1967-12-13

DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-28 (from the Senate), to amend the Defence Production Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



JET AIR SERVICE, ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.-MONTREAL

Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Has Eastern Provincial Airways applied to the air transport committee for operating rights for a jet service from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Montreal via Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and Charlo, New Brunswick?
2.	If the above request has been made, when is it expected that a decision regarding it will be made?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secreiary io Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Eastern
Approved commitments $1,000,000 Expenditures	490,608*
*The difference between approved commitments and expenditures in the year of approval is due in most cases to the time required for local interests to survey, purchase or expropriate the sites concerned, and complete legal matters relating to the land title before construction can commence.
**The anticipated expenditure for 1967-68 is expected to be approximately $800,000.
2.	The expenditures and outstanding commitments for each province are as follows: 27053-3381
Provincial Airways (1963) Ltd. has applied to the air transport committee for an amendment to its licence No. A.T.B. 12/45(S) which authorizes a class 1 scheduled commercial air service to the points Charlottetown, Summer-side, Moncton and lies de la Madeleine by adding the points Bathurst/Charlo, New Brunswick and Montreal, Quebec. The carrier proposes to operate this service with three Handley Page Dart Herald aircraft.
2.	This application has been set down for a public hearing after which the air transport committee will reach a decision based upon the evidence adduced.



AIRPORT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Since the program was inaugurated, how much money has been expended each year under the airport assistance program?
2.	What has been the expenditure for each province?
3.	What airports have received assistance and to what amount in each case?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The following table shows the approved commitments and expenditures under the airport assistance program since June	3, 1965.	
1966-67	1967-68	1968-69
(to Nov. 30, 1967)		
$1,000,000	$905,477	$223,000540,854* *	378,468**	NilOutstandingProvince	Expenditures commitments	Newfoundland	$318,739	NilPrince Edward	Island	Nil	NilNova Scotia	Nil	$ 15,000New Brunswick	97,699	145,301Quebec	372,381	422,319Ontario	254,587	763,950Manitoba	Nil	NilSaskatchewan	Nil	33,000Alberta	273,775	192,725British Columbia 92,749	149,251
December 13, 1967
Questions
3. The following airports received assistance in the amounts indicated in each case under the heading "Expenditures". Also shown is the balance outstanding against the approval.
	Expendi-	Out- standing Commit-
Airport	tures	mentsBay d'Espoir, Nfld.	$ 240,460	NilConche, Nfld.	9,790	NilSt. Anthony, Nfld.	68,489	NilMargaree, N.S.	-	$15,000Bathurst, N.B.	94,687	5,313St. Stephen, N.B.	3,012	79,988Woodstock, N.B.	-	60,000Bromont, Que.	-	158,000Chibougamau, Que.	-	223,000Drummondville, Que.	142,681	41,319Eastmain, Que. (seaplane base)	12,228	NilHavre St. Pierre, Que. (additional development)	24,972	NilLebel-Sur-Quevillon, Que.	192,500	NilElliot Lake, Ont.	780	229,220Midland, Ont.	-	38,070Niagara District, Ont. (passenger operations building)	22,611	19,374Peterborough, Ont.	149,276	446,724Sarnia, Ont.	-	30,562South Porcupine, Ont. (seaplane base)	26,920	NilWaterloo-Wellington, Ont.	(aircraft parking apron)	55,000	NilBiggar, Sask.	-	19,000Eston, Sask.	-	5,000Unity, Sask.	-	9,000Edson, Alta.	-	43,000Footner Lake, Alta.	117,115	29,925Fort Chipewyan, Alta.	100,000	NilFort Vermilion, Alta.	10,200	89,800Stettler, Alta.	-	30,000Wabasca, Alta.	46,460	NilCreston, B.C.	-	25,000Langley, B.C. (additional	95,251development)	92,749	Port Simpson, B.C.	-	7,000Sechelt, B.C. (seaplane base)	-	3,000Sointula, B.C. (seaplane base)	-	19,000



MONUMENT TO BROTHERHOOD OF MAN

Mr. Simard: Has the government received representations to have a monument dedicated to the "brotherhood of man" erected at the entrance of Expo '67 and, if so, does the government intend to proceed with such a project?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices, the Department of Trade and Commerce and my department as follows: No.



COLLECTION OF STATISTICS

Mr. Enns: 1.	How many employees at DB.S. are involved with statistics concerning health?
2.	How many employees at D.B.S. are involved with statistics concerning education?
3.	How many employees at D.B.S. are involved with statistics concerning welfare?
4.	Are any plans under way to strengthen the D.B.S. staff to collect adequate statistics in the field of welfare?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The health and welfare division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has an establishment of 116 positions concerned with health statistics, of which 105 were filled as of November 23, 1967.
2.	The education division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has an establishment of 40 positions, of which 31 were occupied as of the same date.
3.	The Dominion Bureau of Statistics does not have any employees involved with statistics concerning welfare, in the institutional sense. In so far as age, income, employment status and other demographic characteristics are concerned, as measured by censuses and periodic surveys, D.B.S. has a significant number of employees concerned with welfare statistics.
4.	D.B.S. has plans to strengthen its staff concerned with institutional welfare and related statistics. However, such plans will not be made operational until additional resources can be allocated.



INFORMATION SERVICE, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT

Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, how many persons were employed in the information and/or public relations services of the Department of Fisheries (b) in each such year, what
December 13, 1967

was the total amount of salaries paid for such services?
2.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what persons, firms or corporations, if any, other than the departmental information or public relations services have been employed and/or retained for the purpose of preparing, disseminating or in any manner dealing with the information services and/or public relations of the Department of Fisheries (b) what are the names of such persons, firms and corporations, if any; for what purpose and period was the employment and what was the cost in each instance (c) were public tenders called for the services described in (a) and (b) and, if not, upon what basis and by whom was the selection made?
3.	(a) For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what radio and television time has been purchased by the said department; for what purpose and for what cost (b) for each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what advertising or other space was purchased by the said department in domestic and foreign newspapers, magazines and other publications; and for what purpose and for what annual cost?
4.	For each of the years 1964 to 1967 inclusive, what advertising or any other related contracts other than those referred to above have been awarded by the said department?


Hon.   H.-J. Hobichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1.	(a)	(b)1964-65	20	$114,1651965-66	24	124,1911966-67	26	174,8412.	(a), (b) and (c). The following were employed for building and/or refurbishing exhibits and displays: Canadian Government Exhibition Commission, Ottawa, Ontario: Employed periodically throughout each of the years 1964 to 1967; 1964-$500; 1965-$26,265; 1966 $7,000; 1967-$21,500. This commission is the designated government agency for providing these services. Pierre Guibert Ltd., Eastview, Ontario: 1964-4 weeks, $2,586.30; 1965-6 weeks, $5,256.85;	1966-8 weeks,
$6,773.64; 1967-5 weeks, $2,375.75. This is the only local firm available for supervised work under department's exhibits and displays officer; this company hired when Canadian government exhibition commission too busy to handle certain assignments. Challier Display Associates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.: 1965-3 weeks, $1,962.56. Portable displays constructed on west coast for initial use in that area. Western Displays Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.: 1966-5 weeks, $1,712.07. Portable displays constructed on west coast for initial use in that area. Shopland Construction Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.: 1966-8 weeks, $3,659.00. On-site construction of outdoor fishway in display.
Questions
Selection of the three west coast firms listed above was made under supervision of director, information service, either on advice of the Canadian government exhibition commission or following investigation of firms with ability and experience in fisheries exhibit operations.
The following were employed for art work and/or design for conservation posters, fish recipe booklet and booklet designed to promote proper fish handling at retail level: Fairbairn Studios Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario: 1966 -approximately 80 hours, $1,068.69; 1967- approximately 100 hours, $1,245.00. Selection made under supervision of director, information service, on the basis of quality and competitive costs of work done by this firm for the department in previous years as Queen's Printer involved with centennial, Expo and other government publications.
3.	(a) 1964-65, television, $1,999; for promotion of lobster conservation. 1965-66, nil; 1966-67, radio, $1,776; television, $2,040; for publicizing experimental lobster conservation programs, (b) 1964-65, $40,776.00; 1965-66, $44,879.64 for display advertisements in domestic newspapers and magazines to promote quality control; placed through Tandy Advertising Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
4.	Nil.



