether this question is not argumentative and hypothetical.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, is the study being made with regard to a possible reduction in the number of infantry battalions related to the roles which our defence forces have to perform, and is any reduction in these roles being planned which would mean that a reduced number of infantry battalions would be sufficient?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I think I should repeat that I am not planning to reduce the number of regiments. The study in progress is a theoretical study of what the implementation of the unification process should be. That is all there is to it. No decision has been taken yet, and after this matter has been studied by the defence council, which has not been the case until now, it will have to be submitted to the minister for his consideration.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General, who I think is charged with responsibility in this matter. In view of the fact that we will shortly be debating the very important issue of capital punishment, will the government give consideration to reissuing the excellent and fairly balanced white paper on this subject, and supplementing it with up to date statistical and other relevant information?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicilor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion is very reasonable, and I will be pleased to give it my immediate attention.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Having in mind the fact that if the government is successful in increasing the ordinary letter rate in Canada from five to six cents it will cost more to mail a letter from Ottawa to Toronto than from Ottawa to

Los Angeles, is the minister considering applying for a similar increase in the international mail rate in the unlikely event that the house approves this local increase?


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cole (Longueuil) (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the agreements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as put is hypothetical.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in order to remove all doubt from the public mind, would you allow me to say that the premise of the question put to me is wrong.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I put a question which was considered too general in nature. Today I have a specific question which I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that a coroner's jury last night recommended that lemon oil products be labelled "poison" and that a childproof lid be used because of the death of a 20-month old child last August, can the minister inform the house whether any specific action will be taken in this regard? If so, what will be done to protect children from this type of hazard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question would require a very lengthy answer. However, let me say that it is proposed in this session to introduce amendments to the Food and Drugs Act which would have the effect of meeting this situation.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, about 10 days ago I put a question to the Minister of Transport and he was supposed to answer.
October 12, 1967

Can the minister tell us today whether his department is now considering the action to be taken to maintain winter navigation on the St. Lawrence this very year?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am still studying this question. As my hon. friend can appreciate, I would like to have it thoroughly reviewed and understand it very well so I will not find myself skating too far out on thin ice.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister.
I understand that the minister is now seriously considering the matter, but can he tell us whether we can expect that as early as this year the plans of the department will be implemented?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, on October 5 the hon. member for Brandon-Souris asked if I had received the report of an inquest held to investigate the death of an Indian child on the Peigan reserve in Alberta.
I have to advise the house that I have not yet received the report. In the meantime I would like to say that the child's death does not seem to have been due to any lack of cash income in the family. The family received welfare assistance from my department in the amount of $3,376 between September 1, 1966 and September 1, 1967. In addition to this sum the usual family allowance cheques, in this case in the amount of $57 a month, came into the household.
The welfare assistance is provided by my department from funds voted annually by parliament for the welfare of Indians. However, while there is no special federal legislation on child welfare, this field is covered by provincial laws. Accordingly the department of Indian affairs requested the provincial authorities in November, 1966 to take steps to protect these children. At that time and in the light of the circumstances then prevailing the provincial authorities decided that no steps should be taken by them.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The coroner's jury which investigated the case recommended that a federal-provincial commission be established to investigate welfare and social conditions on the reserves. The department is attempting to have the provinces extend to the Indian people in the provinces and on reserves those welfare and other services which the provinces extend to all other residents. My colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I have had discussions with the province of Alberta on this subject, and we are hopeful that a satisfactory arrangement can be made.
The second recommendation was that a full time welfare officer be appointed to serve the Peigan reserve.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the minister would not agree that his answer is perhaps too long.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious importance of the report of the coroner's jury, as indicated by the minister's interest, could the minister make copies available to members of the house, and particularly those on the Indian affairs committee, when he receives it?


Arthur Laing: I agree with the implication of the hon. member that this is a very important matter, because it strikes at the heart of the Indian people and our relations and the responsibilities of the provinces thereto, and I would be very happy to see that copies of the report are sent to hon. members who are interested.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, when considering the recommendation that the provincial departments of welfare extend their programs to cover Indians and their dependants, whether the government is offering to the provincial governments some financial compensation for assuming this responsibility, or is it merely asking the provinces to assume the responsibility without any financial remunerations?


Arthur Laing: In the case of all the provinces we made an offer to carry 90 per cent and we asked the provinces to cover 10 per cent of the costs. Representations have been made to us by the province of Alberta that we should carry 100 per cent of the costs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the evidence given at the inquest indicated that there was

October 12, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry a considerable number of other families whose circumstances were very similar to those of the Crow Shoe family where the death occurred, has the department placed any welfare officers at work in order to ensure that further deaths due to malnutrition do not take place?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, had I had the
opportunity to complete my statement I would have said that the jury also suggested that band parents and the band council accept more responsibility for the education of their children, and that adult education programs be extended to the reserves.
The second recommendation was that a full time welfare officer be appointed to serve this particular reserve. Although this is not a federal responsibility, in the absence of full and proper services a full time social worker was appointed on July 1.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Indians are wards of the federal government and are solely a federal responsibility, is there any reason why the federal government should not pay 100 per cent of the cost of welfare extended to them by the provincial governments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the supplementary question is argumentative.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development how many of the provinces have accepted the federal government's offer to administer these welfare programs.


Arthur Laing: We have an agreement with the province of Ontario in respect of community development and welfare. We have one agreement with the province of Alberta in respect of community development, and we have other agreements under which we are carrying most of the costs in respect of some of these services. However, they are not formal agreements.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-REQUEST FOR NAVIGATIONAL AIDS FOR AIR TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has his attention been drawn to the recent crash and burning in the Northwest Territories of a Beaver aircraft carrying a newly

elected member of the Northwest Teritories council? Is the matter under investigation, and is his department planning the installation of any navigational aids where there are none now in the territories?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that an official inquiry is to be held. Once I have seen the results of this inquiry I will be in a better position to know what action might be justified to help prevent further tragedies of this kind.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister giving any consideration to following the example set by the health minister of Ontario by way of making the use of exhaust control devices on all 1969 model cars mandatory across the nation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this matter is under consideration.



REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF VITAMINS AND MINERALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please.']
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the house leader in his capacity as Minister of National Health and Welfare; I will not involve myself in the other discussion. I should like to ask the minister, in view of what appears to be quite widespread public concern over the proposed amendments to the drug regulations in respect of the distribution of vitamins and minerals, whether he can tell the house if such changes are to be made or have been made, and if so what is their purpose. According to the correspondence I have received it is alleged the requirements will be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a question of the type which should be answered on motions.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Then may I ask the minister if he would be prepared to make a statement on this subject to the house under motions, because there appears to be quite widespread public concern.
October 12, 1967	COMMONS


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



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska in his capacity as chairman of the external affairs committee. When does he contemplate calling the committee into session?


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Restigouche-Madawaska):: At the present time there is no reference from the house to the committee, so the committee cannot meet. I presume that very shortly there will be such a reference. As soon as there is a reference I shall be pleased to call a meeting.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This brings up the question I asked the minister, Mr. Speaker, and upon which you called me to order. I thought the minister should have been able to answer it. When will the government make a reference to the committee so the committee can meet and consider this question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just been discussing the matter with the house leader, and I hope I have the persuasive powers with him that I think I have.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister, I am afraid, is being evasive again. Can he not say definitely when this reference will be made, say tomorrow?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is one of the last members of this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader, or perhaps it might be regarded as a point of order. As hon. members are aware, the list of questions for debate at adjournment time is getting rather lengthy because
DEBATES	3017
The Budget-Mr. David MacDonald our rules provide that there is no late show when a vote is ordered late at night. My question to the government house leader is this. In view of the fact that there is not usually a recorded vote on a final motion such as we will have tonight, would it not be possible to have agreement of the house that we will have a late show tonight and take up two or three of the questions that are on the list? I am not asking that any of mine be taken up tonight, but by doing this we might get started on the list.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If there is no vote, and if there is unanimous consent, I am agreeable to the suggestion made by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement of the house to the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is therefore agreed that there will be adjournment proceedings tonight, provided there is no vote.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 11, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today to speak on the last day of the budget debate I realize that I face tremendous competition for attention in view of the fact that the world series is currently being broadcast to almost every nook and cranny. I have often wondered why we call it a world series when only one country participates. However, since there is a world series on today perhaps it is fair for me to deal with some of the great issues that face us in terms of international relations. I should like to set before you three or four concerns I have in that field as my own world's series. I think these issues in particular are of paramount importance to the future security, normal development and improvement of the world situation as we see it today.
It seems almost predestined that the first speaker this afternoon, in the light of the
October 12, 1867

The Budget-Mr. David MacDonald considerable exchange during the question period, should deal with the overriding crisis that faces us in international relations, the problem of Viet Nam. There is, I think, no greater issue nor one more fraught with danger in the year 1967 than the immediate outcome in the next few months of developments in that perilous little country. About two weeks ago now our own minister of external affairs dealt with this subject in his address to the opening session of the United Nations. He made a number of statements, some of which pleased this member at least in particular and I am sure many other members in this house, because we have been concerned for some time that some new initiatives be taken by this country with regard to the increased and prolonged bombing of the north. Many of us, in fact, were almost surprised that our minister should have put himself on record, strongly I hope, as being opposed to the perpetuation of this bombing.
But perhaps if we were surprised it was only because of what seemed to be his previous attitude, not because there seemed to be any unusual suggestions in his statement. He has had many good examples to follow. One can think of His Holiness the Pope, the secretary general of the United Nations, U Thant, church leaders in the World Council of Churches. One might even find some evidence of late conversion on the part of the United States secretary of defence himself, Mr. McNamara. It is not, therefore, an unusual position, though no one can doubt that it is an important one. I hope that regardless of the opposition, either subtle or overt, that may be directed toward our administration, we shall not fall back from the position that there can be no movement toward negotiation in this dreadful war unless there is a cessation of the bombing.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I do not think it is enough for leaders and governments to advocate this policy without treating with absolute seriousness the many other initiatives that may or may not be waiting to be tried. I have been somewhat disturbed by the attitude of our Secretary of State for External Affairs. While he is, I think, holding firm to his requirement for a cessation of bombing he has not indicated in this house or in any other place that further initiatives are being taken, that Canada is doing everything in its power to look for approaches and possibilities of any kind that might present themselves. Indeed, more alternatives have been discussed within the


United States than in some of the other countries which have been less caught up with the question. I do not know what is behind the military thinking that suggests certain enclaves, or some kind of electrical fences, be used for deaccelerating the conflict. I do know one thing; this is not a static war. Anyone who believes that we have achieved some kind of balance of enmity or hostility is deluding himself to a grand degree.
I do not believe that week after week the government of the United States or the powers that be in Hanoi will accept the cost of this conflict without looking for some value in return. Unless there is strong initiative to defuse and deaccelerate the conflict one may expect in the next few months not a decrease but an increase in hostilities. One can imagine, in terror, all the possibilities that such an increase may hold for us.
Today I am concerned not only with our new position, as evidenced by the minister's speech at the United Nations, but also with the definition of our fundamental approach or policy to that conflict in Viet Nam. During these past few years it has never been easy to determine the attitude of the Canadian government. When one has gone through all the generalizations, all the comments about how the war started and Canada's role in the I.C.C., and after one has spent hours and hours examining documents and speeches, one is left with a vague impression that the attitude of the government was that there had been communist aggression from the north which, five or six years ago, had moved to the south. It was to stop that aggression that the United States government had committed itself.
When one looks at more recent speeches, and particularly those of the last few months, one finds-at least I find-no mention of communist aggression as such. There seems to be no position; we are confronted with a sort of function or tactical situation which suggests that Canada's interest in Viet Nam at the moment is to see that war is ended as quickly as possible.
That is good. No one, not even the most militant person in the Pentagon, I think, would be opposed to that point of view. Surely no country or administration worth its salt can view the complex problems that beleaguer Viet Nam without adopting some position. The positions might range from a stand that it would be good if Viet Nam were abandoned by the United States military, to one that might hold that it is tactically possible for the United States to gain firm control,
October 12, 1967

perhaps not of all Viet Nam but of South Viet Nam.
Surely Canada in general, and this house in particular, has a right to know what is our government's position. What do we view as good ends, as opposed to bad ends, in the resolution of the Viet Nam dilemma? We have found one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that must not be overlooked. The minister and, I assume, the government have turned away from and left what was the hallmark of Canadian diplomacy, that which was called euphemistically throughout the years "quiet [DOT]diplomacy". Last night, on Wednesday, October 11, the Secretary of State for External Affairs appeared on the television program "20 Million Questions". When asked why Canada should adopt a new position with regard to the bombing he said, in the latter part of an extended answer, something to the following effect:
-my experience has been that we have been under a misapprehension in Canada for a long time in thinking that we would destroy our position with the United States by speaking up.
Conversions are always welcome, no matter if they are death bed repentances. It is important to realize, I think, that the minister has said it is perhaps safe now for Canada to look in the mirror at the reflection of her international posture and regard herself as an adult. She can say that she thinks there are issues of importance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me an interjection? He is making a constructive speech and touching an important point. The observation I made in that connection is not a new one. I have made it a number of times. It was not because of any new position we have taken on the bombing that I made the statement that we should stop it. I have never felt there was anything in our relations with the United States that would cause us, in the right situation, not to speak our minds.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister has again indicated through his own words and qualifications that what he has suggested previously has been fine. The minister has never carried out what he has suggested. We want acts, not words. We welcome the actions of the minister at the United Nations; I and every other member of this house congratulate him on his actions at the United Nations. We welcome the fact that the minister has made plain that Canada now is an adult and may take positions which may not always be received with good will and thankfulness in

The Budget-Mr. David MacDonald Washington. Nevertheless we must have our unique position, not only that we may enjoy some kind of self respect in international gatherings and in the whole international milieu but also that we may be a real asset to the United States. I mean this. I have never seen any value in our being a pale, second sister. Often there have been wonderful opportunities for us to indicate our position to the United States. Had we done so that would have been of immense assistance and inestimable value to that country.
I wish to say this: While the minister has taken the first timorous step in the uncertain waters of international affairs with regard to Canada's position, there are still some ways in which he seems to shy away from espousing a position which is our own position rather than that of the United States. In last night's broadcast the minister defended, as I intimated a moment ago, the value of Canada having a channel or open line through to Hanoi. It is important for us to have that in order that at some point-we are not sure when-we may act as a valuable liaison between Hanoi and Washington. Without getting into a long debate on this point now, let me say it is abundantly clear to me at least that there has never been a lack of communication between Washington and Hanoi. There are all kinds of contacts available. Difficulty arises because of what has been transmitted back and forth along those lines of communication.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
What disturbs me about Canada's foreign policy in this regard is that the minister should have elevated a role as a note-runner or message carrier into one of the supreme virtues in international affairs. As Mr. Lynch said to the minister last night on the television program: "You are talking about a channel as though it were a policy itself," to which the minister replied: "Well, it is." I fail to discern any overriding strength in an answer of that kind or to feel much enthusiasm for it. I think it is more important that Canada should take a position about the future of this little country than that it should be just an errand-boy between Hanoi and Washington.
So far I have dealt with affairs which, whether we like it or not, are largely beyond our control. We are not a great nation militarily, thank God, and we are not involved in many of the military aspects of events in Viet Nam with the exception of our supervisory activities as they are carried on
October 12, 1967