FEASIBILITY STUDY OF SMELTER FACILITIES FOR PINE POINT ORE

Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Was the firm of Canadian Bechtel appointed or retained to investigate and report on the feasibility of the establishment of a smelter and/or smelter facilities for the treatment of ores from Pine Point in the Northwest Territories?
2.	If such appointment was made, upon what date was it so made?
3.	If such appointment was made on a contract basis, what was the contract price of the work to be performed?
4.	If such appointment was made and the services were to be performed on a cost plus or other financial arrangement, what are the details of such financial arrangements?
5.	If such appointment was made, has any report yet been received from Canadian Bechtel?
6.	If such report was received, is the investigation by Canadian Bechtel completed and, if not, when is the same expected to be completed?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: 1. Yes.
2.	February 10, 1966.
3.	Maximum of $160,000.

December 13, 1967
Questions
4.	The contract specified that Bechtel would be paid the lesser of (a) $160,000 or (b) the aggregate of the recoverable costs and fee. The recoverable costs and fee include (a) Payroll and related personnel costs, (b) Indirect costs, mainly maintenance and operation of Bechtel's regularly established offices, calculated at 75 per cent of (a). (c) Materials and supplies costs, (d) Travel and subsistence costs, (e) Consultants fees and outside services costs, related to consultants other than Bechtel, (f) Communication costs, telephone, telegraph, etc. (g) Miscellaneous costs, all other costs incurred in the performance of the work, (h) Fee, 15 per cent of the aggregate of items (a), (b), (c), (e) and (g) above.
5 and 6. A confidential report has been received and reviewed by the department. This review indicated areas which required further investigation and Canadian Bechtel Limited has agreed to do this. It is expected that the final report will be completed by mid-February, 1968.



COST OF CANADIAN PAVILION. OSAKA, JAPAN

Mr. Isabelle: 1 How much will the Canadian pavilion cost which is to be built for the 1970 international exhibition in Osaka, Japan?
2.	What firm of architects has been chosen to draw up the plans and specifications for this pavilion and how was this firm of architects chosen?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, what will be the main theme exhibits which Canada will show inside its pavilion?
4.	Has the Commissioner who is to represent Canada at this exhibition been chosen yet and, if so, what is his name?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The estimated cost of the Canadian pavilion for the 1970 international exhibition in Osaka, Japan, to be held from March 15 to September 13, 1970, is $3,200,000.
2.	The firm Erickson/Massey of Vancouver won the architectural contest for the design of the Canadian pavilion. The contest, organized under the rules set up by the Royal Canadian Institute of Architecture, drew 208 contestants and the jury of eight members was composed of architects and stand designers.
3.	The basic theme of the international exhibition in Japan is "Progress and harmony for mankind''. The main theme exhibits for

the Canadian presentation have yet to be chosen.
4.	No.



PROVISION FOR EXPROPRIATIONS IN HULL, QUE.

Mr. Isabelle: 1.	What amount was provided for expropriations by the federal government or by government agencies within the limits of the City of Hull in the estimates for the year 1966-67?
2.	Was this amount spent and, if not, was it included in the estimates for 1967-68?


Mr. Alberi Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the National Capital Commission as follows:
1.	The National Capital Commission provided $800,000 in its capital budget for 196667 for the acquisitions of property, by expropriation or otherwise, including $300,000 for Gatineau park, in the national capital region in the province of Quebec. The region includes the city of Hull. Amounts that might be spent within the corporate limits of the city of Hull were not specifically identified.
In 1966-67 an amount of $631,760 was spent for the acquisition of property in the national capital region in Quebec as follows: $249,010 for Gatineau Park; $287,646 in Hull; and $95,104 in other areas in the region.
2.	No specific provision was made in 196768 for acquisition of property located within the corporate limits of the city of Hull. The sum of $1,000,000 was provided for the acquisition of property in the national capital region in Quebec, including $600,000 for Gatineau park properties.



PURCHASE OF SNOWSHOES

Mr. Hymmen: 1.	Did the government, through the Department of Defence Production, recently purchase an order of snowshoes and, if so, what was the total amount of the purchase?
2.	From whom were they purchased?
3.	How many pairs were ordered?
4.	What was the price per pair?
5.	For what purpose were these snowshoes intended?
6.	If these are for military purposes, how many military personnel or units will be so equipped?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production and National Defence as follows:
1.	Yes.
December 13, 1967

2.	Magline of Canada Limited, Renfrew, Ontario.
3.	7,815 pairs.
4.	$32.50 f.o.b. No. 26 central ordnance depot, Cobourg, Ontario.
5.	To replenish stocks.
6.	17,065.



FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR INDIAN BURIAL, QUEBEC

Mr. Laprise: 1.	What amount is paid out by the federal government for the funeral, religious service and burial of an Indian in the province of Quebec?
2.	When was the last readjustment of this rate made?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1 and 2.
The Indian affairs branch welfare policy provides for the payment of burial costs on behalf of Indians when it is not possible to meet such costs from the estate of the deceased or from band funds.
The Indian affairs branch allows the same rate for the burial of an indigent Indian on the reserve as the surrounding community allows for the interment of an indigent nonIndian. These rates vary from municipality to municipality and also may vary within a large urban community such as Montreal or Quebec where all funeral directors may not have the same indigent rate.



COMPLETION OF MAIL CENSUS

Mr. Pascoe: 1.	Has the government completed its test of taking the next Dominion census by mail?
2.	If so, are the completed questionnaires being processed in Canada?
3.	If not in Canada, where are they being processed?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. No. However, the field work of a test in London, Ontario has been completed.
2.	Yes, except that scanning by electronic equipment and transfer to computer tape in connection with the London test is being done by the United States bureau of the census, Washington, D.C. This involves only the transfer of information from forms to computer tape using advanced and complicated electronic equipment available at the present time only in the United States bureau of the census.
3.	See answer to (2) above.
Questions



FOREIGN OWNED AND CONTROLLED INDUSTRIES

Mr. Rynard: 1.	What Is the total number of foreign-owned and controlled Industries operating in Canada?
2.	What are the names of these foreign-owned and controlled industries?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. In examining the industrial structure of the Canadian economy, The Standard Industrial Classification published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has divided activity in Canada into 10 industrial divisions, excluding government departments, broken down into 51 major industry groups. These are further subdivided into industries.
The extent of foreign investment in each of these industries is not readily available at the present time. However, in three industrial divisions, agriculture, forestry and fishing, foreign investment is very small and in another five industrial divisions nonresident owned firms carry on less that 25 per cent of the activity. These industrial divisions are construction, transportation, communication and other utilities, trade, finance and service industries.
In the mining industrial division, oil and gas wells are largely foreign owned while metal and non-metal mines in total are equally divided between resident and non-resident owned companies. Certain of the individual metals are dominated by foreign owned firms while others are dominated by Canadian owned firms.
In the manufacturing industrial division information is available on a basis of 89 industries. In 19 of these industries, more than 75 per cent of the sales are by companies that are more than 50 per cent foreign owned.
2.	The industries in which more than 75 per cent of the sales are by corporations more than 50 per cent non-resident owned are as follows: Mining industrial division, oil and gas wells. Manufacturing industrial division, rubber footwear and tires, other rubber products, synthetic textile mills, non-ferrous metal smelting, miscellaneous metal fabricating, commercial refrigeration and office and store equipment, motor vehicles and parts, aircraft and parts, electrical industrial equipment, battery manufacturers, refractories manufacturers, other non-metallic mineral products, petroleum refineries, other petroleum products, pharmaceuticals and medicines, toilet preparations, soaps and cleaning

December 13, 1967
Questions
compounds, plastics, synthetic resins and explosives, scientific and professional equipment.