The Budget-Mr. David MacDonald in the control commission. But we could be playing a role of tremendous importance to the civilian population of Viet Nam, and we have failed to play such a role. If there is any sin of omission on the part of the present government, surely this is where the fundamental issue lies. I have never been more aware of this than in the past ten days because I have before me on my desk a letter from Dr. Michael Hall, a man who has been the subject of considerable public discussion during the last day or so. He wrote me a letter 11 days ago following a question of mine in the house when I asked the minister for the umpteenth time whether or not the government was prepared to assume some responsibility-because of its new policy position on Viet Nam, if for no other reason-for providing some practical assistance to the hundreds of thousands of suffering people in that country. Surely no country has ever had the opportunity which Canada has today to meet at least some of the needs which face this terror-ridden and tormented country.
I should like to put on record some of the things Dr. Hall said to me in this letter because his words and his own personal experience of three years in Viet Nam speak much more eloquently about our gross failure in this regard than anything I can say. At one point he writes:
We have the second highest national income per head population of the world, but even though most of the funds are spent in Canada we allocate to external aid only two-fifths of the recommended United Nations minimum, and are thus the second least generous of the donor countries-second only in our frugality to Denmark, noticeably also a leading critic in the United Nations of United States policy.
He goes on:
We have sent two food commodities: for a country whose people do not eat butter we have given them $60,000 worth; for a country where the people eat rice we have given them $790,000 worth of flour.
As you know we do not even send these "gifts" but Viet Nam has to pay the shipping costs out of her own limited foreign currency. The food commodities are not to be given to the poor and hungry, but are to be sold to the moneyed class, to generate "counterpart funds", that devious system of double bookkeeping requiring a country to show it has available for further expenditure the cost of the commodity "given" to it, regardless of whether it has chosen to sell this commodity, has even found it was saleable, or has given to the needy. Not surprisingly Viet Nam declined further Canadian "gifts" of food. The counterpart funds have been used to start a medical school extension and a university assembly hall, but these were abandoned a year and a half ago in their early building stages, to stand as skeletal monuments to Canada's skeletal generosity, while year long
IMr. MacDonald (Prince).]
arguments were held between the Canadian delegation and the Vietnamese government over nonexistent funds.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to give hon. members something of the background of Dr. Hall. He is not a man who has had merely a casual acquaintanceship with the problems of Viet Nam. He writes:
I first went to Viet Nam in 1963 working as an orthopaedic surgeon exclusively for the civilian wounded. I struggled until April, 1967 with External Aid to get them interested in helping the civilian injured, but to no purpose, and finally in great sorrow abandoned my efforts. Despite the support of the head of the Canadian commission in submitted recommendations for improving the treatment facilities in the university hospitals, my letters were either unanswered or turned down summarily with expressions such as "Canadian content too low".
Other Canadian doctors have had the same experience-one surgeon quit the country after only a few days, another physician completed a six month contract and was so dissatisfied he would stay no longer. A proposed children's rehabilitation centre was abandoned, very quietly, because Canada wanted Viet Nam to pay for its local costs- and Viet Nam had already found out from my housing costs that the Canadian government made them pay, that they should beware of any future similar arrangements.
He goes on to write in another part of the letter:
Canada has not provided any surgical team- excluding my solitary person-to assist the war wounded although these have been provided by the U.S., the U.K., France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Iran, New Zealand and Australia in South Viet Nam, and by several communist bloc countries in North Viet Nam.
There is much more in this letter than there is time to read but the indictment it contains is sufficient testimony to the shabby way in which an opportunity which could have been most glorious for this country has been abandoned without, it seems to me, any real degree of interest being shown in the possibilities which were there. Dr. Hall writes:
The world knows Canada's "utmost" is two-fifths of the minimum recommended by the United Nations, and that we are "our brother's keeper" to the extent that we will sell armaments to our neighbour, then tell him he should not use them.
It would seem to me that if we do have any sense of responsibility and if we do have any opportunity to deal with the difficult and terrible situation in Viet Nam, then surely the way of rehabilitation, the way of education, was open to us. Yet time and time again when questions have been asked in the house the minister has fobbed us off with his usual kind of non-answer. To my mind at least the
October 12, 1967

minister has never shown, either in this place or outside it, that there is a genuine or strong interest in serving the cause of thousands of suffering people in that country.
If there were genuine interest on the part of this government in the plight of the civilian population of this stricken country we should not have to wait, as the minister suggested yesterday, until the subject comes before the external affairs committee, which could take weeks or even months. We should not even have to wait until the minister had left this chamber. If this government is really concerned about the possibilities for service of the kind attempted by men like Dr. Gingras, Dr. Venema and Dr. Hall, then this house is surely the first place in which the minister should put on record in detail particulars of what this government is willing to do.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I for one find it very difficult to respect either a minister or a government who can become very concerned about what the actions of other countries should be in this regard and who can ignore, with such little obvious disturbance, what our own responsibilities are. I am glad that Dr. Hall has spoken out. I hope that many Canadians will now speak out and register their opinions with the government. Now that we know that little has been done when much could have been done, there may be some new policy with regard to external aid since there has been evidence of a new policy with regard to the future of the Viet Nam conflict.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, on the budget debate, I should like to comment on questions of general interest and on regional subjects.
The first comment I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, is on the Small Business Loans Act which was amended this year to enable owners of small businesses in the building field, in transport and communications to benefit from this loans program. The amendment has raised from $250,000 to $500,000 the approximate yearly gross income that a borrower is required to have to be eligible for a loan. But the borrower can only obtain a maximum loan of $25,000 which was set at the time this act came into force in 1961. Such a loan may have been sufficient in 1961

The Budget-Mr. Clermont to enable the owner of a small business to undertake a rather substantial expansion of his operations but, in 1967, such a maximum is not practical and a higher amount is required.
Furthermore, another section of this act should be amended. It is the section providing for a maximum interest rate of 5J per cent. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that it is most important for the operator of a small business to borrow at a reasonable interest rate so as not to overly increase his operating costs, but what is a 5J per cent interest rate worth if he cannot obtain credit from the bank?
When this 51 per cent rate was set in 1961, there was a ceiling of 6 per cent on chartered bank loans, but since May 1967, the maximum rate has been raised to 7J per cent, and it is possible that early in 1968, that restriction on interest rates will be abolished. The Industrial Development Bank, a crown corporation, is not subject to such a rate. If the owner of a small business could get a loan more easily in order to improve or enlarge his plant, he might be able, by the same token, to increase his staff.
The other matter I would like to discuss is that of banking operations. At the first session of the 27th parliament, the house passed Bill No. C-222, an Act respecting Banks and Banking. I feel that this piece of legislation allowed more competition among chartered banks, as well as among other financial institutions. In its report, the royal commission on banking and finance made several far-reaching recommendations designed to promote imaginative thinking, to strengthen competition within the banking and financial system, and to make the financial policy more effective.
I have noticed, however, that since the act came into force, chartered banks, through various media of information or communication, offer their depositors an array of interest rates varying from 3i to 5-1 per cent. I admit that people can expect reasonable returns for their savings, but I have certain apprehensions with regard to the struggle for funds. Must it be waged to the detriment of borrowers, especially where personal loans and consumer loans are concerned? That is not what was intended by the legislator and the Porter commission.
At the present time, the interest rate ceiling on bank loans is 7J per cent, under section 91, subsection 3, paragraph (a) of Bill No. C-222. But it may be that early in 1968
October 12, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Clermont the ceiling will disappear, and that to the 71 per cent interest rate discount fees will be added in some cases.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government is going to keep a close eye on banking operations and that it will not hesitate to give directives to the banks if the interest rate on loans becomes exorbitant.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) was very wise to extend until the end of October the period of time during which taxpayers, associations and other groups will be able to send him their comments and suggestions as to the recommendations of the royal commission on taxation.
As for the provinces, they will have until the end of November to give the minister their opinion about the views and the suggestions publicly stated by Canadians or handed over to them by those organisations.
Before a white paper on the report of the commission comes out, it is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the fact that the recommendations of the Carter report do not commit the government, legally or otherwise, to accept these recommendations, in part or in full.
When the white paper is printed, I hope the Minister of Finance and Receiver General will submit it to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs in order to allow the members of this house to study its recommendations thoroughly and also express their views on the recommendations of the Carter report.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There is another subject I should like to deal with, Mr. Speaker and that is water pollution. In our region, we have that problem, the pollution of the Ottawa river and its tributaries.
A study of the purity of the Ottawa river water, recently published by the Ontario water resources commission, reports that in many places the waters of this river, from Pembroke to Hawkesbury, are not up to the prescribed standards of purity and that the necessary control measures will entail considerable expenditures which the municipalities concerned cannot afford.
Moreover, since that river is an interprovincial boundary, the federal government, through the Minister of Energy, Mines and
[Mr. Clermont.!
Resources (Mr. Pepin), must continue to take steps with the provincial authorities of Ontario and Quebec, by calling upon them to co-operate with the federal authorities and join in with their technical and financial resources to solve that serious problem, as the municipalities and cities on both shores of the Ottawa hope it will be.
A few months ago, the federal government offered a $2 million grant to those provinces for the undertaking, as a pilot project, of a study not only of the causes and degree of pollution, but also of the cost and ways of correcting that situation. To date, the offer has not been accepted.
But I know that the minister is aware of this menace to public health and that he will certainly continue his efforts with the provincial authorities concerned.
On Tuesday, September 26,	1967, the
hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) inaugurated the new fishing complex at Riviere-au-Renard, to which the federal government contributed $3,192,940 towards a total cost of $7,617,880. The federal government's participation has been obvious in a number of projects, such as the construction of two trawlers, dredging operations and the building of wharves, a processing plant, sewers and water conduits, et cetera.
As was stated by the minister in Chandler on May 28, 1967, at the founding convention of the regional development council, there is a possibility that the government of Canada and the Quebec government may come to an agreement for the development of the pilot area covering, I think, eight provincial ridings of the lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspe peninsula and lles-de-la-Madeleine.
That document will no doubt follow the pattern set by the B.A.E.Q., where the government of Canada paid half the cost or more than $2 million.
Mr. Speaker, I have listed those achievements and others which might become feasible in a rather near future because the people in the provincial ridings of Labelle, Papineau, Hull, Gatineau, Terrebonne, Pontiac and Argenteuil, are wondering when they too will be able to take advantage of large scale projects which come under the program known as ARDA, and the new program which this government passed in 1966 and amended in 1967, namely the act providing for the establishment of $300 million fund for the economic and social development of special areas.
October 12, 1967	COMMONS
Some will say that, according to one section of those two pieces of legislation, the initiative must come from the provinces, but again I urge the minister, when he meets along with his officials the people responsible for the ARDA program in Quebec, to clearly lay out before them the great needs of those areas.
In June 1963, pilot study No. 5044 was initiated with a view to classify and assess the major resources, and to improve employment and living conditions in the Rouge valley, which includes the provincial counties of Labelle, Papineau, Terrebonne and Argen-teuil. It led to a number of recommendations to the authorities concerned. Amongst others, there was:
1.	The development of an 855 acre community pasture for sheep breeding purposes in Marchand township;
2.	The planting of 25 million trees on 25,000 acres of land, at an estimated cost of $1,300,000;
3.	The construction of a 38-mile road connecting St. Sauveur des Monts and St. Remi d'Amherst;
4.	The building of a tourist centre in St. Remi d'Amherst;
5.	The construction of a vocational training centre for the retraining of rural workers.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of such a study will not be useless, that it will be implemented and that other projects will result therefrom.
Going through the list of legislation that the government wishes hon. members to consider during this session, I find that the proposed legislation covers many fields but I also note that certain items mentioned in the speech from the throne at the opening of the second session of the 27th parliament have been left out, such as, for example, the increase in funds to broaden the scope of the program aimed at stimulating regional development; an act to provide long-term loans to farming and fisheries associations and corporations to permit them to develop facilities commensurate with the needs of such communities; and the amendment to the Farm Credit Act to enable young men and farmers' sons to develop and acquire efficient and economic productions units.
Mr. Speaker, a study of the loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation shows that a large number of farmers take advantage of the benefits offered by that organization in order to increase their acreage, buy land and
DEBATES	3023
The Budget-Mr. Beaulieu put their operations on a more economic basis. As a matter of fact, according to a study of the corporation's annual report, most of the new loans made during the last fiscal year, that is a total amount of $100,600,000 was used to that effect. Since most farm owners are well on in years, it is very important that the Farm Credit Act should be amended as indicated in the speech from the throne and I would hope, that those three measures will get a high priority during the 1968 session.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that a few weeks ago, as a member of the Canadian delegation to the meeting of the ministers of finance of the commonwealth at Port of Spain, Trinidad, and in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, I was deeply moved by the respect and consideration Canada enjoys in international circles.


Mr. Paul Beaulieu (Sainl-Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take too much time and to rehash all the arguments that were advanced during the budget debate.
However, what surprised me most was the enormous increase in the revenues of our country since the party now managing our affairs took office. In fact, these revenues increased from $6 billion to $10 billion. In other words, the Canadian people has been taxed in an incredible manner.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Furthermore, we found that instead of a balanced budget, we face a deficit of nearly $750 million without taking into account other capital expenditures that are needed. And as an example, I shall quote a report I received recently from an Ontario university professor in which he stated that the government intended to set up a research centre at an approximate cost of $75 million for research in the field of electricity and nuclear energy.
This professor was of the opinion that the estimate of $75 million would unquestionably reach some $300 million. Well, there is no provision in the government's budget for such a capital expenditure, which would easily increase our country's deficit from $740 million to more than $1 billion.
3024	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Beaulieu
What we find more striking is that, at a time when all the provinces are clamouring for financial assistance, for a better apportionment of the tax base, the Canadian government, which has stated through its ministers that the situation was normal and favourable, that 3 or 4 per cent of workers only were unemployed, which was normal, that our commercial balance with other countries was maintained at a practically normal level, has selected this period for a frightening deficit of almost $1 billion.
From a sound financial point of view, it is recognized that there are some periods of recession when it is permissible for a country, a province and even municipalities to show a deficit. But in a normal period such as the one we just went through, it is unthinkable for a government to submit such a financial statement.
What is going on? This is what I want to talk about. When-as I heard twice yesterday -government supporters specially from Quebec blame the previous governments for the unfavourable financial situation prevailing in Quebec, for instance, they are spreading those slanderous rumours heard throughout the country, and this can hurt not only Quebec but Canada as a whole.
Now, the truth is altogether different. It was alleged by the hon. members for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) and Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) that if the province of Quebec had to make so many capital expenditures it was on account of her previous reactionary governments. As a matter of fact, the province of Quebec was managed by Liberal administrations during forty-five years out of a total of sixty years. As I have been a member of the provincial government, I know whereof I speak. At one time, the province of Quebec realized that it should earmark several million dollars for education. Now that such expenses are deemed necessary today, some people try, nevertheless, to blame the administration which governed the province for some 15 years for the present situation. Now, the Quebec government of which I was a member in those days-and I mention it because it is important from the educational point of view-was as imaginative as the one we have today but it did not have its astronomical budget.
When I entered provincial politics, the total revenue of the province of Quebec was $100
fMr. Beaulieu.1
DEBATES	October 12, 1967
million. When we left in 1960, this revenue was only $600 million. The people were not overtaxed. Since then, the total revenue of the province of Quebec has climbed to $2 billion, in less than 4 years. People say: We had to move fast, we had to spend fast. But what was this money spent on, Mr. Speaker?
When the government of which I was a member came into power, the University of Montreal was almost bankrupt, and the government I supported had it rebuilt on the top of Mount Royal.
People said that nothing was done about education, that the province of Quebec was backward, yet the government of which I was a member rebuilt Laval University in Quebec city with the funds at its disposal, making do with what it had, without overtaxing the people.
Is the University of Sherbrooke the product of a backward government, of a shortsighted government? Well, it was established under that same government.
But today the people of Quebec wonder where those $2 billion are going. Into the construction of highways perhaps, and, no doubt, into essential expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, we also hear that Quebec is a reactionary province with a reactionary government, and that this is the reason why Quebec is behind the other provinces. But this is further nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Who was responsible for Montreal being chosen as the site for Expo? The government of which I was a supporter.
At that time, Senator Fournier was mayor of Montreal. The Diefenbaker government was in power, and I was a member of the provincial administration. It was I who suggested that steps be taken in Paris to get Expo. Those were not the doings of a reactionary government, Mr. Speaker; today, we are reaping enormous propaganda benefits. Of course, what is past is past; one does not came back on it. After Canada had deposited $40 million, namely, $20 million from the federal government, $15 million from the Quebec government and $5 million from the city of Montreal, Mayor Fournier accompanied me to Paris to submit our application.
Three consecutive votes were held before the selection was made. If I insist on that point, it is because everybody is talking about Expo and yet, those responsible for it being held in Canada, in the province of Quebec
October 12, 1967