CAR FERRY, BORDEN, P.E.I.-TORMENTINE, N.B.

Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	Is a new ice-breaking car ferry being constructed to operate between Borden, Prince Edward Island, and Tormentine, New Brunswick?
2.	When was approval given for the construction of this car ferry, what was the expected date of commencement of service at that time, and what was the predicted cost?
3.	When was construction begun, by whom, where is it being constructed; was construction begun there, and if not, for what reason?
4.	When is it expected construction will be completed, how much has it cost to date and what will be the completed cost?
5.	When will it begin active service?
6.	How many passengers will it carry?
7.	What form of restaurant, restroom and lounge facilities will be available?
8.	How many automobiles will it carry?
9.	How many railroad cars will it carry?
10.	How many persons will be employed and in what capacity?
11.	What is its length, breadth, depth, draft and expected speed?
12.	What will be the name of this new car ferry?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2.	Cabinet approval in the amount of $14,000,000 was granted on July 9, 1963. The then target date for service was the fall of 1967.
3.	Construction was begun December 25, 1965 by Marine Industries Limited, at Sorel, P.Q.
4.	Up to November 30, 1967 progress payments totalling $11,878,769.70 have been made to the shipbuilder and the vessel will be completed in September, 1968 at an estimated total cost of $13,900,000.
5.	October, 1968.
6.	One thousand.
7.	Passengers facilities will be available on the promenade deck: aft-cafeteria for 144 persons and numerous seats on the open deck; amidships-lounge seating 90 persons, five double berth cabins and ladies' and gentlemen's rest rooms; forward-observation lounge seating 196 persons.
8.	Ninety.
9.	Twenty-four.
10.	Crew total, 82, comprising: Captain, 8 deck officers; 10 engineer officers; 1 catering

officer; 6 petty officers; 22 catering crew; 24 seamen; 10 engine room crew.
11.	Length, 400 feet; breadth, 67 feet; depth, 45 feet three inches; draft, 20 feet; service speed, 18 knots.
12.	John Hamilton Gray.



PAY OF VETERANS HOSPITALS ORDERLIES

Mr. Thomas (Middlesex Wesl): 1.	What are the rates of pay for hospital orderlies in D.V.A. hospitals in Vancouver, B.C.?
2.	What are the rates of pay for similar orderlies in London, Ontario?
3.	When was the last regular increase made In these rates?
4.	Is an interim increase now in effect?
5.	If an interim increase is now in effect, when is a regular increase expected to be made?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Grade 1 (trainees), $3,510-$3,831; Grade 2, $4,317-$4,959; Grade 3, $4,553-$5,195; Grade 4, $5,045-$5,527.
2.	Grade 1 (trainees), $3,510-$3,831; Grade 2, $3,836-$4,317; Grade 3, $4,071-$4,553; Grade 4, $5,045-$5,527.
3.	October 1, 1966.
4.	No.
5.	It is expected that the next regular increase will result from collective bargaining.



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	What are the regulations governing the activities of the Canadian Film Development Corporation?
2.	How much money has the Corporation disbursed and on what projects?
3.	Who are the Chairman of the Corporation, the members of the Corporation, the Executive Director and Secretary?
4.	Has an advisory group been appointed to the Corporation and, if so, what members have been appointed?
5.	What staff or special advisers are employed by the Corporation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The corporation is governed by the provisions of the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act. There are no regulations enacted specifically with respect to the Canadian Film Development Corporation.
2.	None.
3.	Not yet appointed.
4.	No.
5.	None.
December 13, 1967



ENTRY OF CATTLE FROM ENGLAND

Mr. Ricard: How many permits were issued by the government of Canada in November 1967 to allow entry into Canada of cattle from England?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: In November three permits were issued for the purpose of amending the importation date on earlier permits covering 26 cattle which had been in the Glasgow, Scotland, quarantine station since September 9, prior to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in England. Their movement was delayed because of shipping difficulties.



MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	For each of the past five years, how many original motion pictures have been produced by the national film board (a) for the government (b) for crown corporations (c) for private companies?
2.	What has been the total cost for (a) and (b) above?
3.	For the same period, how many original motion pictures have been produced under contract by commercial film companies, and what has been the total cost of these films?
4.	Who produced the film for Labyrinth at Expo 67, and (a) what was the contract price (b) were there any costs in excess of the contract (c) if so, who pays these costs?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Original motion pictures produced by the National Film Board (a) for government departments, 1962-63, 17; 1963-64, 23; 1964-65, 44; 1965-66, 41; 1966-67, 38. (b) for crown corporations, 1962-63, 2; 1963-64, 2; 1964-65, 9; 1965-66, 2; 1966-67, 6. (c) for private companies, 1962-63, nil; 1963-64, nil; 1964-65, nil; 1965-66, nil; 1966-67, nil.
2.	(a) for government departments, 1962-63, $284,632; 1963-64, $473,366; 1964-65, $680,064;
1965-	66, $439,437; 1966-67, $759,988. (b) for crown corporations, 1962-63, $59,106; 1963-64, $88,439; 1964,-65, $157,277; 1965-66, $68,739,
1966-	67, $326,956.
3.	Original motion pictures produced under
contract by commercial film companies (a) Total films, 1962-63, 2; 1963-64, 1; 1964-65, 3; 1965-66, 3; 1966-67, 8. (b) Total cost, 1962-63, $68,855; 1963-64, $6,963;	1964-65, $65,007;
1965-66, $60,365; 1966-67, $61,481.
4.	The National Film Board produced the film for Labyrinth at Expo '67 as contractor to the Canadian Corporation for the World Exhibition 1967 (a) The contract price was
Questions
$4,420,000, as follows; (i) Manufacturing and installation including major items such as Canadair rental, mock-up, rental of special equipment, and equipment, $2,705,179; (ii) Operating expense of exhibit, $214,821; (iii) Building construction (not NFB responsibility), $1,500,000. (b) Yes. $90,000-Additional costs of operating the exhibit, including extra staff, overtime, prints of film, (c) Payment has been requested from the Canadian Corporation for the World Exhibition 1967. Matter still under negotiation.