and particularly, in Montreal, are being called reactionaries.
Russia was chosen after the third vote, the result of the first two being 13 to 13 and the third, 12 to 14. But since Russia had three months in which to make specific plans, there happened the phenomenon expected by everybody: the Soviet union was reluctant to see all the countries of the world cross the iron curtain. If the world fair had been held in Moscow, one can imagine what would have happened: every country in the world would have gone over there.
Now Mr. Khrushchev withdrew and, automatically, as there were only two candidates, Canada and Montreal got it. At that time the government had changed; the Liberals were in power in Quebec, and Mayor Drapeau was elected in Montreal. We congratulate him and all those who took part in the project. On the other hand, to say that it was reactionaries who conceived of and gave birth to the project is sheer nonsense. Do not forget that the project is not one that Canada will see again for at least another hundred years, because first class world exhibitions such as the one we have had here used to be held only every seven years or so. Now, I think, they will take place every five years, alternating between continents and member countries.
[DOT] (4:10 p.ra.)
And if, in spite of all their economic power, the United States did not succeed in obtaining it, it was because they were not members of the International Bureau of Exhibitions. The application must come from the country, from the state, not from a province or a city. Well, according to our information, when Washington was asked for its vote, it stated: "We are not members of the bureau." Why were they not? Because Washington would have been embarrassed to choose the site of the world exhibition. Would it have been New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Boston or Chicago. Fortunately, as that intricate situation arose-and the hon. Mr. Diefenbaker was faced with it when he was asked the question-at that time, we were the first and only ones to apply.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is unfair of the hon. members from the province of Quebec to criticize constantly past and present developments in their province. We hear the members from the maritimes, on the contrary, praise their province, and the members from the west try to help their people. That is why
The Budget-Mr. Beaulieu I wanted to say a few words to do justice in part to the province of Quebec as well.
The budget presented by the minister contains the following danger. It shows us a deficit of $1 billion on the very eve of the provincial premiers' conference. The premier of Ontario, Mr. Roberts, has arranged a meeting of all the premiers in Canada to take place in November. Apparently the government will not officially take part in the conference. That is a pity. At that interprovincial conference, the financial problem of the provinces will be considered. And the federal government is the only one which can meet their needs. Will the Minister of Finance give them an artless answer, as he often does. We remember the former minister of finance. He was anxious to keep foreign capital away while the present minister does not object to attracting it. The best proof of that is that there is now a bill before the house for the construction of another pipe-line to transport oil from western Canada. The charter is to be granted to a foreign country. Was not the party in office against that? If we cannot recover lost ground, what others have already taken, at least let us not lose more. We must be logical.
If, following a new distribution of revenues, provinces do not have the means, to make their economic situation viable, to what will they resort? New taxes? That is practically impossible. Loans? The federal government drains practically all of the people's savings for its own needs. The municipalities are now practically unable to secure loans. School boards which are reorganizing themselves throughout the province of Quebec, at least as far as I know, have all the trouble in the world to get financing. And, once again, the key is in the hands of the federal government.
The amendment to the National Housing Act increases the interest rate to 8J per cent. Of course, there are reasons for that. If it is only to stimulate construction and encourage private investments in addition to the funds supplied by the state in the field of housing, the interest rate makes sense. It would make it possible to get financing from other sources. But if the aim is really to help the poor, those who earn less than $7,000 or $8,000 a year-they are the ones who are in need of help-it is a failure. The others can get along quite easily. When people earn from
3026	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Beaulieu $8,000 to $15,000 a year, they can build themselves a house or quite easily find accommodation at an appropriate rent.
But what happens in the large cities? Just the other day, one of my clients told me: "I have a property valued at $15,000. I paid 1-J per cent municipal taxes and 1 per cent school taxes, for a total of 2J per cent a year or approximately $300. The assessment system was changed and the assessment is now to be based on the real value. That man told me: "The same house, without anything having been done to it, is valued at $30,000, and the 1 and 1| per cent rates have gone up to 3 per cent. That means that on an assessment of $30,000, it costs him nearly $1,000 a year in school and municipal taxes only.
If you consider that in addition to this he has to obtain financing at the rate of 8J per cent to build, that he must heat the house and maintain it, you will realize that a $15,000 property is very modest nowadays, especially if you take into account the 11 per cent tax on building materials which the government was to eliminate but which it has decided to maintain because, apparently, it needs it. So, it is now practically impossible for average income people to build a house. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I felt it was important, in the interest of the people living back home, a working community of about 40,000 population, to raise these points that need to be emphasized during this budget debate.
For the information of those who criticized the legislation it enacted at the time I was there, the province of Quebec has a housing act which provides that insurance companies make loans at the rate set in the act. On the other hand, the borrower gets a 3 per cent refund of the interest rate back from the province so that the rate is reduced to approximately 3 or 3i per cent. In fact, that encouraged the construction of new homes; it truly helped the people.
Now, if the federal government is really anxious to help the small people, it can set a limit. Those who earn less than the limit should be entitled to a reimbursement from the government so that they may have a reasonable interest rate.
Since we are on the budget, I want to mention an urgent problem that is prevalent in my area, that is the milk problem which has not been settled to our satisfaction. In

DEBATES	October 12, 1967
fact, I am sorry that the minister is not here so that I could speak to him about it.
If we want to keep our people in the rural areas, we must give them a reasonable price for their milk, just as we must assure our farmers that they will be able to take advantage of crop insurance like the unemployed are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits when they are out of work. Farmers who lose a crop because of bad weather or for any other reason beyond their control, are, the next day, on the verge of bankruptcy.
We have also requested-and we shall continue to ask for it-the $100 a month old age pension which, of course, has been partly granted but that is not enough yet. Lots of people cannot meet the requirements of the legislation and are deprived of an income essential to their subsistence. Had the minister concerned been here, I would have liked to say a word to him about retraining. We want to retrain our workers and we say that men of 35, 40, 45 or 50 cannot carry on their trade, we shall pay them a salary of $75 a week; they will leave industry and go and retrain in our schools.
Now it is basic that what we need first are schools. There is a shortage of schools throughout the province of Quebec. Everyone knows that prefabricated schools are now being erected in several of our cities to meet the need of elementary and high schools until such time as the "polyvalent schools" are built. We need at least three, each one of which will cost several million dollars. How do you think we will find the space to train our workers for new trades?
Secondly, there is also a shortage of teachers in the province of Quebec. I looked into the matter trying to find competent people. Retraining demands competent teachers and not just a manual; you need someone who knows the trade, who is a master, an expert.
Now, I suggest that retraining should be done on the job. It would be better to help industry when it buys, or rents equipment, for in some cases the machines are not sold but rented and come with a technician to operate them. That is when the workers are told: you are not qualified to touch that machine. That is where retraining should be done. The man who accompanies the machine can easily give courses. If financial aid is
October 12, 1967

warranted, let it be given the industry, and let the worker stay where he is.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
If our workers leave the plants to attend specialized schools which do not exist, and take courses from professors who are not available because they are now working for the governments, I doubt that having left their plants, the workers will be able to go back to their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to salute and congratulate the new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) who is one of our distinguished fellow countrymen and a brilliant man. I wish him a better fate than that some of his colleagues have known in the Liberal party.
I take the opportunity to put the following question to him. He knows that the military college at St. Johns gives a university course. It is, it seems, on the same footing as or ranks second to the university of Kingston. Why is it that the students at the military college in St. Johns have to go to Kingston to complete their last year? Would it not be possible eventually to classify the military college at St. Johns as a first class university, so that its graduates are recognized. It is a bilingual school which has been visited by several members. It is high time that it receives its final christening and is considered on the same footing as the university of Kingston. That would add considerably to its prestige and especially to that of our young fellow-citizens.
I have already asked questions about the airport at St. Johns, but now we have a new minister. Today, in the difficult period we are going through in Montreal, we realize more than ever the importance of developing the airport in St. Johns.
St. Johns, in relation to the Expo islands, is located approximately 15 miles away. One gets there via Longueuil and St. Lambert. There is no need to go to Montreal at all. And I deplored, Mr. Speaker, the failure to continue the work started at St. Johns airport. The Minister of National Defence knows that hundreds of cadets are taking courses there at the present time.
The take-off run could be easily extended. As a matter of fact, it would be very simple, because the land now belongs to the federal government and it would be only a matter of completing the work. Instead of landing at Dorval, aircrafts could go on to Saint-Jean

The Budget-Mr. Beaulieu and from there, passengers could reach the islands of Expo or Montreal in a third less time.
When I referred earlier to the province of Quebec, I wanted to show that the federal government and the provinces must get together, if not to settle the matter once and for all, at least to start negotiations with a view to drafting our future constitution.
At the present time the complications are such that if we fail to take seriously the criticism voiced from various quarters, we will be faced with a serious problem. I am not ready to say that most of our people are dissatisfied, but I can say that Quebec is unanimous in asking for a new constitution.
The Liberal party in Quebec stated its position through the voice of its leaders. The Union Nationale party did the same. The Creditistes said a word about it in the house. Only one group is against it. But if we leave it up to those who would probably prefer to solve the problems through violence rather than discussions, we will be sorry sooner or later.
In view of the fact that our party has just chosen a new leader who before long will take a clear position on this issue, and that all the provincial premiers will hold a meeting in November, I believe the federal government would be well advised to take immediate steps to call a conference where the provisions of the constitution that lend themselves to more than one interpretation, would be clarified once and for all.
Personally, I have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in expressing my opinion. I have been in politics for nearly 25 years, including 20 in the province of Quebec, and everyone knows where I stand. I am in favour of the maintenance of the Canadian confederation, provided Quebec is given what it believes to be entitled to and French Canadians obtain what they have a right to expect according to the provisions and the spirit of the constitution.
Now, certain points of the confederation pact must be clarified as soon as possible. The longer this matter remains in abeyance, the more difficult it will be to solve. Those who often ask: "What does the province of Quebec want", I answer that, in my opinion, it is both simple and complicated. But what it wants especially is an absolute right to its educational system.
3028	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Patterson


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


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, following the usual pattern in a debate such as this our discussions have covered a wide range of political, social and economic problems. We have listened with a great deal of interest to many of the speeches made in the course of the debate and have noted that they have ranged all the way from problems of local or constituency concern to the major problems that confront us in the international field in far distant regions of the world. Therefore it may be rather difficult for anyone entering the debate at this stage to make any contribution that is truly original. However, running the risk of repeating some of the statements that have been made and the observations advanced, I want to deal particularly with some of the problems that cast a shadow across the doorsteps of hundreds of thousands of Canadians at the present time.
I think that much of the criticism levelled against the government at the present time is predicated on the charge that the government is not concerned about the problems that are facing the people of Canada or the problems that are facing the world. Personally I do not subscribe to this view. It appears to me that the government is aware of the problems but is seemingly unable to come up with the right answers. I would like to think that every member of the house, whether on the government or the opposition side, is endeavouring to face the problems of our relations in the world in an objective manner, earnestly seeking to find a solution, keeping an open heart and an open mind to suggestions that come from whatever source, and then endeavouring to resolve these problems in the interests of our people and the people of the world. Perhaps the developments in the field of technology to which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) referred the other day will help to bridge the gap, and where human judgment and human wisdom fail machines will be able to solve our problems. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I intend to deal with some of these issues that are very close to the doorstep of a great many Canadians today.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
First of all, I should like to refer to the continuing concern of our people about the cost of living. It is true that recent reports have brought to our attention the fact that

DEBATES	October 12, 19G7
there has been a slight decrease in the cost of living, particularly in regard to food. But when one considers the increases that have taken place over the past several months, the past several years in fact, the decrease is extremely small and should not give us any cause for jubilation. We should be reminded rather of the continuing problem that faces our people in their endeavour to obtain the food necessary to maintain a balanced diet and therefore contribute to their health in the days that lie ahead.
Much has been said in recent days about the increased cost of housing. I believe that this is one of the major problems facing the people of Canada from coast to coast. Just today I had a visit from one of the partners in a construction company in my own area. He outlined to me some of the problems facing the construction industry in the province of British Columbia and the absolute inability of so many people to meet the requirements for home ownership that exist today. One only has to consider, for instance, the skyrocketing cost of land or the increasing cost of construction, to which has been added the increase in interest rates, to understand why it is that so many people not only in the low but in the medium income brackets are unable to provide themselves with their owr homes.
Just the other day it was announced that interest rates or N.H.A. loans were to be increased to a maximum of 8] per cent. In making this announcement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) expressed the hope that this move would contribute to a greater supply of capital in the housing field. It remains to be seen whether or not this will prove to be a fact. Of course, a great many people who should know are saying that it is not going to solve the problem.
So we have the increasing cost of living which is affecting particularly those on fixed incomes, those who have various pensions and those who have a stated income from month to month. Perhaps it is expecting too much that retired civil servants, our veterans or our senior citizens should be able to attain the objective of owning their own homes. However, I do suggest that they should have the wherewithal to provide for their own immediate needs in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the individual. I should like to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Finance as recorded on page 2810 of Hansard:
The costs of our own operations increase as prices and wages increase and certain of the benefits we pay, such as veterans' disability pensions.
October 12, 1967	COMMONS
must in all fairness be adjusted from time to time.
I appreciate the fact that the minister recognizes the necessity of making further provision for our veterans by way of disability pensions. On many occasions I, as well as many other hon. members, have raised this question with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet). He has stated that the matter is under consideration and the department is still awaiting reports from committees that have been set up. He has, however, refused to fulfil a commitment that if a long delay should be involved in the tabling of these reports, further interim increases for the veterans would be considered. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the constantly increasing cost of living those individuals to whom I have referred should be given consideration in order that they may be better able to meet the cost of living and provide the necessities of life. We hope the government proposals will, in fact, halt the spiraling cost of living, but I think even the minister is doubtful that the suggestions he is making are going to have the desired effect.
A great many Canadians are very disturbed about the increase in the cost of operating the federal government. The minister has indicated, according to a reading of page 2809 of Hansard, that restraint must be exercised in the various fields of endeavour in the different sectors of our economy. I do not believe that the federal government should be relieved from the responsibility of practising what it preaches. Expenditures should be curtailed wherever curtailment would be desirable.
I read with a great deal of interest the speech made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), who pointed out in a clear, concise manner, some of the areas in which he felt the government ought to act and act decisively. I agree with the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and I hope the representations he made will have the desired effect upon the government.
The minister referred, as is indicated on page 2810 of Hansard to the increase in public debt charges. He said that our public debt charges are increasing. If we refer to the statistical sheet which is included in the book of estimates for the year ending March 31, 1968, we see that interest on the public debt will be $1,273,906,400. This is a colossal amount to pay annually solely for interest and carrying charges. It includes nothing at all by way of payment on principal. We pay $1,273 million odd for interest charges alone. No wonder the minister is becoming alarmed.
DEBATES	3029
The Budget-Mr. Patterson The public is becoming alarmed. The government should give careful consideration to this item in its annual spending and make provision for its reduction and eventual elimination.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The minister said, as found on page 2811 of Hansard:
We must of necessity restrain our demands on the capital market.
The Social Credit party has advocated that for a long time. We have said that it is not necessary for the federal government to borrow money on the open market for various types of projects because the government has access to the Bank of Canada and the Bank of Canada can make available to the federal government sufficient capital to meet its obligations in various fields of activity. The bank can meet the needs of provincial and municipal governments also. We have recommended for a number of years that the Bank of Canada should progressively take over the national debt of the nation. Even if interest were collected it would go into the consolidated revenue fund, with the desirable effect of reducing interest charges and to the greatest extent eliminating them.
Some days ago the President of the Treasury Board indicated that what I have spoken of was being done to a certain extent. We urge that this program be expanded and that the Bank of Canada be used more and more to meet the needs of the federal, provincial and municipal governments in regard to social projects. This would leave additional money for commercial and industrial development and, should the government so desire, would lead to a lowering of the taxes imposed on Canadians.
There is nothing revolutionary about this suggestion. It has been put forward many times. I appreciate the constant support of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in this respect. Our group appreciates the support he has given to these proposals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not forget the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon).


Alexander Bell Patterson: We appreciate the support of the President of the Privy Council as well.
I wish to raise another matter which has possibly been implied already in my observations. I refer to the problem of increased taxation. We all know that throughout the years the dollar has lost a great proportion of its purchasing power. A dollar is not a dollar any more; it is worth a few cents. We find, nevertheless, that more and more of the
October 12, 1367

The Budget-Mr. Patterson Canadian taxpayers' money is being drained off in taxes. The government's attitude seems to be that the people of Canada are absolutely incapable of handling their own affairs or of using their income in a proper way. As a result a paternalistic government has drained off a great percentage of the taxpayers' income and handled it for them. Apparently the government does not trust the people to handle their own affairs. The present tax load is intolerable; yet we are threatened with a further increase in taxation. I ask the Minister of Finance, how much more can he take from the taxpayer without killing the goose that lays the golden egg?
For years our group has advocated a revision of our entire tax structure. Presumably the commission that was set up to look into this field was engaged in this task. Its report has been tabled. Instead of seeking to reduce the taxes imposed on Canadians the Carter commission report tells the government how it can take more money from them. Instead of revising our tax structure to reduce the burden it has revised the tax structure to increase the burden. Many of its recommendations will require careful analysis. The government is aware of this. Contrary to the first suggestion that the commission's recommendations would be put into legislative form this year, action with respect to them has been delayed for a considerable period-perhaps the longer the better.
Instead of finding ways to increase taxes the Minister of Finance, if he cannot find ways of reducing taxes, ought to hold the line. If he wishes to have suggestions we can give him some.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I wonder how he explains that the Carter commission was not converted to the philosophy of Social Credit?


Alexander Bell Patterson: I beg your pardon? I did not hear that.


Mitchell William Sharp: I asked the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, how it was that the Carter commission was not converted to the principles of Social Credit.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Possibly the Carter commission did not learn some of the lessons the government has learned. The government has begun to implement some Social Credit principles. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) acknowledged that the other day. If we keep hammering away long enough even the commissions that are set up will take note of our suggestions. Perhaps the government will incorporate them in its

thinking. I can assure the minister that our suggestions will prove beneficial for the economy and will have a happy effect on the people of Canada in general.
I have dealt with three matters that I wished to discuss this afternoon. I have several more but I will not take up the time of the house. I trust that the government will consider the problems which are so close to the doorsteps of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, the cost of living and the government's spending program which results in a continuing increase in the tax load, a tax load which has become intolerable and which, if made heavier, will result in a decrease in the government's revenues rather than an increase.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I intend to say something about the budget and about economic conditions generally, as others have done in this debate. First, however, I wish to say something briefly about external affairs.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The minister was the recipient of a few brickbats today from the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) and they were probably deserved. I have a bouquet for him. I was at the United Nations as a parliamentary observer when the minister made his statement to the general assembly and I was very pleased to hear the statement he made concerning Viet Nam. He suggested that the United States should cease bombing North Viet Nam as a necessary step toward peace negotiations. He did not say this would necessarily bring about peace negotiations between Washington and Hanoi but he did say it was worth trying. I give the minister full credit for making that statement though I must say it was long overdue. An increasing number of Canadians has been wanting the minister to make such a statement for years. Certainly members of this party have brought up the subject in the house on every occasion when it has been possible to do so. We had an ally later in the person of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) who expressed a similar opinion. Others in university faculties, in the Christian student movement and so on have voiced this idea. The minister might like us to think he was choosing his own time in making the statement he did before the United Nations but I have too much respect for him as a politician to believe he was not affected by the growing public opinion in Canada in favour of such a move.
When people ask me whether it is any use writing letters to members of parliament or
October 12, 1967

sending petitions to the government, I tell them it is. It may take a long time to achieve the desired result but if they wish to make their opinions known to the government these efforts must be made, and I am certain the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) was influenced by the opinions of large numbers of Canadians who wanted the Canadian government to make a statement on Viet Nam such as he ultimately made.
To return to the subject of this debate, the budget and the economic health of the country, may I say I have listened to the discussion with a great deal of interest. There have been numerous quotations from the report of the Economic Council of Canada. Some hon. members have condemned the level of government spending and a number have made specific suggestions as to the manner in which reductions might be effected. Later I shall make some specific suggestions in that connection, as well as suggestions as to how money might be spent.
Listening to the speeches of some hon. members I got the impression that they believe the Economic Council has called for a reduction in government spending. This is not the case. Let me quote directly from the fourth annual review of the Economic Council, as others have done. On page 261 we read:
These developments have led to a growing uneasiness in Canada about the current pace of the over-all advance in government spending. The Council shares this uneasiness, but we feel that it is important to place it in the proper context.
The council is not referring here to the federal government alone but to all governments, the ten provincial governments as well as to the municipalities. The council does not call for a decrease in government expenditures. It points out that government expenditures-again, I emphasize, the expenditures of all governments-have been increasing at a rate faster than the increase in the gross national product and suggests that a hard look should be taken at existing government spending and proposed new programs. The council does list criteria for examining future programs. Before proceeding, may I add that the Economic Council has made a number of suggestions which have called for increased government expenditure. In its report last year it emphasized the importance of education, telling us that Canada was behind the United States and that a great deal needed to be spent in this field. This year the council places great emphasis on housing, another
The Budget-Mr. Prittie field which will call for great expenditure by all levels of government.
The council did, nevertheless, establish some criteria which it felt should be borne in mind before new spending is undertaken, and on page 262 of the report it lists four questions which it says should be asked before any new expenditures are approved. But we need to be clear about one thing: government expenditure is not going to decrease, either in Ottawa or in any of the provinces or in any of the municipalities. It must increase. It cannot be otherwise in a growing country where services are required for a growing population at a time of increasing productivity. But though I believe the amount of government expenditure must increase, this is not to say that certain economies cannot be made in the total amount. I think some should be made but I believe the amounts saved should be transferred and spent in other directions.
In his column last week Mr. Charles Lynch made an interesting observation. He wrote that the Economic Council had been less than helpful to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) by recommending in general terms that certain obsolete programs supported by the government should be cancelled and not saying which programs would be affected. I also noticed in a column by Douglas Fullerton a suggestion that there were many programs in connection with agriculture and fishing which were no longer necessary, were a drain on the public treasury and might well be abandoned.
It seems to me that the Economic Council would be of great help to any minister of finance if it were more specific about what it means when referring to obsolete programs. Perhaps it could suggest particular programs which it felt were obsolete. I can well understand the difficult political problem which would face any minister of finance who wanted to cut out, for example, some farm or fishing subsidies. But the Economic Council seems to be held in such high regard around here that possibly, if it made specific suggestions, the minister could turn to hon. members and say: The Economic Council suggested it, so it must be all right.


Mitchell William Sharp: The chairman did make some specific suggestions.


Robert William Prittie: Particular ones? Thank you. I will refer to that in more detail later.
I have listened with interest to various hon. members who have tried to indicate where reductions in government spending might take place. Incidentally, these were usually in areas other than their own. I have noticed a

October 12, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Prittie general attack on spending by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but in most cases no particulars were given and no suggestions were forthcoming as to where cuts should be made. Did the corporation spend too much last year on covering the Pan-American games in Winnipeg? Did it spend too much on coverage of Expo '67? Did it spend too much on the Progressive Conservative convention? What we hear are generalities -nothing specific.
When the report of the Economic Council came out I noticed that there were loud cries from the provincial premiers about what a bad job was being done in Ottawa. One of those who protested was Mr. Roblin. However, he later addressed a letter to the federal government maintaining that the Air Canada base in Winnipeg ought not to be moved, that Air Canada had been taking into account strictly economic considerations and that social considerations ought to be taken into account. He may well be right. But social considerations often cost money. So on the one hand we find him condemning the government for spending too much while on the other he is suggesting a course of action which might cause additional expenditure.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) made a biting attack-


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Could I ask the hon. member whether he is advocating, speaking either for himself or as a representative of his party, the removal of the Air Canada base from Winnipeg or the closing of those facilities?


Robert William Prittie: I am too close to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to be so bold as to do that. I am not advocating that. The government might well take into account social considerations rather than purely economic considerations when reaching a decision. The inconsistency occurs when politicians, either federal or provincial, suggest that the government is spending too much and then make proposals which will perhaps cost more money. I am not saying, either personally or for my party, that this base ought to be moved. It might well be that social considerations should be taken into account. Let us be clear about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Robert William Prittie: I was interested, too, in the speech by one of my colleagues from British Columbia, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis). He thought that the building of a causeway to Prince Edward Island might well be put off. He said that in British Columbia cargo and passengers were

transported from Vancouver island to the mainland at much less capital cost than the cost of this causeway. On the other hand, however, the hon. member justified the federal government spending money for a crossing of Burrard inlet which, it so happens, would connect his riding of Coast-Capilano with the city of Vancouver. He thought that the Prince Edward Island causeway could go but that the crossing in Vancouver should stay. In passing I would like to say that the proposed crossing of Burrard inlet is going to cost around $100 million. The federal government is putting up about $16 million as a grant and the rest will be made available in the form of loans to be repaid through tolls on the crossing.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I suggest that this is no business of the federal government. It is a responsibility of the government of British Columbia which it is evading. I do not think the federal government should be accepting that responsibility even though most of the $100 million involved will be made available in the form of loans. Presumably the federal government will have to go into the money market to borrow that money, and I thought one of the objectives of the Minister of Finance was to cut down the demands of the federal government on the money market.
Again, we heard from the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who, as I say, made an exceedingly devastating attack on government spending. But he was not very specific about the Yukon. It seems to me that territory requires a great deal of federal money to keep it in existence. And so we have these generalities but not too many specifics. These members made specific suggestions which had to do with somebody else's part of the country but did not involve their own.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions to the government, although I do not think for one minute that it will seriously consider them. Recently a number of people, and not just solely members of the N.D.P., have been suggesting that a hard look be taken at the Canadian defence budget. For example, the NORAD treaty comes up for renewal this year. In a recent column in the Toronto Globe and Mail John Gellner, military critic for that newspaper, suggested that the action of the United States in setting up an anti-ballistic missile system will cause us increased expenditures. Mr. Gellner did not suggest that we would be paying for part of the A.B.M. system, but he did suggest that at the same time the United States would try to
October 12, 1967

modernize its defence against conventional air attack and this would cost us money. He said that all indications were this would mean an increase in our defence budget and we should consider whether or not we ought to continue to engage in this game.
There is also the question of NATO. A very large amount of the Canadian defence budget is going into NATO. I think it was John Holmes who recently suggested that our forces in NATO are not very big but really represent a psychological factor to prove to the Europeans that we are with them. This, however, costs a great deal of money.
I do not advocate that if the government accepts my suggestions about NATO and NORAD the money saved should be used to reduce taxes. I believe that the money thus saved should go into external aid, a field in which we are not doing our full part yet. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has forecast that by 1970-71 we will reach the point where some 1 per cent of our gross national product will be devoted to external aid. I think we should speed up this activity and get beyond one 1 per cent by 1970-71. I am suggesting that any savings which might be made in the defence budget could be used for that purpose.
Every day the problem of the developing countries comes to our attention. Recently a conference on education was held in Washington and it was suggested by the director general of UNESCO that the amount now spent on external aid needs to be tripled in the next few years. Further, we just had a report from the Food and Agricultural Organization pointing out the problem of growing population and showing that the food production of the world is not increasing in ratio to the growing population. I suggest that the proper world defence for Canada to engage in is this sort of thing and not the type of defence in which we have been engaged in the past.
Last week the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) made a very fitting speech. In it he advanced an idea that he has presented previously, as some of us have also, that there ought to be a federal department of housing and urban development. The housing crisis in our country has been highlighted recently and we have had debates on it in the house. Strictly according to the constitution housing is a provincial responsibility, but I hesitate to think how much less housing we would have now had it not been for the federal initiative shown through Central Mortgage and Housing
The Budget-Mr. Prittie Corporation, and how much less urban redevelopment we would have had it not been for this federal agency. This is a field in which we need to spend a great deal of money.
I wish to deal with another subject briefly, the third annual report of the Economic Council with respect to education. In doing so I use the word "education" in the broad sense. I do not make the distinction which the government does between education and training. To the government training means trade training for a short period of time and education means that which takes place in regular institutions.
I think an unfortunate decision was made by the federal government a year ago this month when it decided to withdraw from the field of financing universities. True enough, it promised to transfer to the provinces a certain amount of income and corporation taxes to be devoted to universities and at that time it said that the matter of manpower training, trade training, would be handled on a national scale through the new Department of Manpower and Immigration. This is very unfortunate.
For some reason we can take a national approach to trade training but we cannot take a national approach to the very important type of training which takes place in our junior colleges and universities. For a number of reasons this is unfortunate. First, I am concerned, about the fact that since universities from now on will largely derive their finances from the provinces this will lead them to be too much under the control of the provinces. We all know that the elementary and secondary schools of the country are completely under the control of the provinces. The provinces can decide what will be taught in the courses, which textbooks will be used, and who will teach in the institutions. The provinces have very complete control if they want to exercise it, and many of them do.
But we usually think of universities as places where there is more freedom of action, where more research can take place, and which do not have direct government control. I have a feeling that if the universities depend more and more for their finances solely upon the provincial governments some provincial governments will begin to exercise an undue amount of control and the universities will not be the type of institutions that we want them to be where free learning can take place. I would not want to see the universities in the same position as our elementary

some of the ways in which expenditures might be cut by the government. As I have said, however, I do not think the total-expenditures can be cut. They must increase if we are to meet the obligations of the last half of the twentieth century in Canada. I commend again to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) the speech made yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) who suggested that a very different approach may have to be taken, that it is not good enough to leave decisions to the market place and that a greater involvement of government in fiscal and monetary matters as well as economic planning will be necessary to solve many of the problems we face today. I do not think the recent decision of the Minister of Finance to cut down on the demands of the federal government in the money market or the decision to raise the N.H.A. interest rate in the hope of attracting further funds will really solve the housing problem. A much greater involvement by the government in co-operation with the provincial governments will be necessary. If we are to solve these problems, we may as well face the facts and get down to the job.


Mr.   Jacques-R. Tremblay@Richelieu-Ver-cheres: Mr. Speaker, may I, before making my maiden speech in the house-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Tremblay:: -express a wish,-the wish to a young Canadian who hopes to enjoy happy days in a peaceable and united country.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people should be grateful at this time for the services of a man of the stature of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). This devoted servant of the Canadian nation never hesitates to take courageous steps in order to ensure a well-balanced administration.
Naturally, it would be far easier for me, and certainly more spectacular, to voice criticisms and make suggestions-indeed this is the prerogative of my hon. friends opposite, but being a novice, as I am not yet immersed into parliamentary life, I feel that I am still a member of the electorate. Consequently, I bring a rather objective testimony, which reflects the opinion of the grassroots, that of the man in the street, which indeed I am.
As a representative of a semi-urban constituency, I discovered wide differences of opinion in my area. Recently, I was able to note the people's reaction to the financial policy of this government.
The Budget-Mr. J. R. Tremblay
The minister's budgetary estimates tend to cut expenditures and, to this effect, various departments have been called upon, in some cases, to curtail their expenses.
However, I hope that the Canadian people, who are willing to make the necessary sacrifices, will not suffer in their family life from the limitations involved in such a program of economic stabilization.
As a resident of the province of Quebec, I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that our unemployment rate is high and that the prevailing conflicts of opinion in various parts of the province, has caused uneasiness among investors, so that there have been flights of capital here and there. Even yesterday's newspapers were saying that an important section of our population, particularly our financiers and the Jewish population were shipping large amounts of money outside the province of Quebec.
Moreover, there are rumours that several important firms which do business in all parts of the country are thinking of moving their headquarters away from the province of Quebec. If that is true, the situation is deplorable.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to join clear-thinking French Canadians, those who believe in a united and a strong Canada, in supporting the 57 government supporters who represent all classes of society in our province and who, in a unanimous message, ask their English-speaking fellow Canadians to realize that Quebec has changed and that it is also a part of the twentieth century.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if we cannot imagine Canada without Quebec and vice versa, Quebec without Canada, let us not take it for granted that the French province of our country is ready to miss the opportunity for emancipation from a constitutional, economic and social viewpoint.
To my English Canadian friends, I say once more: Stop asking yourselves the traditional question: "What does Quebec want?" My friends, you know, and you see Quebec's wishes: To be recognized as a distinctive ethnic entity integrated to the rest of the country, of course, but with the recognition of its rights and privileges everywhere, from sea to sea, without restriction, as is the case for you in our province.
This requirement will become part of the Canadian constitution, I hope, as the government intends to do next January, with the bill concerning the rights of the Canadian
3036	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. J. R. Tremblay citizen, not to use the almost obsolete term of Bill of Rights.
It must be understood, Mr. Speaker, that the feelings of a whole people have been roused, and the go ahead signal in our daily life, in every field, has made us realize for some years now that we want to be full-fledged Canadians and therefore we must be recognized as such by our English-speaking fellow citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of witnessing, along with the entire population, these decisive hours for our country. In my opinion, it is the logical consequence for a nation that wishes to develop, to free itself and to take in all those various constitutional formulas.
The leader of the Quebec wing, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration stated recently:
Those who scheme to bring about a divorce between the people of Quebec and their federal representatives are knowingly seeking the destruction of Canada.
Men such as the one I have just quoted deserve our confidence.
Mr. Speaker, we too from Quebec are making a useful contribution to the federal parliament; we have our de Gaulles, our thinkers, our leaders able to face the facts as they really are.
I am quoting here the hon. senator whose statement was the highlight of the recent Montmorency conference.
Let us not act in such a way as to alter the true facts into a chasm.
In all the upheaval that befogs the current political atmosphere, our first concern should be to seek the living standard within the Canadian framework. The concerns of ordinary mortals, of the man in the street, is with the standard of living; the daily bread is the uppermost question in his mind. That is why, in my humble judgment, I favour appreciable reforms of the constitution but I unconditionally reject any clause that might tend to isolate Quebec and force it to segregation. And as our youngest minister already said, let us favour the policy of presence.
This brings me to the financial situation of our country, and I would not want the occurrence of a tragedy that would place my province under the yoke of isolationism. Quite recently, when one of the most famous tourists in Hawaii stated:
No China wall around Quebec.
We all heaved a sigh of relief, and the
strain was markedly eased.