RICHARD WRIGHT-EMPLOYMENT AS CONSULTANT

Mr. Jorgenson: Is Mr. Richard Wright currently being employed by the Department of Industry as a consultant and, if so (a) what are his terms of reference (b) to whom does he report (c) what is his remuneration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes. (a) 1. To develop a statement of what the external communications objectives of the Department of Industry should be, particularly in respect of its two major programs, area development and industrial development.
2.	To provide an analysis of the existing external communications activities now being carried out, particularly in the information and promotion branch, as well as in the rest of the department, and an evaluation of how these activities are contributing to achieving the objectives of the two above mentioned programs of the department.
3.	In the light of (1) and (2) above, to make recommendations regarding the development of an external communications program and the necessary resources to carry it out. Attention should be paid as to whether the department should "make or buy" some of the services involved.
4.	In the light of the above, and particularly with reference to item (1), to develop a detailed statement on what the communications policy and program should be in respect of the BEAM program; and, if time permits, the machinery program.
(b)	Mr. A. R. Bailey, head, financial and administrative services.
(c)	One hundred and seventy-five dollars per diem, with a contract ceiling of $5,000, including expenses.

December 13, 1967
Housing Crisis



ASSISTANCE TO VENDING MACHINE OPERATORS

Mr. Coales: Is the government giving consideration to providing assistance to vending operators in Canada who will be materially affected with the issuing of new coinage and, if so, what form will this assistance take?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The government is currently investigating the possible costs to the vending machine industry arising from the introduction of a nickel coinage and has not therefore reached any decision on the industry's request for assistance.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Korchinski: What disposition is to be made of all the articles turned in to the lost and found department at Expo '67?
Return tabled.



HOUSING


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to place before the house. I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the continuing and growing housing crisis in Canada, particularly in view of the failure of the federal-provincial conference on housing to deal with the crisis, caused primarily by the lack of any new and effective proposals by the federal government.
Due to the pressures on our translation staff I was able to obtain only one copy of the motion in French, which perhaps could be made available to the leader of the Creditistes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As the house knows, the question that faces the Chair is not the urgency of the problem itself but the urgency of debate. I would welcome any contributions which members might wish to make regarding the urgency of such a debate at this particular time. As there are not

enough copies of the motion for the members, I shall read it. It is as follows:
I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the continuing and growing housing crisis in Canada, particularly in view of the failure of the federal-provincial conference on housing to deal with the crisis, caused primarily by the lack of any new and effective proposals by the federal government.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could address the Chair on the question of urgency of debate. I would first like to say that in moving this motion on behalf of the New Democratic party it is not a move we make with any feeling of happiness. I hope the house would believe that. Mr. Speaker, all of us welcomed the conference. All of us had high hopes for it. Most of us attended it and listened to its deliberations but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the conference did not adjourn; it died, and it died because-


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Reid Scott: -because after the first day it became evident-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Reid Scott: -there was really nothing very much to discuss-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of National Health and Welfare on a point of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am rising on a point of order because the hon. member is now commenting upon the housing conference. He is making gratuitous political comments instead of addressing himself to the matter of urgency of debate. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member be asked to observe the rule in this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order is well taken. I suggest to the hon. member for Danforth that the only argument the Chair wishes to hear at this particular point is an argument in favour of urgency of debate.


Reid Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will abide by your statement. It seems to me, however, that we are trying and have tried for several years to raise a matter which constitutes probably the most urgent social problem facing Canada.
December 13, 1987

This was so evident at the recent meeting. If that is not something which urgently warrants debate in this house, then what is urgent? Since I have been here we have had debates on the drought problems of the farmers and on the tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway; yet here we have a problem which confronts every single Canadian in a very direct way. If parliament cannot speak, who can? I do not retract my remark. I regret what happened at the conference. In fact the best speech was made, strangely enough, by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer).
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member again that whatever may be the opinion regarding the importance of this matter, the question before the Chair at the moment is not the urgency of the problem but the urgency of debate. I would expect the hon. member for Danforth who knows the rules quite well, to abide by my wish that he discuss the urgency of debate at this particular time.


Reid Scott: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had thought the breakdown of the conference would have created urgency for parliament to talk about it. Some suggestions were made by the various premiers which many of us liked, one dealing with sales tax remission, which obviously can be dealt with only by parliament but which, if accepted by the government, would have a very important influence on the housing problem. With respect, the reason I still think there is urgency is that the failure really came because nothing of a concrete nature was presented by the government. If the government will not speak, surely parliament must. Somebody must hold out some hope to the municipalities and provinces that this area of government is prepared to assume responsibility and act.
It seems to me that if the government will not act then parliament itself must be heard. If we are not to be heard, who is to be heard; and if not now, when? We must have an answer for people across the country who wish to hear what the federal parliament is prepared to do to provide leadership and a program to deal with the housing crisis which everyone who attended the conference acknowledged is one of the major social problems facing the country. What greater urgency could there be? When else will we have a chance so to do?


Some hon. Members:: Order.
27053-339}
Housing Crisis


Reid Scott: I know the answer, Mr. Speaker, is that there is an opportunity during the budget debate which is in progress, but over the years we have found that this procedure simply is not an effective way to pin down an urgent problem in the social sector. It seems to me that the case for the discussion of housing today, as an urgent matter of public concern and public business, is overwhelming. I am surprised to hear opposition from the government benches in respect of this highly difficult, highly urgent and highly important matter. I believe there is no other opportunity for this matter to be taken up at this time by the parliament of Canada, and I am surprised that the government would not	accept the debate
immediately.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question before the house is whether there is an opportunity under the rules to discuss this matter. We are in the sixth day of the budget debate. On any of these days it has been possible for hon. members to bring forward the question of housing. In a moment or two we will be continuing with the budget debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor when the budget debate resumes, and if it is important that the hon. member for Danforth state his case it would be very easy for the whip of that party to arrange for that hon. member to be heard immediately when we resume the budget debate.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to try to convince Your Honour of the importance of the matter referred to in this motion, because everyone knows that in Canada we have been falling short of the target for house building. What Your Honour has asked the house to discuss is whether it is important to discuss this question of housing at this moment.
Let me point out that throughout this entire session members on this side of the house have sought to raise the question of housing, to impress upon the government that there is a housing crisis in Canada and that conditions will be much worse in 1968 unless action is taken now. The government's reply has been that a conference was to be held between the federal and provincial governments during which these problems would be resolved and policies and programs would be enunciated.

December 13, 1967
Housing Crisis
That conference has taken place, and it is generally agreed by everyone that nothing productive has come from it. Therefore we are faced today with a situation totally different to any other which has faced the house at any time during this session. That is, the whole question of housing now is-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. The Registrar General wishes to speak on a point of order.


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: This point has already been raised, but surely the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam should restrict himself to the urgency of debate and not to the urgency of the subject matter he wishes to discuss. I think the citations are quite clear to the effect that the urgency within the rules does not apply to the subject matter but refers to the urgency of debate, when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject matter to be brought on at an early date.
After orders of the day hon. members of the N.D.P. will have ample opportunity to discuss this matter. This is the question to which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam should restrict himself at the moment. With the greatest respect, he is abusing the rules of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That was an entirely
unnecessary and gratuitous interruption.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was just about to deal with the representations made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The first point I should like to bring to Your Honour's attention is that the failure of the conference presents a new situation and makes this debate urgent at this time. The second point is that there will be no adequate opportunity to debate this question until after the Christmas recess. Today the orders of the day provide one half hour, so at best we could resume the budget debate at 3.30. A vote must be taken by 5.45, which means we would have one hour and fifteen minutes to debate this matter. This will provide no opportunity whatsoever for members of the various parties in this house to express their views in respect of housing, nor will it provide any opportunity for the responsible minister to make a statement. All this cannot be done in one hour and fifteen minutes.
[Mr. Douglas.)
Members of the government are simply trying to muddy the waters when they say there will be ample opportunity to discuss this matter during the budget debate. They know very well there will not be adequate opportunity, and it is because they know there will not be this opportunity that they seek to get Your Honour to disallow this motion. 1 suggest to Your Honour that the question of housing, which is now made doubly urgent because of the failure of the conference, should be discussed and should be discussed here and now. I think the people of Canada expect parliament to discuss this matter, and discuss it immediately.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gaspe.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gaspe.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has agreed to accept a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gaspe.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would like to ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam a question. I am not detracting from the urgency of the matter but-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
would be prepared to permit the hon. member to ask a question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam only if his question has to do directly with urgency of debate-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It has.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -and not the urgency of the substance of the matter.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I think Your Honour will find that my question falls within the guide lines you have laid down. I ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, in view of the urgency of the problem and in respect of the allocation of funds, does he feel there is a higher priority for funds to solve the housing crisis or funds to solve the medicare crisis?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The question is out of order.
December 13. 1367