DEBATES	October 12, 1967
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) told us yesterday that, to date, eight provinces were seriously considering his invitation to attend a federal-provincial conference slated for next January. Well, the detente was further increased when the provincial Liberals came out openly against separatism.
So, it should be realized that sides are now being taken, and that this centennial year will end in a blaze of optimism and constitutional oecumenism, as the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) called it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, once again I appeal to all my English-speaking compatriots whom I like a lot, not to watch passively what is happening in Quebec. We have here men of great value who are ready to do anything to promote unity in Canada and our Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) is one who, by his gift as an administrator and his great qualifications in human relations, is trying to develop a prosperous Canada, financially balanced, and first of all united and harmonious.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, we have a great many problems at home in Canada today which I should like to discuss if I had the time. However, there is a problem abroad which far transcends all our domestic problems. I refer to the deplorable fact that most of the people of Canada are being systematically brainwashed. I am not accusing the present administration of having a hand in this, apart from the contribution they make because of ineptitude. I give this administration full credit for meaning well. Nevertheless this ineptitude on the part of those in positions of responsibility to this house and the nation makes it evident that they are guilty of serious neglect.
Although I am not an expert on foreign affairs I intend to take a few minutes of the time of the house to attempt to outline what is so obvious to me as a layman and novice in foreign affairs. A true picture of the international situation is not being presented to us. We have an enemy in this world, international communism and I am in no way hesitant about saying that. These people have friends in this country, although as I have said before I do not think any of them sit in this house
The Canadian war crimes tribunal organization which seeks to put President Johnson of the United States on trial for his so-called war crimes is allowed to operate. Free discussion in Canada has always been
Ociober 12, 1967

our prerogative and I would be the last to suggest that a person does not have the right to say what he wants as long as he is willing to accept the responsibility involved. Having regard to the anti-United States propaganda to which this country has been subjected, I have waited in vain for a clear voice from the fourth estate, from the television and radio media, yes, even from responsible members of the government and of this house, to give what I consider a fair and balanced picture of the situation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It is passing strange that Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the North Vietnamese and the soul of the Viet Cong, should always be given the benefit of the doubt and favourable publicity. I have in my hand a paper which clearly indicates in straight, factual terms, Mr. Ho Chi Minh's record. I think it would be fair, and perhaps interesting, to know in chronological order what have been the actions of Ho Chi Minh during the last 47 years and what have been the actions of one Lyndon B. Johnson, who bears the responsibility both militarily and politically for maintaining the freedom of at least the western world, and in Viet Nam certainly some semblance of freedom amongst the small nations of Asia.
On December 25, 1920, Ho Chi Minh, a Viet Nam born Chinese, became a member of the Marxist wing of the French socialist party while attending the party conference in Paris. Lyndon B. Johnson was at this time attending high school in Johnson City, Texas. He had the same kind of background as most of us in the house have enjoyed. He was raised on a farm and received a western-style free education.
Lyndon B. Johnson found it necessary to work with his hands and learned that he needed energy and individual effort in order to finish his schooling. Ho Chi Minh was educated at the expense of the international socialist party. In 1923 Ho Chi Minh became the editor of Le Paria, a French communist publication, and received one year's training in Moscow. In December, 1924, he was sent to Canton, China, as interpreter for the communist Michael Borodin. At that time Lyndon B. Johnson was graduating from high school as president of his class and had already achieved a reputation as a debater.
At that time President Johnson did not know of his rendezvous with fate. He did not know that he would one day be President of the United States. In fact, he scorned higher
The Budget-Mr. Bigg
education. He was a young, energetic man who went out looking for work, which was not easy for an untrained man to find even in those days. It was difficult for him to find suitable work to which he could devote his great talents. Therefore Lyndon B. Johnson wandered about the United States working with his hands. He graduated from the school of hard knocks. Lyndon B. Johnson recognized that education was necessary for all young people and he went back to school.
In January, 1930 we find that under Ho Chi Minh's leadership a conference was held in Hong Kong with Chinese communists to integrate three Vietnamese communist parties, the Oriental Communist Party, the Annamese Communist Party and the Oriental Communist League. These became the communist party of Indo-China, a branch of the Third International of Moscow, and it so remained until 1940.
Let us go back to our friend Lyndon B. Johnson. He enrolled at Southwest Texas Teachers State College and became a school teacher. He was a school teacher for a year. He then continued his studies at college, obtained a degree and took up public speaking. He was just a nice, friendly school teacher. In 1931 Lyndon B. Johnson, having a great interest in politics even from his early years, became secretary to a congressman. Mr. Hoover was the Republican president. From his early days Lyndon B. Johnson was a liberal with a small "1".
In 1932 Lyndon B. Johnson attached himself to Mr. Roosevelt's administration and worked unceasingly for the New Deal. I think the most rabid of critics of that program cannot say that the New Deal was anything but a tremendous attempt to maintain the dignity of the individual and the right of little people to share in the great wealth and progress of North America.
On May 19, 1941, Moscow disbanded the Third Communist International. The Vietnamese communist party established the Doc Lap Dong Minh, or the Viet Minh, to wage guerrilla warfare. They went underground. Who was the spiritual leader of this group? It was Ho Chi Minh. In 1940 Viet Nam, together with most other southeast Asian countries, was occupied by Japan. At the end of the eastern theatre of world war II the power of the United States was ascending. Ho Chi Minh at this time continued his program of the march of communism.
Where was Lyndon B. Johnson at this time? He is a man who has always thought for

October 12, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Bigg
himself. He heeded United States' public opinion and came out flatly for entering world war II on the side of the free nations. In 1941 England stood alone. Lyndon B. Johnson, who has always been a very strong nationalist, came out flatly in favour of his country fighting with Britain. He said that the United States needed the draft and he worked toward that end. Mr. Johnson was the kind of man who did not only talk but acted. He stood for principles. He promised the young men of the United States, on the day he voted for conscription to send America's young blood to fight for freedom, that he would be with them. Less than three hours after he put his name to the draft bill Lyndon B. Johnson joined the United States navy. He worked in the theatre of war in which Ho Chi Minh was working underground with the communists.
President Johnson, as he now is, served as a volunteer lieutenant in the United States navy. His short term of service in the Pacific was exciting. His courage was rewarded by being decorated by his country. The president of that day, believing that Lyndon B. Johnson and his ability to organize the war effort were of more use in Washington, ordered him back for duty.
^ (5:40 p.m.)
On August 15, 1945 Japan surrendered to the allies. On August 17 and 18, 1945 an uprising was provoked in Hanoi. On August 19, 1945 Ho Chi Minh launched his take-over. On September 2, 1945 Ho Chi Minh established his regime in Hanoi, ousting Bao Dai, the former emperor of Annam. Where was Lyndon B. Johnson at that time?


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member a question. I was very interested in his remarks but would he say whether he is in favour of or opposed to the general budget which I thought we were considering?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am speaking about something which affects every dollar we wish to earn in Canada and every dollar we wish to spend. It is only in the budget debate that an amateur like myself can say what is in his heart, and I am quite sure that while I stand here and speak every hon. member within hearing of my voice knows that I speak with the firm conviction that we are only hearing one side of the story. I would take my seat if I did not think this was so. I cannot imagine anything more important for Canada than national survival and I cannot imagine national survival for Canada unless there is the fullest

co-operation between our country and the United States of America. We rely on them at this time for any defence of our continent. We rely on them entirely to protect our skies and if in the future intercontinental missiles are to be stopped on their way it will be farsighted men like Lyndon B. Johnson who will be able to provide the kind of leadership which we require in this country.


Barry Mather: May I ask the hon. member one more question? I appreciate the hon. member's reply to my previous question but what I asked in fact was whether he is in favour of or opposed to the budget?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I listened with considerable patience while the hon. member spoke and I wish he would give me the same forbearance.


Barry Mather: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I might say that I do not expect my speech to be widely read and no political advantage whatsoever will be gained by injecting that type of question into it. I have spoken about my concern, and it is only in the budget debate that we can speak about such matters. If the hon. member wishes me to speak about the budget in detail, I will get to that subject where we discuss the subject of defence. At that time I will speak about how the money can be used to further some of the things I have in mind. However, I am merely trying to do one specific job, and I hope I am doing it, namely, to draw a parallel between the leader of the state of North Viet Nam and the leader of the state in the only country on earth able to stem what I consider to be a threat to my country. If this is a small matter, one unworthy of capturing the attention of the house for 15 or 20 minutes, then I am prepared to sit down. But I am not convinced of that.


Barry Mather: If the hon. gentleman does not wish to answer my question that is his privilege.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: In 1945 Mr. Johnson ran for the United States senate. In the senate, until the time he became president, he fought for all those things which leftists talk about and do nothing about and which he himself backed whenever it meant that the strength of the strong should be used to help the poor. There was no segment of society, however small and neglected, that President Johnson did not support, and this has been affirmed by minority groups such as the one composed of Germans in his own state during world war II and the
October 12, 1967

negro minority. During his term in the senate he instituted and pushed with all his might for reforms which it had taken 82 years to put on the statute books of the United States.
I had hoped in the 20 minutes allotted to me to present the full record of this man but it would take hours to review in detail the accomplishments of this great president. I am sick and tired of hearing criticisms of the noble efforts made by President Johnson himself to bring peace to Viet Nam and the noble efforts made by the American people and their sons to continue the fighting. I think we should level criticism whenever we can if we think an injustice is being done, and the point I am trying to make this afternoon is that an injustice is done when those who feel the way I do, do not give lip service at least to our American friends and allies.
A partisan politician would say it is better to support his party no matter how bad it is than to support the other party no matter how good it is. This has never been the style of Lyndon B. Johnson. He has always had the courage to stand up against those things in which he did not believe and he is exceptionally good at getting things done. I believe that Ho Chi Minh is also exceptionally good at getting things done that he wants done, but as I read the reports of his achievements I find they are all negative and all designed to destroy freedom. However, as I read the record of Lyndon B. Johnson's career I find that for the last 35 years at least he has only had one end in mind, to uphold the dignity of the human being. Because he lives in an imperfect world and can only work through political organizations, imperfect as they are, and because it is difficult even for the Americans who use restraint to achieve peace and security in our world, it is beneath our dignity to sit here in smug security north of the line and have nothing but bad to say about those who are at least doing their best.
Attempts are being made to force us to talk about dollars and cents and not to talk about things on a high plane. I can do that. I think the Canadian people should pay 10 per cent of the cost of freedom along with the Americans. I go further and say, as I said in 1939, that more than our money should be at stake. President Johnson thought his life was at stake. He thought that strongly about the matter and I do not think he has changed. But I do think we should change.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Some may sit here quietly, accept things as they are and say, "We know all that, Bigg,
The Budget-Mr. Bigg why don't you sit down?" If these facts are known, I do not hear about them. I read the newspapers daily and I listen to the news broadcasts. One would really think President Johnson was the leader of some kind of international gang. It is for this reason I ask hon. members to consider these facts. They are in every "Who's Who". When I am doing my homework, my desk is piled high with papers containing these facts. These articles were not written by President Johnson's friends. As I said before, President Johnson is a liberal with a small "1", while I am a conservative with a small "c". However, like President Johnson, when the welfare of my country is at stake I have no politics. I have seen these very issues kicked around, even on the floor of this house, for cheap political reasons, and I do not point my finger at the Liberals when I say that. We on this side of the house are condemned by our own silence as well as by interpreting the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who is seized with the responsibility of giving us the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I am not afraid of the truth. It has been said many times that the truth will make one free. If we are only going to be given half truths, then I say half truths will lead to slavery. It will be the same kind of slavery that President Johnson has spent his whole life fighting. He has risked his political career fighting it. Slavery is not dead in the United States. President Johnson knows that, as do many other people in the United States. However, it is not politically wise to stand up and say so because down there feelings run high. Thank God, we do not have it in this country.
Some parliamentarians from England were visiting us last week. They said that our prospects are greater than our problems. If we take the attitude that the war in Viet Nam is none of our business, then we should at least keep quiet about those who think they have a stake in it and think they are doing their best. If we have a better alternative, then what is it? Ho Chi Minh is represented as a man who is working for the self-determination of people. Well, there are a lot of people in South Viet Nam as well as in North Viet Nam. If this man Johnson wanted to use all the power he has to stop the war, we know only too well how quickly that war could be stopped. We also know at what cost. Here is a man who is not going to use all the power he has for cheap political purposes.

October 12, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Bigg
I wanted to go through his record to indicate that while Ho Chi Minh was busy undermining the small nations of Southeast Asia President Johnson was quietly doing his duty. Since President Kennedy is dead, it is safe to make him a hero. However, since President Johnson is still alive he can still be used for cheap political purposes. I say it is time we in Canada cut it out. This man was chosen by President Kennedy. Kennedy said of him, this man is even more fit to serve the American people than I am. When Kennedy got the opportunity to sit in high places he knew that he needed the wisdom and dedication of this man Johnson to help him guide the United States through very difficult times.
I, for one, thank God we have a man of Johnson's calibre as our neighbour. I fear no invasion from the south. President Johnson has always supported the United Nations. He has done all he could to make the United Nations effective. President Johnson has offered to give up his right to decide these issues if the United Nations is willing and able to deal with them. When he has made these suggestions he has been turned down. The facts are here and we all know them. Less than 18 months ago the United States did stop the bombing for six weeks. What has happened to the memories of those men who write this propaganda we are getting? What did North Viet Nam do? They methodically and coldbloodedly built up their military strength. More United States soldiers died because this man Johnson was reasonable enough to give North Viet Nam every opportunity.
There are many nations in the world today in which both sides of this story will not be told. The iron curtain encircles them. There is only one press and only one party in those countries. I thank God again that here we have two parties. If a man is delinquent or is interpreted as not telling us the truth, then it is my plain duty to ask for the truth. I am not afraid the people of Canada will condemn me for that. I put freedom above all other things, and it is the truth that will make us free.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight

are as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Canadian Pacific Railway-request for more effective methods of dealing with accidents; the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), Public Works -Toronto-inquiry as to availability of funds; the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), External Affairs-Rhodesia-an expression of disapproval of racial practices.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss many matters at this time, but as many subjects have already been spoken about since the beginning of the debate I shall, for the most part, limit myself to one item that I feel most urgently constrained to discuss, to one position that I feel obligated to place on the record.
Before launching into that paramount and focal area of my remarks I wish to say, also for the record, that all who come from my part of the country and all in this chamber who represent areas outside the major metropolitan areas of central and eastern Canada, that part known as the golden triangle region of the country, are vividly and anxiously concerned about the negotiations going on at the present time between the premier of Manitoba and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) with respect to the future of the Air Canada overhaul base in Winnipeg.
I have nothing to add to what has been said about this matter that affects my constituency, Winnipeg South, my city, metropolitan Winnipeg and, for that matter, the whole of Manitoba. The speeches in the past about the future of the Air Canada base in Winnipeg and about the potential development and use of Winnipeg facilities ring hollow to the citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba. Considering the latest apparently arbitrary announcement by the president of Air Canada about the phase-out of the Winnipeg base, those speeches ring hollow indeed. I, other members of this chamber and the
October 12, 1967	COMMONS
premier of Manitoba, dealt with the announcement which was made last week by the president of Air Canada. As discussions and negotiations are going on, I shall limit my remarks in this area to a few words.
Were I not to emphasize once more for the record how disappointed the people of Winnipeg and Manitoba are in the word of Air Canada and how uneasy they are with respect to this government's policies as they affect regional and national air development in this country, I should be remiss in my duty. Since time immemorial we have asked the government to announce clearly its national and regional air policy. What is that policy in the context of which cities like mine can plan and build for the future, can plan and build for a share in the development of the northern half of this continent? In the middle of the twentieth century, in the jet age, in the space age, that share should be rightfully ours.
We still await for such a policy to be articulated. Earlier this year the former minister of finance partially articulated such a policy. For the introduction and formulation of such a policy we must depend on the good faith of the government and Air Canada. We are waiting to see an indication of that good faith.
Since we first raised cries about the future of Winnipeg and about the future of the Air Canada overhaul base there, the situation has not changed. We have had nothing but promises, promises and more promises. They have all been repudiated; perhaps they have not been repudiated with the knowledge of the government, but they have with the knowledge of high ranking officials of Air Canada, and at this stage we have little faith in the pronouncements of the officers of that corporation. I appeal to the government, to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) to take urgent, authoritative action to preserve the facilities at Winnipeg and, in the words of the premier of Manitoba, to run a country and not just an air line.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The issue is as simple as this: Air Canada and this government are involved in the running of a country; they do not just operate an air line. Where the social welfare and wellbeing of the people of Canada as a whole is involved, as is the case when the industrial health of any major region is jeopardized, then I say that this social interest comes before the bookkeeping requirements of any 27053-193
DEBATES	3041
The Budget-Mr. Sherman corporation. The social needs of Canada are those of a developing, expanding and imaginative country from coast to coast, a country which is only as strong as are its parts and which is weak if any of its parts are weak. As far as the development of a viable Canada is concerned, this proposal is a classic example of what is wrong. It involves half a million people, it involves a central product of this nation and it concerns the economic health of the part of the country from which I come. Thus, I wish to begin my remarks by putting on record once again for the benefit of this chamber and of the country at large the strenuous objection of the people of Manitoba to the latest authoritarian and arbitrary pronouncement of the president of Air Canada, and a further plea to the minister and to the government to do something to save this situation before a pattern is established which may have repercussions which all of us might deplore.
Having said this, I wish to move to the core of my remarks and place on record unconditional objection to a current demand by United States officers of the United Automobile Workers Union which has very critical repercussions for Canada. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the demand by the U.A.W. that workers in Canadian plants of the Ford Motor Company be given wage parity with their counterparts in United States plants. This demand has been widely publicized in news coverage of the current Ford strike in Detroit, and was very clearly expressed on C.B.C. television on Sunday night by Mr. Walter Reuther, the president of the United Automobile Workers union.
I cannot speak for the general Canadian reaction to the remarks of Mr. Reuther, but my own reaction was one of shock and I would venture to guess that this was a reaction shared by a great many other persons in this country. I have great respect for the president of the United Automobile Workers, and I am not so naive as to miss the point that he has a certain and valuable role to perform. But as I sat listening to him attempt to defend the demand for wage parity-to justify it and promote it-I had a difficult time restraining a tendency to righteous Canadian anger.
A demand such as this one would be enough at any time to invite sharp comment from Canadians, because at the very least it represents an intrusion into Canadian economic and national affairs. However, living in such close economic and national proximity
October 12, 1SS7