537r


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would be glad to answer it.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there is urgency of debate on this question. To illustrate that urgency I would remind the house that only a short time remains in the budget debate, and there certainly will not be time for members of all parties to express their views on the housing crisis which now faces Canada. We must remember that the calling of a dominion-provincial conference was an acknowledgement that there is a housing crisis in this country. I do not believe anyone in Canada has ever seen such an exercise in futility as has been indulged in by the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is only asking assistance from members of the house in so far as urgency of debate is concerned. I recognize that this is a problem, but the only assistance the Chair needs is on the matter of urgency of debate and not on the importance of the problem itself.


James Russell Keays: The urgency is demonstrated by the fact that everyone can witness the suffering of people in the urban areas of Canada because of the congestion in those areas.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would say to the hon. member that it is urgency of debate in which the Chair is interested.


James Russell Keays: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when there is suffering there is always urgency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Russell Keays: Unless we have a debate on this important subject I do not see how we can ever hope to tackle and solve the problem. It has been acknowledged that there is a housing crisis in Canada, and all we have been told is what will be done in 1969.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Russell Keays: There is urgency in our finding a solution to the problem. I maintain that the urgency of the matter calls for action now and not in two years' time.


Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, you recognized earlier the importance and urgency of the matter. The question is to decide whether it is urgent to adjourn the regular business of the house in order to
Housing Crisis
discuss that matter. The best proof of the urgency of a debate is that members of the government obviously fear that such a debate will be allowed at this time.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) suggests that the question should be raised during an insignificant debate that fails to arouse public opinion.
We are aware, as mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), that the budget debate will come to an end in about an hour, an hour and a quarter, and yet, the Minister of National Health and Welfare suggests that the housing problem should be discussed at that time.
Now, as the government knows, the recent federal-provincial housing conference was a real fiasco. I feel the matter is urgent because it means discussing housing for Canadians across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) for having introduced this motion which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) seconded. If ever there was a time to discuss housing-members have tried to bring up the matter for debate in the house repeatedly, but in vain- this is it.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, more than ever before the matter should be discussd now. If a motion such as this one is needed, well, let us pass it graciously and then endeavour to find a solution to the most important and pressing problem of housing in Canada.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, addressing myself to the matter of urgency of debate I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there has just been a two day debate in Ottawa on this subject. At that conference were representatives of the federal government and senior officials of the provincial governments, which share responsibility in the matter of housing. As I said, a two day debate has just been concluded on this subject.
I suggest to Your Honour that some matters involved in this question, namely land assembly costs, building codes and so on, are the exclusive responsibility of other levels of government. I ask, why is it urgent to have such a debate now when a debate on the subject has just been concluded?
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam advanced the most effective argument of all for having

December 13, 1967
Housing Crisis
this motion ruled out of order when he suggested that there is insufficient time left between now, at about ten minutes after three, and five o'clock in which to discuss this matter. I suggest to Your Honour that the time left before the adjournment of today's sitting is exactly the same whether the debate takes place as the result of a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26 or in the budget debate. There is no more and no less time. Therefore I suggest that if hon. members opposite are really serious about wanting a long period of time to discuss what they say is an urgent matter, they should not do it when our time is limited but should raise the question at a time when we could spend the whole day discussing it.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to argue against urgency of debate on this matter; I think most people are very much aware of the urgency of the housing problem. However, in view of the fact that this conference has just terminated, and in order to save time and give the leaders of the parties an opportunity to comment on the question, I suggest to the right hon. Prime Minister-and I think he would receive unanimous consent-that we revert to motions in order to permit him to make a statement on the conference. I believe this would give spokesmen of all parties ample opportunity to comment on the matter. We would be prepared to give that consent now.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can do better than that. There is no question about this being a serious problem. It will be with us for a long time, of course.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Therefore the question of urgency has to be related to the continuing nature of the problem. I think it would be a good idea to have a day's debate on housing. We were going to adjourn, as indicated, on December 21. We can stay here another day, and we will arrange for a housing debate on December 22.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to speak on this matter but I must say I am very surprised that the right hon. Prime Minister should treat this matter as lightly as he does. I made a serious suggestion that we
[Mr. Olson.)
revert to motions, which would give him the opportunity to make a statement. He would then be able to speak about the conference on housing and the future plans of the government in respect of housing. An opportunity would also be given to a spokesman from each party to voice their opinion and their position. If the right hon. Prime Minister would take this matter seriously and agree to this suggestion we are prepared to revert to motions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I say on this point, which I do take very seriously, that unfortunately a statement on motions does not make a debate possible, as my hon. friend knows, but merely permits a statement from one representative of each party. We would like to do more than that and have a debate on housing. I suggest we do this on December 22.


Some hon. Members:: Good idea.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman is acceptable to us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have been very generous in their advice to the Chair, and if there is no further assistance to be given I would be prepared to make a ruling now.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I am sure the members of this party would be happy to accept the suggestion that a full day be allowed for a debate on this urgent matter. However, I wish to make one further point with regard to the necessity of a debate on this subject some time before the house adjourns for Christmas. Various people at the conference, including the prime minister of the province of Quebec, made practical suggestions which could be put into legislative form before we adjourn. I refer, for example, to the removal of the sales tax, a matter which could be dealt with by parliament before Christmas if we were allowed to deal with it. This was a practical suggestion which was made at the conference, and I guarantee or I feel certain that all the opposition parties would be only too happy to put through legislation dealing with this urgent crisis as quickly as possible.


Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one point with regard to the contribution by the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
December 13, 1967


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon North and Victoria):: Contribution?


George Louis Chatterton: I said "contribution" with a certain accent. The hon. member indicated that the amount of time available for debate would be the same no matter what subject we might discuss. There is one important difference. There is no doubt that if we deal with this subject in the budget debate today no member on the government side will dare mention the subject of housing, whereas if the business is adjourned for the purpose of dealing with the subject of housing hon. members will have to restrict themselves to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. First of all I should like to refer members of the house to citation 100 (8) of Beauchesne's fourth edition. The following is a ruling made by a former Speaker, part of which reads as follows:
"I do not think that, under the standing order of 1882, a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs-"
Now I should like to refer to the motion moved by the hon. member for Danforth which contains the words "the continuing and growing housing crisis". One must conclude from these words that this is not a sudden emergency.
I must point out that one day remains in the budget debate during which, if hon. members so desire, they could discuss the housing problem. I should point out that I am not very impressed by the argument that there cannot be a long debate today, that not much time would be available to discuss the housing problem. Whatever the house decides to do today, there will be the same amount of time in either case. May I also point out that on an earlier occasion this year, on October 3, this question was discussed on a supply motion and was voted upon.
In view of these facts I believe the motion by the hon. member for Danforth cannot be accepted at this time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to call notices of motions Nos. 21 and 33?
Motions for Papers



C.N.R. PASSENGER SERVICE IN NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Schreyer:
That an order of the house do issue for a return showing, with respect to C.N.R. passenger train service in Newfoundland:
1.	The number of passengers carried for the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966 by coach and first class.
2.	The revenue from passenger traffic for the years noted in part 1.
3.	The cost to the railway for operating the passenger trains for the years noted in part 1.
4.	The average number of coach cars, parlour cars, dining cars and other cars used in passenger service per train for the years noted in part 1.
5.	The number of S.D. & P.C. and other train passenger employees for the years noted in part 1.
* The number of new cars and other equipment purchased for train passenger service for the years noted in part 1.
7.	The number of employees that will be displaced, if the train passenger service is discontinued, and their total earnings for 1966?
8.	The fastest time that a train proceeded from Port aux Basques to St. John's and the stations or sidings at which it stopped.
irni Pr'or to the Public announcement on April 4, 1967, that a bus service would start by the C.N.R.' were discussions held with any governments?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by the Canadian National Railways that there are no documents covering the nine points raised by the hon. member in his notice of motion for production of papers. I suggest that the hon. member withdraw his notice of motion, and I will give him the assurance that the railway will provide answers to the points raised in his notice of motion which could then be placed on the order paper in the form of a written question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the absence of the hon. member for Springfield perhaps the motion should stand.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand that the hon. member agreed to withdraw his motion earlier in the day.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That is also my understanding, Mr. Speaker. On his behalf I agree to this notice of motion being withdrawn so that he may re-enter it as a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

December 13, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry REPORTS ON HARP PROJECT Motion No. 33-Mr. Harkness:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of reports which have been made to the government on the HARP project, and in particular those made by Dean Ruptash of Carleton University and by Mr. Brightwell of the Defence Research Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North asks for reports in relation to the HARP project, and in particular those made by Dean Ruptash of Carleton University and by Mr. Brightwell of the Defence Research Board. A special study in connection with the HARP project has been published by the science secretariat, known as the Chapman report, as well as the report from the Science Council of Canada. I would be glad to see that these are made available to the hon. member.
In respect of the two specific reports to which the hon. member makes reference, they are internal reports and contain items of military information classified as "security" by the military, and consequently are not publishable. If the hon. member is prepared to withdraw his motion I will see that he gets copies of the two reports which are publishable.


Mr. Harkness:: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is
dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he can indicate to the house when the government will move to set up the national advisory housing council, which he proposed to the housing conference on Monday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There seemed to be a difference of opinion at the conference as to how this work of coordination and research could best be done, and we are pursuing the matter further with the provinces.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right

hon. Prime Minister. In view of the numerous requests which have been made in the past to reconvene the standing committee of the house on housing and urban development, and now that the dominion-provincial conference on housing has been held, would the Prime Minister please intercede with his cabinet colleagues to ensure that the committee is set up so we can get to the root of the problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice; I am not sure whether I got the whole import of it.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the developments at the recent conference, at which there was virtually no support from the premiers for the setting up of an advisory committee-about which we are all sorry, because it was a good idea-and in view of the previous statement of the Prime Minister that he had under consideration the setting up of a ministry of housing and urban affairs, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he will now reconsider this matter and make a statement to the house during this special debate to be held on December 22?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a question touching upon very important government policy that I cannot deal with on the orders of the day.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and I ask him to answer me clearly.
Will the expected housing shortage be caused by a lack of materials or by a lack of money? Could the Prime Minister answer that question clearly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to be clear on such a speculative question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether the Bank of Canada would be able to finance the legitimate housing programs of the provinces?
December 13, 1967


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. I think this is a question that might be placed on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see that the right hon. Prime Minister has asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to answer the question and that the minister is rising to do so. He was delayed by the slow interpretation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair is still of the opinion that the question should be put on the order paper.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the remarks reported to have been made in Paris by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in regard to Canada's encouragement of the extended use of the French language around the world is an indication that Canada will support the current move to increase the use of French in the United Nations when this move is voted on next Monday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the details of the motion at the United Nations to which my hon. friend refers. As he knows, French is already one of the official languages of the United Nations and is also used at the United Nations as a working language. I should like to look at the text of the resolution before I say anything more about it.



VIET NAM-POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF ACTIVITIES OF CONTROL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes, Mr. Speaker. They are entirely the same.']
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I was wondering whether he is now in a position to answer the question I put to him yesterday concerning the activities of the international control commission in Viet Nam.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday there is a proposal before the commission to enlarge
Inquiries of the Ministry its activities on the Cambodian border. There has been some controversy about the use of Cambodian territory by Viet Cong forces. We will be glad to see that done, and we are discussing the proposal with other members of the commission. I think this might well be done, because the Cambodian government itself has approved of this kind of action by the commission.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister inform the house whether there is any relationship between the revived consideration reported in the United States with respect to the doctrine of hot pursuit across the border and the proposal for an enlarged role for the international control commission, and whether Canada would support this latter proposal as the only sensible and realistic alternative in protecting the borders rather than engaging in hot pursuit across them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have seen that report about the possibility of the United States government extending the international doctrine of hot pursuit which would permit the pursuit of an enemy beyond the borders of a country. I myself am confident that in view of what we have said to them in the past the United States government would be aware that Canada would have very grave reservations about any action that might result in the extension of the scope of the fighting in Viet Nam, and which by such extension would raise the possibility of direct involvement by other countries. If this doctrine of hot pursuit would be likely to have that result, we certainly would not support it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister consider it appropriate, then, that Canada should actively pursue and support the proposal for an enlarged role for the international control commission along the borders to obviate the very danger to which the right hon. gentleman has referred?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to think that any extension of the mandate of the commission would have that result. However, as my hon. friend knows, now that the demilitarized zone is the scene of heavy fighting, to put this commission into the zone would not seem to be very practical. Perhaps the situation will change before long, and then the commission could be used for that purpose.

December 13. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry RHODESIA-REPORT BY SECRETARIAT RESPECTING SANCTIONS
On the orders of the day:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is the government studying the report of the United Nations secretariat regarding the effectiveness of the Rhodesian sanctions, and is the Canadian government planning to make any proposals to the United Nations security council to plug the loopholes and make the sanctions more effective?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are studying this report with great interest. It is an important report. We have been following the matter not only through the United Nations but as a result of our membership on the commonwealth sanctions committee in London. We are discussing this report in New York, and when the security council next directs attention to the Rhodesian problem, which I believe will be shortly, we will have the advantage of this report and will make our position known on this problem on the basis of this report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister about Canada's increased purchases of tobacco and sugar from South Africa, and ask whether there is any indication that these commodities originate in Rhodesia but are being shipped to Canada under the guise of being South African exports?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already looked into that matter as the result of a question that was asked the other day. My information is that attempts to circumvent our ban on imports from Rhodesia, not only with regard to tobacco but also with regard to other goods, are brought to the attention of the government from time to time. All such reports have been thoroughly investigated to determine whether in fact a violation of our regulation has occurred. Previous reports of attempts to import Rhodesian tobacco have been investigated and have proven to be unfounded. If anyone possesses evidence of a violation of our regulation it would, I hope, be put at the disposal of the Canadian authorities at once so that appropriate action could be taken by the government.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to a social