The Budget-Mr. Sherman to our powerful American friends and neighbours as we do has taught us to accept with restraint and equanimity the occasional incidents of this nature that are bound to occur between our two countries, and to let them pass without undue argument. We doubtless ruffle American feathers by insinuating ourselves into their affairs as often as they ruffle ours.
But this particular demand represents in its potential effects something far more than mere routine intrusion. Such a demand at this particular time, when Canada is facing an undeniable economic crisis, is bristling with danger for this country and in the national interest it must be resisted with every means at our disposal. When I say "with every means at our disposal," I use the term in its literal sense and this includes action by legislation if necessary.
When Mr. Reuther talks about wage parity for Canadian automobile workers, he is speaking, whether he knows it or not, against the best interests of Canada. I do not think he takes this dangerous position intentionally. He speaks as a benevolent labour leader, interested to a great degree in the material and economic welfare of the workers whom he leads, and to a lesser degree in preserving his own position in the top office that his union has to offer any man. No one can fault him for this. He is doing no more and no less than any responsible, constructive citizen. But Mr. Reuther is out of his depth and moving dangerously close to irresponsibility when he insinuates himself into the national affairs of another sovereign society about which he obviously understands very, very little.
If Mr. Reuther wishes to go about the United States, his country, promoting wage increases for the members of his union, that is his own business. In fact, it could be said to be his business both literally and illustratively. But if he wishes to come into Canada, my country, and go about using the C.B.C. or any other means to promote wage increases which are not in the best interests of this country, then I say he is making an intrusion of the most irresponsible kind and he should be politely but firmly told the Canadian facts of life.
I can understand Mr. Reuther's basic motive. He sees an auto worker as an auto worker: not as a Canadian or an American, but simply as an auto worker. And when he sets himself the challenge of winning higher wages for the men whose economic interests


he believes he represents, there are no frontiers in his view, no international boundaries to be considered. The winning of the wage is the important consideration-the only one. Anything which impedes that victory is to be arbitrarily dismissed.
I do not expect the president of the United Automobile Workers union to be deterred or sidetracked by other considerations. I expect him to pursue his single goal with single-mindedness where the national interest of Canada is not involved. But if his commitment to his union is so all-encompassing as to blind him to the other important realities of life on this north American continent, then perhaps this is the point at which it becomes expedient to separate Canadian unions from United States control. If a man with as much experience of economics as the president of the United Automobile Workers has not sufficient knowledge to be able to distinguish between United States labour interests and the national economic interest of Canada, then perhaps the time has come for a universal reappraisal of the whole Canadian labour movement and its relationship to union leaders in the United States.
In any event if Mr. Reuther continues to insist on wage parity for Canadian Ford workers vis-a-vis their counterparts in the United States, the government of this country should give consideration to intervening in the dispute, obtaining an injunction, if necessary, against such a development. If Mr. Reuther spent any time in Canada, or took the trouble to read anything about current conditions in Canada, he could not possibly have advanced his wage parity argument in an attitude of seriousness. He would know that great courage and determination are going to be required of Canadians in the next 24 months to stave off a serious economic crisis and get the country back into good economic health again, and that another round of major wage increases in industry, such as would be touched off if Mr. Reuther's demand were met, would be disastrous.
The Canadian people, 20 million of them, are calling out right now for caution, common sense and restraint where big spending and big wage increases are concerned. From high and low, from every comer of this land the warning has been sounded. The warning bell has made itself heard on every level of Canadian society, and Hemingway's admonition might be directed to the Canadian people today, "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee". It tolls for the Canadian economy.
October 12, 1967

[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Even such an economic idealist as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has finally been jarred out of his Alice in Wonderland idyll and forced to face facts, forced to get tough and to take steps to get this country out of the ice cream parlour and back into the fields to get some work done.
It would not be possible to recount the myriad scholarly warnings that have been issued in the past two years from the tongues and the typewriters of a legion of knowledgeable commentators on the Canadian scene. Suffice it to quote from just one, and the one I choose is no other eminent student of a half a century of Canadian affairs than Bruce Hutchison. Writing in the editorial pages of the Winnipeg Free Press a year ago Mr. Hutchison had this to say:
Whatever happens to the government and the tortured political system, we shall see during the next few months whether the nation has the wisdom and courage to avoid a "disaster"... Already the time is later than we think. The way things are going now, disaster of some sort looks unavoidable.
The economic facts surely have become clear enough-inflation generated by all our governments, by management, labour unions and the ordinary household; production costs rising fast; interest rates at a dizzy pinnacle; even federal government bonds difficult to sell; economists warning us of a recession to celebrate our hundredth birthday next year.
The psychological facts, however, are more interesting. How, the student of human nature will ask, did we get into this mess? The easy answer is that the politicians bungled our business as, of course, they did; that strong leadership has been lacking, as of course it has. But this is no adequate answer. We must penetrate below the surface of politics to find out what went wrong. Then, if we are honest with ourselves, we shall see that all of us are to blame. The politician's public mistakes represent only our private, collective mistakes writ large.
It is a cliche to say, but the truth all the same, that Canadians have tried for a long time to live beyond their means and now the bills are coming in. Whether the politicians encouraged us to demand from the economy more than it could immediately deliver, or whether the public forced the politicians to promise impossibilities, we shall never know but it doesn't matter much, either way. We have to deal with contemporary facts and have no time for crying over spilt milk.
The most fascinating of all the facts, though the Ottawa experts never mention it, is that the Canadian people have been behaving contrary to their nature, or what we have always assumed to be their nature .. . during the last five years the whole legend of the Canadian character has suddenly appeared to be false.
No other nation, for example, supposes that it can raise its money wages by nearly a third without blowing the roof off the economy. No other nation imagines that it can pay the American wage scale when it cannot begin to equal the
27053-193J
The Budget-Mr. Sherman American scale of productivity without devaluing its currency and thus cancelling its paper gains (while incidentally robbing all its hard-won savings).
Nevertheless, these mathematically preposterous assumptions are made not only in the great Canadian debate of theory; they are made in some binding wage settlements, where the American rate of pay has actually been exceeded for the first time. They have been enforced by the government itself in the case of the Quebec longshoremen and the seaway workers, thus setting the pattern for other industries and drawing a reliable chart for the very disaster which alarms the prime minister.
The truth is that Canada, denying all its old traditions, has been acting less responsibly than any nation in the western world. According to Burke's dictum, you cannot indict a nation, but the Canadian nation has indicted itself.
One could go on ad infinitum with authoritative and well documented commentaries of this type, the most recent and best known being, of course, the report of the Economic Council of Canada. I do not intend to dwell at any further length on this aspect of the current Canadian scene. It would be unnecessarily repetitious. Other speakers have examined the Economic Council report in detail and at length. But I wish to reiterate my firm conviction that the president of the United Automobile Workers knows not whereof he speaks when he advocates the wage parity that he has recently advocated.
Wage increases, without a corresponding increase in productivity, are among the fuses already burning that are going to blow our economy to pieces if they are not stamped out by firm fiscal and economic action, and we don't need the president of the United Automobile Workers advocating policies, on our national broadcasting system, that are detrimental to the economic health and wellbeing of the Canadian people.
Nor can Mr. Reuther justify his argument on the esoteric grounds that he is merely acting in the best interests of Canadian auto workers. This argument, Mr. Speaker, is a hypocrisy and a sham. For a Canadian auto worker is not just an auto worker; he is also a consumer, a taxpayer, and either a parent of children or a potential parent of children who have to be fed and clothed and sent to school. To give him a carrot in one hand, while pushing his country's economy to the brink of disaster with the other, is doing that auto worker, that Canadian consumer, no favour, and I doubt that even as persuasive an advocate as Mr. Reuther can argue credibly that it is. So, I say this demand of the U.A.W., and any similar demands, should be opposed, if necessary by Canadian legislation.
3044	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Sherman
When our productivity matches that of the United States, then it will be sufficient time to talk about wage parity. Let us not, in this case as we have in so many other cases, make an ad hoc arrangement to meet the crisis after it occurs, after it arises. Let us pursue that crisis, that danger fully and head it off now.
Just tonight, Mr. Speaker, in the Ottawa Journal there is a dispatch quoting statements by the former chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, Mr. John Deutsch, who supports this particular view. For the record I would like to quote from that dispatch because it expresses better than I could the argument with respect to this possible crisis to which I have referred. It reads:
The Canadian economy could find itself bouncing from one crisis to another within the next five or ten years unless some effective long-range planning is developed, John Deutsch, former chairman of the Economic Council of Canada said Wednesday.
Mr. Deutsch, who left the council September 1 to become principal of Queen's University, Kingston, said that the potential crises will be too big to deal with on an emergency basis after they have arisen.
He told a one-day session of the National Industrial Conference Board that an "entirely new effort" is needed to arrange the affairs of government spending and policies ...
He suggested later that the council could become the vehicle for starting the long-range planning he said is needed, although he emphasized that the council has no responsibility for government policy.
The point is that these ad hoc arrangements in this critical period of the development of the Canadian economy and of the Canadian nation are simply not good enough. They have led us bungling and stumbling from one crisis to another. If they have led us out of one crisis temporarily, all too commonly the peace has been all too brief; the refreshment has not been there. We have stumbled blindly into another crisis. We have lurched from one crisis to another in the past five years, and the same potential danger exists for the economy in the demands for wage parity made by the United Automobile Workers union and other unions at this time.
I say the arrangement to meet the crisis that could occur in a situation like that should be studied, considered and developed now, because if wage parity is granted to that industry it will touch off a further spiral in wages, costs and prices across the country. There will be a similar demand in other industries. Surely we have had that lesson borne home to us in the last few years with the economic situation as it presents itself to us in this country today. Surely now is the

DEBATES	October 12, 1967
time to stand against this kind of appeal, this kind of irresponsible and unreasonable demand, and I say irresponsible and unreasonable advisably because you cannot compare the economy in the United States with the economy in Canada. Anybody who attempts to do so is being irresponsible and doing his country a disservice. Let us not wait until these demands are made and the unions are out marching about militantly until the economy comes up with an ad hoc type of arrangement to balance this out. Let us stand now and say that this cannot be done because we in Canada just cannot afford it.
# (8:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question before he sits down. I should like to ask him whether he would apply to the United States automobile manufacturers the same strictures with regard to the negotiating of wages in Canada that he seeks to apply to the president of the United Automobile Workers.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I would say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the point I attempted to make is that when our productivity reaches the productivity of the United States we can expect to have wage parity, but I think it is the height of irresponsibility in fighting economic disaster to go on thinking that we can continue to boost wages and prices across the land and never boost our productivity. The only people in this country who have increased productivity in this last decade are the Canadian farmers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member think it is fair to apply strictures to one side of the bargaining table and not to the other?


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I do not think I am suggesting that strictures be applied to one side of the table. The balance on the table is not equal. We are talking about an economy built on the backs of 220 million people as against an economy built on the backs of 20 million people, so the odds are weighted against us. Therefore, to answer the question directly, I would say that what I am interested in is the best interests of Canada and the Canadian economy. If that calls for such strictures, then, yes, I am in favour of them.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed not to comment on the 1967-68 budget because, in my opinion, it was well thought out, and I do think, that
October 12, 1967

nobody from one party or the other would have been able to do more than what is included in the budget.
Since we have enjoyed a certain leeway for a number of years, I should like to discuss a subject which might seem to most people who do not live in the Ottawa-Hull area, incomprehensible but which is extremely up-to-date and is called: The federal district project. I am sure that a lot will be written in the years ahead about that project and I can assure you Mr. Speaker that it is not a new issue.
However, I should like to make myself very clear. If the idea of the federal district is dear to my heart, if I have caused some controversies in that respect, it is because I believed, as a politician and as a representative of a certain part of the area which will be included one day in a federal district, that I had a duty to discharge, namely to declare myself in favour of a conditional federal district, that is with certain qualifications.
I think that I was very explicit in that respect, not very long ago, during a lecture which I gave before the chamber of commerce of Aylmer-Lucerne. It seemed to me, and I wish to emphasize it, that this imperative duty required that I take position in favour of this district on the same basis as those who, for several years, have categorically refused any federal district project whatever, and often refuse for personal or political interests, even though this project is extremely important for our area.
So I have decided to support this project in order to become fully acquainted with it and I favour more and more the creation of a federal district, particularly since Professor Donald Rowatt, who was designated about ten months ago by the Ontario provincial government to study the possibility of a federal district, said and I quote:
Before starting my research on that subject, I was inclined to view unfavourably the setting up of a federal district. But as my work progressed, I became more and more in favour of the creation of such a district.
Therefore, there are surely certain advantages, even though some disadvantages, of which we are unaware, will appear during consideration of that project. I do not think a study in depth has been made about that federal district, either on the Quebec or on the Ontario side. What surprised me and still surprises me, is that all those who talked about it, favourably or otherwise-even though those in favour are fewer-those who denounced the project, have always ended
The Budget-Mr. Isabelle their statement by saying that they wanted to remain Quebecers or Ontarians, that they wanted to have a special status and to preserve their territorial autonomy. This is quite normal and quite legitimate. There has never been any question of a Breach of autonomy or territorial integrity. The evidence is that all the parties concerned have rejected the suggestion that Ottawa and Hull be made into a community like Washington or Canberra, Australia.
I will call to the attention of the house that among the several briefs to the Lauren-deau-Dunton commission on bilingualism, 63 mentioned the creation of a federal district. Assuredly, all those associations, or groups, or individuals, are not of equal value, but it can be said that most have some merit and command our admiration. May I mention a few:
The Association des femmes diplomees des universites du Quebec, the Conseil de la vie frangaise du Canada, the Association des femmes de carriere de Granby, the Association canadienne des educateurs de langue frangaise, the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Canada, the Chambre des notaires de la province de Quebec, the Association canadienne frangaise d'education de l'Ontario, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Law Students and Faculty of Law of the University of Toronto, the University of Ottawa, the Canadian Universities French Professors Association and, finally, the Trail chamber of commerce in British Columbia. I have mentioned but a few, as there were 63 of them.
* (8:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, as the member of parliament for undoubtedly our most beautiful county, Gatineau, which comprises a large part of Hull, and expecially, of the National Capital Commission development on the Quebec side, I had the pleasure of submitting a brief to the Dorion commission on the integrity of the Quebec territory, and I should like to quote a few passages from this brief:
The power of the Quebec provincial government to develop the area within its jurisdiction, including the area surrounding the national capital on the Quebec side, is beyond question. The sovereignty of the province, at least for the purposes of this discussion, is indisputable in principle.
Having said this, it is equally obvious that, in a federal state, the central power, because of its exclusive responsibility in certain areas, must have, as a corollary, expropriating powers in order to carry out its obligations. That is why it is up to the federal state to develop
October 12, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Isabelle the areas intended for national harbours, airfields, military camps, national parks and so on.
The federal government who is responsible for developing not only the capital of the country but also the adjacent territory on the Quebec as well as on the Ontario side-is therefore justified to undertake public works meant to beautify the area, to endow it with a better network of roads and well-landscaped parks.
Besides, the city of Hull and the surrounding area are unique in this country because of their geographic location and demographic composition. It is true that due to the border between Quebec and Ontario the city of Hull does not come under the direct control and authority of the federal government, but nobody will deny that the city of Hull and its vicinity are part of what has been conveniently called the national capital area.
The Hull area, populated for the most part by French Canadians, is also the most important centre of French cultural life right at the door of the capital of an officially bilingual country. Because of that characteristic of French city where the educational freedom typical of Quebec prevails, the city and the surrounding area attract an increasing number of federal civil servants who choose to live there.
The federal government, desirous to ensure to the French-speaking people of our country a favourable climate in the national capital region, is looking forward to the development and improvement of the city of Hull. That is why, for a few years now, the federal government has shown a marked interest in the improvement of that part of Quebec which was systematically neglected for decades by all governments, provincial and federal also, I must admit. Besides, the purpose of establishing the National Capital Commission, as stated in the legislation passed by the Canadian parliament in 1958 is essentially to:
Prepare plans for and assist In the development, conservation and Improvement of the national capital region, in order that the nature and character of the siege of the government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.
Let us deal now with the population. The Quebec people who live in the national capital region, within the boundaries defined by the act establishing the National Capital Commission, are estimated at about 100,000.
And according to statistics for 1961-and this is rather interesting, Mr. Speaker-they are far from being what they are today. At that time 32.8 per cent of the Hull labour

force was working for the federal government, in Ottawa only. That excludes automatically all the employees of various commissions considered as private enterprises and for which we cannot have the figures. That excludes also the employees of the federal government working in Hull, whose number exceeds 1,500. If we add to that percentage the number of wage-earners working for industries, for businesses in the area, we can conclude that nearly 50 per cent of the labour force in the Hull area earns a living in Ottawa and the vicinity. These figures will surely increase from year to year. It is, therefore, obvious that as an employer of such importance, the federal government has special responsibilities toward the city of Hull and the neighbouring towns, and that explains further the federal presence in that area of the province of Quebec.
Besides, the development of the city of Hull and its population increase are due mainly, according to local experts, to that rational development of parks and roads by the National Capital Commission.
The future construction of new federal buildings on the Quebec side of the capital district will attract more civil servants permanently to Hull and will thus speed up the housing and business expansion of the city, something which the people strongly hope for.
In this connection, I might say that last year more than one million people visited the Gatineau park, one the most renowned in Canada, adjacent to the city of Hull and the only park open free of charge to the people of Hull, in view of the fact that there is not a single provincial park in the immediate vicinity. More than 100,000 people from various countries visited the summer residence of the late Mackenzie King, at Kingsmere.
It is normal to expect a population increase in the city and district of Hull and a concentration of workers from Hull in the various services of the federal government and crown corporations. That special feature of a French-speaking civil servants' pool will become more pronounced. It is therefore normal to expect a progressive transformation of the technical education system in the region, to enable young people from Hull to train better and earlier to serve in the ranks of civil servants.
We are very pleased to learn that the federal government has bought a building which will make all Canadians happy, since it is meant to become a centre for language studies.
October 12, 1967