problem affecting Rhodesia. Has the government a plan to assist the working people of Rhodesia who have been or may be thrown out of employment by the continuation of sanctions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to send the hon. gentleman the report of the last prime ministers' conference at which we did agree to help the Rhodesian people, of whom four fifths are coloured, in the difficult times they are experiencing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would that assistance be economic assistance in order that their standard of living might be maintained?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It would certainly include that but it would also include, as an important factor, educational assistance to help prepare them for taking over their own country.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has a statement for the house regarding the current crisis in Greece, and whether our own diplomatic personnel and other nationals who might be in that country are safe.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have received a very short telegram to the effect that a situation has developed in which the king of Greece is presumably trying to alter the nature of the existing Greek government. There have been more details over the radio and in the press than those received by us in our official telegram, but perhaps that is not unusual. We are asking for a full report, and we may get that report this afternoon. At the moment we have no official report on fighting or casualties resulting from these developments. I will be glad to make a further statement on this matter in the house tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the announcement made yesterday
December 13, 1967
by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada had agreed in principle to sell plutonium to France, would the minister advise the house whether this is part of the negotiations in regard to the sale of uranium to France, and whether France has now agreed to the limiting conditions that Canada had imposed upon the sale of uranium products to that and other countries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer that question to the extent that I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. This will be a separate negotiation from that which has been brought to the attention of the house in connection with uranium. It is this other negotiation, or possible negotiation, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was discussing in Brussels. I am waiting for the full text of what he said, and until then I do not feel that I shall be in a position to report on it.
I can say at once, however, that the export of plutonium from Canada will be governed by the general considerations which are also applicable to the export of uranium and which were set forth in my statement to the house on June 3, 1965. The statement was that such exports would be permitted subject to an agreement with the government of the importing country to ensure, with appropriate verification and control, that the material would be used for peaceful purposes only.


Douglas Scott Harkness: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What are the international safeguards which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to when announcing that this sale would be made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They would be the United Nations safeguards which have been drawn up by the international atomic energy authority.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government of France has indicated its willingness to sign such an agreement which would restrict the uses of plutonium for peaceful purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government of France knows, from the previous discussions we have had, that we can only make sales on the basis of the acceptance of that verification and control which I have indicated. They know that.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of what the Prime Minister said about the announcement of the sale of plutonium to France and also the recent announcement-I believe it was made yesterday-that this country will sell plutonium to Japan, will the government of Canada require Japan to adhere to the same regulations that France will be required to adhere to?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They are entirely the same.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister consider delivering a Christmas present to all those interested in the future of the Air Canada base at Winnipeg by advising the house how far he has got in his quest for a president of Air Canada and when he expects to announce the appointment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the choice of a president for Air Canada is a question for the board of directors of that company. The board has asked the present president to remain in office for a few months while the changes in corporate structure, if any, which might be necessary in order for the company to obtain financing on the market, are explored. I can assure my hon. friend that this does not mean that we shall not pursue with diligence our goal of establishing a basic, long range plan for Winnipeg in order to provide basic facilities there for maintaining aeroplanes.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question in connection with Air Canada. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that in so far as the government has any connection, direct or indirect, with the appointment of the new president of Air Canada, it will not make a Pickersgillian type of appointment from among those who are in the cabinet?


Mr. McCleave:: I hope the minister himself is not appointed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we can get an appointment in this field of a man as skilful-



December 13, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Miller Bell: "Skilful" is the right word.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -as wise and as expert as Mr. Pickersgill is in the field of transportation, we shall be very lucky.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Are news reports correct when they allege that there was an agreement between our Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs prior to the NATO meeting that Canada's position at the NATO conference would be that a North Atlantic treaty naval force should be set up, with Canada supplying a destroyer to that command; and that our armoured brigade would be changed to a light brigade, with four transport aircraft to be purchased from United States suppliers? Was the decision to adopt that position taken before the two ministers went to the NATO conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not at all sure that it has been decided at Brussels, either. I have not received any official confirmation of the report. Until I get an official report I do not wish to comment on the press report, but I would be very surprised indeed if any such decision was taken during the meeting.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman in a position to advise us whether he has conferred with Premier Smith of Nova Scotia about the steel crisis at Sydney? Would he make known to the house the result of such deliberations and can he say what financial assistance will be available to the province from the central government with respect to the purchase of the plant as well as to make good any losses that may be incurred?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we had a very interesting and useful talk this morning, as a result of which the premier of Nova Scotia will put in writing the report he gave to us about the negotiations that had been going on with the company, explain in writing the legislation that has been passed and its implications, and then make suggestions, on the basis of our discussion, as to how he thinks the federal government can assist most effectively in meeting his problems. Then we shall have a document before us from which we can decide what to do.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. gentleman aware that the labour federations of the four Atlantic provinces, meeting in Moncton two days ago, discussed and dealt with the possibility and economic feasibility of the separation of the Atlantic region from the rest of Canada, as a result of federal governmental neglect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, while I hope that will not happen, I will say this. If the Atlantic regions ever decide to separate from the rest of Canada, which I do not wish and I am sure my hon. friend does not wish, we shall not be in a position to help them, as we are helping them.


Robert Muir: I fully accept the Prime Minister's statement about separation. But, will he get with it and get down to the business of helping Nova Scotia with regard to this problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend should look at the record of the last four years in regard to assistance in Nova Scotia. That assistance has been given by this government, to the point where more than half of the revenue of the government of Nova Scotia now comes from the federal source.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Is that why 20,000 people down there are marching in protest?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope my figures are right.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: am sorry that the Prime Minister is carrying
December 13, 1967

such a heavy load today. I hope he will not mind if I move from Cape Breton to the world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fairweather:: We must do that, Mr. Speaker, once in a while. Can the right hon. gentleman give the house a progress report on the proposed international development centre which is to be located in Ottawa and which, I understand, will be dedicated to fundamental research of how modern technology can help with man's economic and social problems?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Before I try to answer that question I wish to assure my hon. friend that, on this side of the house, Cape Breton is a most important part of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to say that. As to the point he has raised concerning the possible development of an international centre, we have been pursuing this possibility as one which would be important and useful for Canada in the international field. We have been discussing the subject with the United Nations, which has sent officials here to confer with our external aid people and others, and we have asked Professor A. F. W. Plumptre of Scarborough College to report to us on the desirability and advisability of this project so that we may have a document on which to consider and base our decision. I very much hope we shall be able to work out something in this field.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday in Brussels by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that Canada's relations with France had never been better, is it the intention of the government to make similar approaches to other heads of state so that our international relations may be generally improved?


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the fact that the minister of tourism and industry of the province of Quebec refused to take part in the federal-provincial conference on tourism because all the documentation sent by the Department of Trade and Commerce in Ottawa was written in English only, could the minister say whether this is a result of the recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I do not think this is a question which should be asked at this time.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of the progress which was made at the housing conference between the federal and provincial governments, can the right hon. gentleman say whether there are any plans to resume the conference at an early date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we did discuss at the conference the possibility that the ministers responsible for housing might meet again in about six months' time to discuss the progress which has been made. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to put on record the very important proposals for changes in legislation made by the government at this conference. It would take a long time-


Michael Starr: The right hon. gentleman will get that opportunity on December 22.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will wait until then. [Translation]



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenteuil-Deux-Monlagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but, in his absence, I shall address it to the Prime Minister. Could he inform the house of the circumstances of the suicide of a young Portuguese immigrant in a federal building in Montreal last week?

December 13, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about this, but I shall be glad to make inquiries.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the Prime Minister indicate, at the same time, whether that is not the third such incident in Montreal within two years, and whether similar incidents have occurred in Canada during the same period, always in relation to the department of immigration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that aspect.