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Even if a civil service job is the natural prospect for a number of Hull residents entering the labour market, this does not absolve the provincial government of the responsibility of developing the commercial and industrial possibilities of the region, in order to give the people a wide range of opportunities and create a more diversified and, therefore, more stable economy.
Had it not been for the considerable efforts of the National Capital Commission to develop the region and the employment opportunities provided by the federal government, the Hull area would certainly still be underdeveloped. The citizens of Hull are at last able to enjoy an era of exceptional development brought about, on the one hand, by an increasing number of civil service jobs and, on the other, by the greater interest shown recently by the provincial authorities in what is, unfortunately, too remote a part of the beautiful province.
The prevailing feeling among the people is that, without the intervention of the federal government, their region would be in a bad way. They do not judge the wisdom of this intervention, Mr. Speaker. They are merely noting a fact. It would be very difficult to have them reject the participation of the National Capital Commission to the development of their territory because, to date, the provincial government has never managed to offer them as many advantages.
On the other hand, the whole population hopes that there will be very close co-operation between the provincial and federal authorities, to make of that area, not only the most beautiful in the land, but also a model, a living demonstration of the results of cooperation and understanding. That might be the only solution to the problem, that is the creation, under certain conditions, of a federal district.
I wish, however, to join all those who have voiced their criticism of the administrative structure of the National Capital Commission, which does not provide for the direct participation of the Ontario and Quebec governments, in the planning of developments and, especially, in the implementation of development programs.
I feel that the provincial government, primarily responsible for that territory, should not only be consulted, but should also have its say when decisions are made. In addition, of course, area residents would welcome a financial contribution from the

The Budget-Mr. Isabelle Quebec government, added to that from Ottawa, so as to have completed sooner the development of Hull, which would then become, as I said earlier, a model city, across from Ottawa.
The built-up area on both sides of the Ottawa and Gatineau rivers gives rise to such extensive problems that it is urgent, in my opinion, that both governments meet without delay in order to review all the administrative structures in the area, to establish development projects for the future and to determine, once and for all, jurisdictions and responsibilities.
In the meantime, the people of the Hull area must count on the federal initiative and be satisfied with an inadequate share of the tremendous N.C.C. budget. Therefore, it is up to the provincial government to decide at the earliest the fate in store for the city of Hull and to make known its projects, if any, which a large number of Hull residents consider with scepticism, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: A great number of organizations from Hull and the area have recently favoured a special status for their area which they claim is handicapped by the neighbourhood of mighty Ottawa. To my mind, this special status already exists, albeit in an embryonic stage, although no exact definition can be given to the designation of "special status", in view of the peculiar setup of employment, the projections as to population development and the increasing dependence of the entire regional economy on the federal state as an employer.
The provincial state could not deny this self-evident fact and should, I feel, alter certain institutions so as to ensure maximum benefits from the geographic situation of Hull, particularly in the educational area.
On the other hand-and this opinion is getting more and more support among the local population-the city of Hull would gain prestige, population, job opportunities and improvements should it agree at the earliest possible moment that it cannot count solely on the pulp industry for its development, but also upon the federal civil service.
If the provincial government helps the city to fulfill its new responsibilities, Quebec province will have one of the nicest French cities at the other end of its territory, and the homogeneity of a federal district will exist in fact perhaps without any actual legislation. In that case, the integrity of Quebec and
3048	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Isabelle Ontario will be preserved and above all the people will be satisfied, which is not the case now, I think. This is the first and main step towards the creation of a federal district.
Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to show beyond doubt by submitting actual facts, how such a district could be created in the Hull and Ottawa areas.
Only recently Mr. Louis Sabourin, dean of the social science department and director of the international cooperation centre at the University of Ottawa, in a speech before the Richelieu Club, on September 27, 1967, stated that according to statistics which he collected by interviewing French-speaking citizens of Ontario living in Sandy Hill or lower town in Ottawa, 62 per cent of the people contacted replied favourably to the following questions:
1.	In your opinion, what would be the result of the creation of a federal district comprising Ottawa and Hull on French culture and education in Ottawa?
2.	If the Ontario government were unable to create French public secondary schools, do you think that the federal government should establish such schools?
I should add that the survey included a like number of men and women, all between the ages of 21 and 51, whose education varied from primary school to high school level. Furthermore, this type of survey is becoming increasingly frequent in our area. If we surveyed the man in the street, to use a popular expression, rest assured that no less than 75 per cent of the people, at least in the Hull area-let us leave aside the Ottawa area- would favour the creation of a federal district.
Mr. Speaker, it is no longer time for provincial quarrels and unwarranted fears; rather, we should work together in close and continuing co-operation, in order to avoid that the Hull area may become once more the victim of fruitless quarrels between politicians.
Unfortunately, we have always been, in this area, the sacrificial victim on the altar of the nation. I hope that in the event of a federal district and provided some guarantees are given to both the English and the French-speaking citizens, we shall be able to make this region the most beautiful in the country, I am sure. The Gatineau park and area will become a paradise for hunters and anglers. You may be sure that this ideal project will make the whole country envious. It is already in the air since 63 briefs submitted to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission have already mentioned it and favour the creation of such a district as soon as possible.

DEBATES	October 12, 1967
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the Hull junior chamber of commerce which has created a commission to study thoroughly this question of a federal district, and I hope that all those who have been against it will one day realize that, if the surface is not always as polished as it should be, it is often because closer examination has not revealed the true possibilities.
I hope that with the passing of time, everyone, English and French-speaking people of the area on both sides of the Ottawa-Hull area, will understand each other.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to support the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Isabelle) and to wish him at the same time a most complete success in his aspirations. It seems to me he has touched upon a very sensitive chord and that everyone in this house and outside agrees to wish him an early settlement of the problem he has raised tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight to make some observations on the budget that was introduced some time ago by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). It is not my intention however, to follow his urgings and those of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) not to look behind us but to forget the promises of the Liberal party during the last election campaigns.
Everybody knows that the purpose of the opposition is to make sure, in the interest of the people and taxpayers, that public monies are spent in accordance with the aspirations and the aims of the country, and with this in view, I intend to draw a parallel with the past, that is, between the promises made to us during election campaigns and the real facts, since the return to power of the Liberal government.
Mr. Speaker, nobody has forgotten-and neither have the people-that numerous election promises have been made during the election campaigns of 1963 and 1965 by those now sitting on the front benches.
To mention only a few, I would like to recall, for instance, that the present Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues made quite an unusual campaign, stating that government budgets should be balanced and that a Liberal government would put an end to unbalanced budgets as soon as it returned to power.
October 12, 1967

October 12, 19S7
The Budget-Mr. Ricard municipal governments, to cut down their expenses, that he should bring pressure to bear on his colleagues of the cabinet that they might be the first to set the example. Last week, my colleague from Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) gave striking examples of extravagant expenditures in departmental administration.
May I also remind the Minister of Industry that the cost of administration for his department, when it was first set up, was supposed to be $25 million, but that it will now reach the tidy sum of $146 million for the fiscal year 1967-68. In the same department, the establishment will have increased from 274 in 1963-64, to the nice figure of 783 in 1967-68.
In the Department of Defence Production, the number of employees will have grown from 1,699 in 1963-64, to 3,684 in 1967-68.
In the Department of Trade and Commerce, there will be 812 employees in 196768, as compared to 514 in 1963-64.
This will add up to an increase from 2,487 to 5,279 for these three departments.
I would say this to the minister, Mr. Speaker: before he convinces the people in general, as well as the governments at the federal and provincial levels, he will have to set the example and convince his own cabinet colleagues to exercise more restraint and to be more careful about their expenditures.
It might be well, Mr. Speaker, to have an inquiry the sole object of which would be to justify and, if possible, to check the exaggerated increase in the number of civil servants. We know that the number of civil servants, in the last four years, seems to have increased far more rapidly than necessary, and this is always detrimental to the taxpayer who, in the final analysis, is forced to foot the bill.
In their speeches, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) passed the buck when time came to indicate what basic priorities would be followed in applying the axe to expenditures as promised by the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance told us that certain basic projects had to be given up but he did not venture to say which ones would be eliminated.
Everyone knows that medicare has already been postponed for one year and it would not be surprising if the minister should tell us in a few months, that the financial situation forces him to postpone for another year this
[Mr. Ricard.)
project for which they very ably secured approval. When this plan was introduced, if it was the intention of the government to implement it as soon as possible, it seems to me that the minister should have made every effort in order to cancel useless projects, which would have provided funds for implementing medicare because the Canadian people expect relief in that respect.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
There is another field, Mr. Speaker, where the record of the present government is not satisfactory. I said a few moments ago that after promising us a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, the present government quickly forgot that promise and did not make any changes in the Department of Agriculture. I repeat that such tactics were designed only to get votes in eastern Canada.
Whether he owns a big or a small farm, the farmer is always faced with increasing production costs. The cost of machinery keeps going up so that the farmer's production costs go up proportionally.
There is no doubt that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) failed in not getting more favourable prices for the machinery which the farmers have to buy to make sure that their crops are plentiful enough to meet their obligations. Our markets are being swamped by foreign products. Last year, butter was even imported from foreign countries, when we have the climate and all the production facilities needed to meet the population's needs in this field. The conditions imposed upon the young farmer wishing to settle on the farm are so harsh that they deter many young people from taking over the business of their elders on the family farm. It is imperative that the necessary amendments be made to the farm loans Act to prevent those young people with the skills and the inclination to go into farming from moving to the city.
It is both interesting and distressing to read the comments made by Mr. Sorel, president of the Catholic Farmers Union, on the attitude of the present federal government concerning agriculture. Early last summer, as hon. members will recall, the dairy producers of eastern Canada, Ontario and Quebec staged a march on Ottawa. They came here to try to convince the federal authorities that they were in an impossible situation and desperately needed help from the federal government. Far from helping them, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) ignored their request and the very doors of parliament were
October 12, 1967

closed in the face of these people who, like any other citizens, merely wanted to visit the parliament buildings. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that those dairy producers came here to congratulate or praise the government and the Department of Agriculture for their efforts to help the farmers.
I completely disagree, Mr. Speaker, with the remarks of the hon. member for Nicole t-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) to the effect that the farmers have come here to praise the Minister of Agriculture for the work he had done for the farm people. The words spoken by Mr. Lionel Sorel


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is greatly mistaken when he quotes the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. At the very time of their arrival, I had already spoken in the house and I did not speak afterwards.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot was absent at the time of their march but, at any rate, he is mistaken when he says-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Your argument is probably reasonable but it is not sufficient to raise a point of order.


Mr. Mongrain:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I feel that you did not understand the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) who rose on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I apologize, if I misunderstood him, I thought that the hon. member was rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you not understand
French, Mr. Speaker?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: 
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate. I may as well take the house into my confidence and say that I did so at the invitation of the government whip who assured me that he had kept a place for me out of his great love for me. Despite my own profound affection for him he will not mind, I am sure, if I reply with the latin phrase timeo danaos dona ferentes.
I realize that I am pulling out of the fire the government's procedural chestnuts, and I can only do so because of something which must be said. The budget that was presented in June was a non-budget. As it was almost impossible to debate it when it was introduced I seized the opportunity of dealing with another matter, with an important area remote from our domestic affairs which I felt had to be dealt with. Since that time the Minister of Finance has seen fit to make two more speeches on the state of nation, each one more calamitous than the last. Finally, and this to me is most disturbing, he revealed his complete intellectual bankruptcy when, on top of having done nothing-nothing whatever for months and months-he comes to this chamber and informs the Canadian people, and they should realize just what it is he informed them of, that his solution to their problems is a little dose of unemployment. Of course, he has a nice-Nellyism for it. He says "to allow the economy to gain a little slack". Which in crude, brutal terms means to let unemployment rise and hope that our problems will be solved that way.


Gerald William Baldwin: He calls it "managing prosperity".


Colin Cameron: It is managing prosperity for some people, and that is something I object to. Some people are extremely prosperous under this minister while others are very unprosperous. I find it distressing that in this day and age we should experience what might be called this paleo-Keynesism on the part of this minister who is only able to use this crude method of turning off the tap when things look as though they will get out of control.
On June 1 the minister told us that despite a few clouds on the horizon, clouds no bigger
[Mr. Ricard.l
than a man's hand, everything was going along very well and he did not propose to rock the boat at all. He did not rock the boat. He did not do anything else, either. Now look at the poor man. One is almost disposed to feel sorry for him when one sees all these troubles flitting around his ears like bats, as they have done ever since he took office.
Here we see a spectacle of one of the most prosperous countries of the world bedevilled by continually rising prices as revealed in the September issue of the d.b.s. statistics review which reported that the cost of living index went up from 139.5 in July, 1965, to 144.3 in July, 1966 and to 150.2 in July of this year without any sign of an abatement-without any sign of action on the part of the minister, because he is not permitted to act; his doctrinaire views inhibit him from taking action.
Unemployment has also been a festering sore, and the same issue of the statistical review reveals in graph form that ever since the end of 1965 the trend has been upward, in spite of a few downturns now and again. Here, too, there is no sign of abatement. On top of this, of course, we now face high interest rates underlined by the government's own action as well as by the action of the Bank of Canada and the naive comment on the part of the minister when he said-and this caused me intense entertainment-that we were facing a brand new situation because no one had ever heard of a situation in which high interest rates were associated with inflation. Well, I can remember suggesting to the minister eight or ten months ago-and having my suggestion treated with scorn-that high interest rates might in themselves be a factor in promoting inflationary pressures. How anybody could doubt that I am unable to understand.
I believe the Canadian people are entitled to something a little better than this. I believe they are entitled to ask the following question: If, now, with a rising gross national product and with unemployed human and material resources we are unable to provide housing for our citizens, and are unable to protect consumers from rising prices and are unable to expand our economy, then when in God's name shall we be able to do so?


William Heward Grafftey: When we turn out this government.


Colin Cameron: That might be a start, but I am not sure what might happen then. It might be



October 12. 1967	COMMONS
just more of the same thing because I am afraid that the official opposition, like this government, also has a doctrinaire party formula and is wedded to the conception of so-called free enterprise and to the idea that every situation must be adjusted to this Procrustean bed, no matter how many inches might have to be cut off-


William Heward Grafftey: You might be called upon to form a government.


Colin Cameron: That is quite possible. I have an idea that the Canadian people are getting extremely tired of a government which refuses to govern, and I am sure that when they realize that this Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has told us in plain words in this chamber that his cure for their troubles is an increase in unemployment he and his colleagues will be in serious difficulty at the time of the next Gallup poll.
Once again the minister trots out an idea he has trotted out before-the idea of guide lines. This has always entertained me immensely. I remember asking him in the committee on economics and finance when he produced this idea of guide lines earlier, whether he thought guide lines would be successful. He assured me he did. Then I asked him what is the difference in the final outcome between guide lines and a forthright policy involving some measure of selective price control, a policy which would be more, shall we say, permanent and which could be arrived at through a process of consultation and negotiation. Of course this could not be done. It is against the moral principles of this government.
I suggest that the government has revealed in these three speeches of the Minister of Finance its complete bankruptcy. More than that, it has disclosed the basic philosophy of the Liberal party which is that the government which governs least is the best government. This is the deeply held conviction of hon. members opposite-that the less they do the better it is. In fact whenever the minister or one of his colleagues gets up in this chamber, one can sense the ghost of Micawber shuffling down the hall hoping something will turn up-and something always does turn up, and it is always unpleasant.
Obviously there are a number of suggestions which might be made in such a situation, and I intend to put forward one or two.
DEBATES	3053
The Budget-Mr. Colin Cameron First of all, I suggest that instead of complaining, as the minister has done, that the Canadian people, in spite of the fact that they are the savingest people in the world have not succeeded in saving enough to finance their own development, he should take steps to control and direct investment. This could be done in a number of ways. Consider, for example, that proportion of personal savings which goes into private insurance policies- and this is only one part, though a significant part, of the savings of the Canadian people. I have already suggested that we should put the private insurance companies out of business by extending the operations of the Canada Pension Plan and offering the Canadian people a wide range of options.
We should do something more about the major part of the savings of the Canadian people which is to be found in the corporate treasuries of the large corporations of this country. I suggest that instead of complaining that the Canadian people do not save enough or that the Canadian people do not invest their funds properly, this government should set up, not guide lines but definite controls governing the reinvestment of the undistributed profits in corporation treasuries.
Do not tell me it cannot be done. The Minister of Finance did it in his usual halfhearted way when he invoked the 5 per cent tax on corporate profits. It was an idiotic formula, of course; I think he had read briefly and carelessly a description of the Swedish plan and decided he should try something of the sort himself. As I say, it was idiotic because he put a 36-months limit on the time during which the government could hold this 5 per cent of profits. But the precedent is there and I suggest the government should seriously consider the over-investment which is taking place in various parts of our economy to the detriment of the development of a balanced economy. We should set limits on how much can be invested at the discretion of private companies. I think we should do something, too, with regard to the control of prices, and I have been disturbed to read an article purporting to quote the emerging minister of consumer affairs, now the Registrar General (Mr. Turner), as saying he is not prepared to do anything.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I am going to suggest that instead of bewailing the rise in the cost of living, instead of suggesting the solution is to promote unemployment in this country, the minister

October 12, 1967
Ways and Means
should be considering the imposition in certain areas of selective price controls over basic commodities whose costs enter into the costs of all other commodities. Don't tell me we are going to hit a constitutional bar in this, because I would defy any provincial government to object to co-operation with the federal government to control the prices that determine the cost of living index.
Then I would suggest, as we have done time and time again, although apparently our suggestions always fall on deaf ears, the establishment of a real prices review board before which an examination could be made of all prices in our economy and not just a proportion of them.
I would suggest something else this government could do. It could use the weapon of advertising, which is now used for, shall we say, rather dubious purposes, to promote some idea of real values in our economy. This could be done through the publicly owned broadcasting system of the country, if the government would take the position that the C.B.C. should be a public service corporation and not a huckstering corporation into which it has been trying to turn itself.
The government could also do something else which we have been urging time and time again. It could do something, or should do something in the face of the Kennedy round. It could do something about the restructuring of Canadian industry by government initiative, to group together ineffective productive units into economically sound economic units which could specialize and be confined not to the Canadian market alone but, by virtue of their specialization, expect to have a share of world markets.
The government could do something else, Mr. Speaker, if it really wanted to do something about its unfortunate position over which the unfortunate Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is now presiding with such a melancholy air. It could do something about the reform of the financial institutions of this country, of the jungle that was revealed to us when we were revising the Bank Act, the jungle of financial institutions some of which are subject to no control of any consequence, or to no inspection. The government could establish proper governmental control over all financial institutions and place a watchdog in the centre of them, as I suggested to the minister before the banking and commerce committee and also in this house. Now I suggest it again. It is something that is going to 
have to come-it is a government banking complex at the heart of our financial institutions, something which our friends in Australia and New Zealand have had for many years.
In this way it might be possible for the government of Canada to direct and control the economy so that we shall no longer have the disgrace, in one of the potentially richest countries in the world, of massive unemployment, of lack of housing, of rising prices, of continual deprivation. It is time this government realized its job is to manage, not to evade action and avoid taking any steps which might perhaps lead it into some slight political trouble. It is going to be in worse political trouble if it continues with its liberal concept of government, which is to do nothing and hope something will turn up before the public gets wise to it. I suggest the public is already getting wise to it, is getting a little tired of it and will not take kindly to the suggestion they tighten their belts because unfortunately, in spite of a rising gross national product and potential wealth we are really a poverty stricken country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 6 of standing order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Monteith:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Batten in the chair.
['Agreed.']
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Excise Tax Act. The text of this proposed resolution is appended to the notice papers of Votes and Proceedings of June 1, 1967.



[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide among other things:
1.	That effective June 2, 1967, all goods listed in Schedule V to the said Act be exempt from sales tax.
2.	That effective September 1, 1967, any material, substance, mixture, compound or preparation, of
October 12, 1967
[Stage Direction]
whatever composition or in whatever form, including materials for use exclusively in the manufacture thereof, sold or represented for use in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder, abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof, in humans or animals, or for restoring, correcting or modifying organic functions in humans or animals be exempt from sales tax but that this exemption shall not apply to cosmetics or confectionery products.
3.	That effective June 2, 1967, goods enumerated in tariff item 48100-1, namely "specially constructed boot or appliance made to order for a person having a crippled or deformed foot or ankle", and in tariff item 48105-1, namely "individual pairs of boots or shoes for defective or abnormal feet, when purchased on the written order of a registered medical practitioner", and articles and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture thereof be exempt from sales tax.
4.	That effective June 2, 1967, artificial breathing apparatuses purchased or leased on the written order of a registered medical practitioner by an individual afflicted by a respiratory disorder for his own use be exempt from sales tax.
5.	That effective June 2, 1967, plans, drawings, related specifications and substitutes therefor, and reproductions of the foregoing sold to or imported by manufacturers or producers for use by them directly in the manufacture or production of goods be exempt from sales tax.
6.	That where materials for use exclusively in the construction of residences for students have been purchased by or on behalf of a company wholly-owned and controlled by Her Majesty in right of a province and established for the sole purpose of providing residences for students of universities or other similar educational institutions, the Minister of National Revenue may, upon application by the company made in such form as the minister prescribes within two years from the time of the purchase of the materials, pay to the company an amount equal to the tax imposed by Part VI of the said act that has been paid in respect thereof.
Progress reported.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I wonder if it would be the wish of the house to call it ten o'clock at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
house leader to indicate what the business of the house will be for tomorrow, and if possible what the business will be for next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to call the resolution in connection with the establishment of the department of corporate and consumer affairs. On Monday we will call the resolution amending the Post Office Act, and on Tuesday we will call the broadcasting resolution.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with provisional standing order 39A and subject to the special order made earlier this day a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been moved and seconded. Therefore the question is that this house do now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, during May of this year I received correspondence from Mr. Fred H. Lowe, chairman of the International Railway Brotherhood, whose home is at Nelson, B.C., Mr. R. A. Hyssop, and several other members of the same union urging the need for improved safety equipment on the Kettle Valley Railway. I must explain that the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Kootenay East, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport have a mutual interest in this problem because this section of the Kettle Valley Railway lies within the boundaries of Kootenay West and Kootenay East. That is the reason I asked the following question on May 11, as recorded at page 68 of Hansard for that date:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. I apologize for not giving him notice, but the matter has just come to mind. Has the minister received representations from the rank and file-not the leadership of the union- of the operating crews on the Kettle Valley Railway urging the need for improved safety equipment, stretchers and other things which at present are not supplied, thus contributing to the dangerous conditions under which they operate?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is that I will have to take the question as notice.
Later the minister informed me that the matter came directly under the Minister of Transport. Well, the parliamentary secretary took notice of the question and held a meeting with the road service Kettle Valley Railway crews at Cranbrook, and during the recess I had an opportunity to meet with Mr. October 12, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Fred Lowe, chairman of the railway brotherhood, Mr. R. A. Hyssop, and others, at Nelson, where they explained in detail the conditions under which they operate.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I was informed by them that the rock and snow slide conditions along the shores of Kootenay lake produce a very serious situation for the men operating the trains in that area. They explained to me their experience with several accidents. They told me of the difficulty which is involved in getting men who were injured to hospital because there is no road access along the shores of Kootenay lake. This area is completely isolated from any road access.
I have personal knowledge of these circumstances because, like the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), I have travelled over this road on many occasions. I know the circumstances they explained so carefully to me. These men told me they were asking first for restoration of track patrol services along the shores of Kootenay lake because of the dangerous conditions under which they operate at the present time. Second, they want satisfactory first aid equipment such as stretchers and ambulance services. They want the first aid equipment and stretchers provided on the head end of the train and on the rear end of the train, because of the length of the trains and the time that is lost in travelling to the rear of the train to get the necessary equipment if an accident should occur at the front end or at the diesel group.
Third, they wish to have the front end lighting equipment improved. They told me that the front end lighting equipment on the 12 diesel units is woefully obsolete and that the company should do something to improve the lighting equipment on these 12 diesel units to provide safer working conditions. They described to me in detail what has happened in several oases in recent months, and in the last year or two as a result of accidents on this line and because of the lack of access to the first aid equipment, stretchers, and so on.
I bring this matter to the attention of the house because I know the parliamentary secretary is interested in it. Will he inform the house what is being done in order to remedy the circumstances complained of by the rank and file-not the union leaders, because they turned down the requests of the rank and file after the local meeting and said nothing could be done about them. This is
[Mr. HerridgeJ
something in which the rank and file are involved. I am always anxious to join in that sort of revolt in respect of the Kettle Valley Railway between Nelson and the Alberta border.
Because I know the interest the parliamentary secretary has in this matter and because I know of the time he has spent and the meeting he had with the crews Which have their headquarters in the Cranbrook division, I am looking forward to hearing him tell us what has been done to eliminate the conditions complained of.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is coincidental, but as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport and as a member representing the adjoining riding to the riding of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) I, along with him, am aware of the importance of this matter.
It is true that I held a meeting with the representatives of the union. They were not entirely rank and file members; they were leaders of the local organizations. I was in Cranbrook on May 17 at which time they outlined to me substantially the problem they had so clearly outlined to the hon. member for Kootenay West. Upon my return to Ottawa I prepared a memorandum which I addressed to Mr. Rump, the secretary of the Board of Transport Commissioners, to the railway company itself and to Mr. Curry of the Department of Labour. I may say that I feel we have had some quite substantial results from these representations. Perhaps the most important undertaking by the company is the authorization of a helicopter equipped with a stretcher for use when an accident occurs and where such ambulance service is required. Use of this helicopter may be authorized by the superintendent on the spot.
The company has argued against the question of patrols on the line, but they have undertaken to provide substitute inspections by members of the various crews and by electric fencing which would indicate when a slide has occurred. The company also has undertaken to equip the head end and caboose with equipment suitable to the occasion, but have argued that very few members of the road crews have first aid training and therefore could not make full use of the equipment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to advise that the time allotted to him has expired.
October 12, 1987
COMMONS DEBATES	3057



PUBLIC WORKS-TORONTO-INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

["Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has asked me to make the following statement on his behalf. As the hon. member knows, the Canadian government has been actively involved in efforts to bring about a peaceful solution of the problem of Southern Rhodesia, and continues to be active. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) played a particularly important and constructive role at the meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers in London during September, 1966, when this matter was threatening to divide the commonwealth.\nIn the United Nations the basic Canadian position was recently stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his address to the general assembly on September 27. The minister pointed out in that statement that Canada had repeatedly expressed its conviction that Rhodesia must not be granted independence before majority rule is attained, and that Canada had complied strictly with the terms of the security council's decisions to apply mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia.\nThis matter is being considered in two forums. One is the fourth committee of the United Nations general assembly in New York, and the other is the commonwealth sanctions committee which met during September in London. On Tuesday of this week the Canadian representative in the fourth committee of the general assembly, the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, reviewed once again the Canadian position on this issue. I will not take the time of the house to repeat everything that was said on that occasion, and I am sure hon. members are aware of the government's policy.\nThe Canadian representative expressed the hope that all countries would co-operate in complying with the security council's decisions on Rhodesia. He went on to say that the Canadian delegation looks forward to receiving the report of the secretary general on the implementation of sanctions, which will be submitted to the security council.\nWhen the security council considers this matter again there is likely to be consideration of whether further mandatory sanctions\nOctober 12, 1967", 'are advisable in the light of the anticipated report from the secretary general. The government is giving careful study to alternative proposals, and as a member of the security council Canada will enunciate its views when the question of Rhodesia is again considered by that body.\nI referred earlier, Mr. Speaker, to a discussion in the commonwealth context. At the last meeting of the commonwealth sanctions committee, which took place in London about two weeks ago, there was discussion of proposals for strengthening the sanctions against Rhodesia. The discussion of these ideas is continuing in commonwealth circles,\nDEBATES\t3059\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion but any further action must presumably have to come before the security council and be put into operation by a resolution of that body.\nMr. Speaker, I hope I have made it clear that Canada is continuing to play a most active part in efforts to find a solution to this grave problem by peaceful measures. The hon. member may be sure that the government will take initiatives at an appropriate time and place if such action would appear helpful.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.12 p.m.', 'Friday, October 13, 1967']
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to voice my concern about the financial needs of the city of Toronto. Evidently municipal property taxes and provincial grants have not been sufficient to meet the needs in respect of the redevelopment of Toronto. As a city taxpayer and as a member of parliament for Parkdale in the west end of Toronto I must say that those of us who are home owners in Toronto are overburdened with high property taxes. Moreover we are disappointed that the Ontario provincial government has not come to our aid as required. Toronto is growing in population and in physical size. Its buildings, roads and services are growing older and more obsolete.
It is for us Torontonians a great disappointment, as I said a few moments ago, that our petitions to the provincial government have been left unheard. New housing, slum clearance, and downtown redevelopment are acute needs in our city. In order to cope with these problems in Toronto and throughout our country I believe a full time federal ministry of housing and urban affairs must be established without any further delay. Otherwise the continuing and increasing overcrowding in our urban centres will lead to more delinquency, criminality, personal hardship and also physical and mental disease.
It is true that municipalities too often have dragged their feet; but the provincial government must also bear a great share of the blame for this state of affairs. To prevent any further deterioration, the federal government once again must come to the rescue of our local government and show the lead. I hope the measures which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has already undertaken and intends to pursue in the near future will not adversely affect the redevelopment programs of the city of Toronto.
Federal financial assistance in an adequate amount is very urgently needed so that the people of Toronto will be in a position to go ahead without further delay with our downtown redevelopment which should include a new C.B.C. building, the relocation of the main postal building and the erection of Toronto's centennial project, the St. Lawrence Centre for the Performing Arts according to the revised plans in order to include training facilities for the people in the performing arts.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Furthermore, federal funds should be made available for the downtown redevelopment plan to provide for apartments, shopping centres, recreational facilities and a face-lifting and expansion of the Canadian National Exhibition grounds and buildings. In particular, Mr. Speaker, the problems of polluted beaches and foul air must be solved in order to make it safe and comfortable for Toronto's increasing population to enjoy the good and full life they deserve.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), who is a perfectly bilingual Canadian will undoubtedly allow me to answer him in French.
We understand quite well the interest of the parliamentary secretary for the development of the city of Toronto which brings a considerable contribution to the economy of the country.
As for the C.B.C. complex planned for Toronto as well as the St. Lawrence Centre for the arts, I can say to the house that recently the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) met his honour the mayor of Toronto as well as several aldermen, commissioners and members of the district concerned to discuss the future of those plans.
I can say to the hon. member that the Secretary of State is deeply interested in these two main projects which are the subject of a very special consideration on her part.
In connection with the post office to which the parliamentary secretary referred, I can also assure him that the Department of Public Works is giving very serious attention to the project and that in due time, it will be followed up and an announcement made in the usual manner.



Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that my question of October 5 was timely because the fourth committee of the United Nations general assembly was then giving consideration to the difficult and painful question of Rhodesia. The fourth committee, on which I had the honour of serving as a Canadian delegate, presided over the process whereby emancipation came
3058	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to many peoples whose political status was something less than free.
I well remember in 1962 when the then prime minister of Rhodesia, Sir Edgar Whitehead, appeared before that committee and outlined his government's program for broadening the base of participation by the non-white population in the economic and political life of the country. Alas, Whitehead and his moderate approach were repudiated by the restricted electorate of Rhodesia, and we all know what has followed the installation of the Ian Smith regime and how discrimination based on race dominates the political, social and economic life of that country.
Canada as a senior member of the commonwealth has played a leading role in the establishment of a commonwealth based on the equality of its members. We have also been in the forefront in insisting on the equality of peoples within this interesting international association. At a time when race prejudice is a major social evil, a country like Canada must fight it at home and abroad.
Naturally we cannot ourselves solve the Rhodesian problem, for we all know of the like-minded friends of the Smith regime who are giving him aid and comfort. Indeed, it is easy to be discouraged at the enormous difficulty of translating our sentiment into actions which will be effective in bringing an end to the discriminatory actions of the Smith regime. But, I think we must utilize every opportunity through our membership in the commonwealth and the security council to strengthen the efforts being made by those who are following the decisions of these two bodies. Because so far these efforts have failed of complete success is no reason for their abandonment. Because the domination of the many by the few is destined eventually to come to an end is no cause for relaxing the efforts of those who want that end to come soon and without bloodshed.
It is my hope therefore that Canada, which has given leadership to both bodies in the past, will show initiative in adopting measures which will hasten the day when a majority rule will be established in a free and independent Rhodesia. I hope as well that we may have an answer to my question as to what these measures might be, and that we will be able to see some further evidence of the strengthening of the will of our country in this regard, an attitude I am sure
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
DEBATES	October 12, 1967
which finds much response among the Canadian people. I know that we will all be anxious to hear helpful words about the planned action on the part of the government.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has asked me to make the following statement on his behalf. As the hon. member knows, the Canadian government has been actively involved in efforts to bring about a peaceful solution of the problem of Southern Rhodesia, and continues to be active. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) played a particularly important and constructive role at the meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers in London during September, 1966, when this matter was threatening to divide the commonwealth.
In the United Nations the basic Canadian position was recently stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his address to the general assembly on September 27. The minister pointed out in that statement that Canada had repeatedly expressed its conviction that Rhodesia must not be granted independence before majority rule is attained, and that Canada had complied strictly with the terms of the security council's decisions to apply mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia.
This matter is being considered in two forums. One is the fourth committee of the United Nations general assembly in New York, and the other is the commonwealth sanctions committee which met during September in London. On Tuesday of this week the Canadian representative in the fourth committee of the general assembly, the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, reviewed once again the Canadian position on this issue. I will not take the time of the house to repeat everything that was said on that occasion, and I am sure hon. members are aware of the government's policy.
The Canadian representative expressed the hope that all countries would co-operate in complying with the security council's decisions on Rhodesia. He went on to say that the Canadian delegation looks forward to receiving the report of the secretary general on the implementation of sanctions, which will be submitted to the security council.
When the security council considers this matter again there is likely to be consideration of whether further mandatory sanctions
October 12, 1967

are advisable in the light of the anticipated report from the secretary general. The government is giving careful study to alternative proposals, and as a member of the security council Canada will enunciate its views when the question of Rhodesia is again considered by that body.
I referred earlier, Mr. Speaker, to a discussion in the commonwealth context. At the last meeting of the commonwealth sanctions committee, which took place in London about two weeks ago, there was discussion of proposals for strengthening the sanctions against Rhodesia. The discussion of these ideas is continuing in commonwealth circles,
DEBATES	3059
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion but any further action must presumably have to come before the security council and be put into operation by a resolution of that body.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I have made it clear that Canada is continuing to play a most active part in efforts to find a solution to this grave problem by peaceful measures. The hon. member may be sure that the government will take initiatives at an appropriate time and place if such action would appear helpful.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

Friday, October 13, 1967