Roger E. Régimbal: Mr. Speaker, another supplementary question. As human lives are involved, may we hope to have a reply this week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. If the hon. member had given me notice of his question this morning he might have had a reply this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I know he is interested in this subject because in one sense we both have water on the brain. Has the minister or any of his officials had discussions or correspondence with any member of the British Columbia government or its officials with respect to proposals for the diversion of water from Shuswap lake, which normally flows into the Thompson river system, into Okanagan lake?


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



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime 
Minister. Several days ago the right hon. gentleman issued a statement concerning the possible establishment of a national capital area and announcing that a joint study by officials of the federal government and those of the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec would be instituted to examine this matter. Would the Prime Minister consider extending participation in this study by including officials representative of all Canadian provinces?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sure the Prime Minister has heard the representation made by the hon. member.



TOBACCO-INCREASE IN IMPORTS FROM SOUTH AFRICA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether it is the intention of the government to take appropriate steps to place a fair value for duty purposes on tobacco which is now unexpectedly pouring into Canada from South Africa, or perhaps from Rhodesia, in order to protect Canadian growers. This tobacco is coming in duty free at the present time.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into this matter. I know of no allegation that there have been breaches of the Canadian anti-dumping law; none have been brought to my attention. Should breaches be alleged I can assure the hon. member that we shall take every step necessary to ensure that our anti-dumping laws are enforced.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a most important question to the Minister of Labour. Has any progress been made in giving practical application to the hon. gentleman's oft-expressed opinion that employers and employee organizations should get together to discuss the state of the economy for the purpose of arriving at policies mutually agreed upon in the interests of the country?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been an
December 13, 1967

encouraging response to my suggestions. The Department of Labour is arranging a series of meetings with leaders in the industries which come under federal jurisdiction. We are now engaged in a series of meetings with representatives of the railway industry and we intend to move into other fields before we call a general conference.


Harold Edward Winch: Are the employers' organizations being invited to these meetings or to the other meetings which are proposed?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, there has already been one meeting with the representatives of the employer organizations and I believe another is being held later this week.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister has left the chamber but perhaps this question could be answered tomorrow. Is it the intention of the government in the next session to bring in measures relating to maritime transportation?



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-REVIEW OF PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he has anything to add to the statement by the Prime Minister in a press release issued this morning with regard to the Northumberland strait crossing and specifically whether he can give some indication of when he expects the review now being conducted by Colonel Churchill to be completed?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question, I can only say that the statement is an excellent one and there is nothing I could usefully add to it. I regret I cannot give any precise date for the completion of the review by Colonel Churchill, but I can say it is going on very well now and that we have every reason to be optimistic about it.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Postmaster General
The Budget-Mr. Knowles but in his absence perhaps the Acting Postmaster General would take it as notice and answer tomorrow. In view of the events depicted on C.B.C. television last night, showing the residents of Libau, Manitoba, vigorously opposing the government's decision to transfer the post office there, will the Postmaster General now reconsider his decision and leave the post office in its former location, which obviously is the expressed wish of the local residents?


Hon. Jean Chrefien (Member of fhe Administration):: I shall take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time allotted for today's question period has expired.



BUDGETARY PROPOSALS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 12, 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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I sought an opportunity to speak in this debate because of a serious and important issue which I wish to discuss. It is my intention to stay with the subject that prompted me to take part in this debate. However, before I get into that question may I say that we in this party regret that the government was not willing to have a debate today on the important question of housing. We are glad that the government is prepared to find a day fairly soon to discuss this matter, but we think a debate ought to have taken place today.
The government may not realize it, but the working press who covered the housing conference and the people of Canada who have read about it, heard it on the radio and seen it on television know it was a colossal failure. The very fact that it wound up in two days instead of the scheduled three days is evidence-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have only 30 minutes, Mr. Speaker.
December 13, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Knowles


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: When the hon. gentleman says the conference concluded at the end of two days instead of three, has he taken into consideration that it sat on Monday evening and for two extra hours late yesterday afternoon and evening, thus giving the full time that had been anticipated?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The conference was still concluded in two days, and I suggest the reason it did not continue was that the premiers of the various provinces were finding it not worth their while to stay.
Basically the reason the conference failed is that the federal government is not prepared to measure up to its responsibilities in the field of housing. For the federal government to suggest to the conference that its financial contribution to housing in Canada in the next fiscal year is to be $300 million less than it has been this year is hardly the way to make the conference a success. I hope the government will yet realize the importance of this issue and the nature of the role it must play in this important problem.
Hon. members will not be surprised if I indicate that the subject to which I wish to devote most of my remarks this afternoon is the announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) on Thursday, December 7, that it is not the intention of the government to go ahead with the provision of increases in the pensions of retired civil servants. May I say at the outset that when I look over the list of cuts that the President of the Treasury Board announced in his speech last Thursday night, I am impressed with the fact that a good many of them relate to matters that the government did not want to go ahead with anyway. I have a gnawing suspicion that this is the case with respect to increased pensions for retired civil servants.
Let me indicate a few examples which support my contention that many of the cuts simply represent not going ahead with something the government was against doing anyway. For example, it is proposed to cut out the selling of government annuities. No suggestion was made as to how much this is going to save, but it was put forward under the excuse of its being an economy measure. Those of us who have been around here for any length of time know that for many years the insurance companies of this country have been lobbying against the federal government being in the annuity business. The last time the federal government sought to improve the Government Annuities Act was in the year 1951. I remember the occasion very


well. We had a government bill which was given second reading and referred to one of the standing committees of the house. It provided for certain improvements to be made in the Government Annuities Act, but the insurance people came here in force. Although we finally got the bill passed by that standing committe, when it came back to the house the government let it die on the order paper. It is obviously because of its desire to stop pushing the sale of government annuities that the government has dropped the selling of these annuities.
Then I notice that the government has disbanded the special planning secretariat in the Privy Council office. This special planning secretariat was in effect the high command of the war on poverty. How much real interest has the government shown in the war on poverty? This is one area where the government is pacifist, one area where it is prepared not to go to war. It has not shown any real interest in this supposed effort, and so under the excuse of economy the special planning secretariat has been dissolved.
I should like to join with my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman), in saying a word with respect to the cut that has been handed to the Company of Young Canadians. I know the many criticisms that are made about this organization and the people in it, but the fact of the matter is that these are young people who belong to a generation that maybe some members of this house cannot understand, but they are young people who are concerned about social conditions.
We had a few witnesses before us yesterday in one of the standing committees of the house, including two or three people who had worked with the Company of Young Canadians. I think all of us who were at that committee were impressed with how much knowledge they had of a certain social problem, a knowledge much in advance of that of many of the conventional agencies. Somehow or other the government does not like what the Company of Young Canadians is doing and so, under the excuse of economy, a cut is made in its budget. Incidentally, it is my understanding that the director of the Company of Young Canadians heard only on the television news that a cut was being made in the budget of that organization.
I still do not know where we stand with respect to the Prince Edward Island causeway. One day it is off; another day it is on. I suspect that the government is still uneasy over the fact that it promised it during the
December 13, 1387

last election. The promise did not result in the Liberals winning very many seats in Prince Edward Island and obviously they would like to get out of this project or postpone it. I suggest again, Mr. Speaker, that economy is being used as an excuse when there are really other motives.
I mention just these three or four examples. I could cite others but I do not want to take time away from the subject with which I am mainly concerned today. I merely mention these as situations parallel to the situation with respect to pensions for retired civil servants.
I am convinced that there are voices in the federal cabinet which have never wanted to agree to increased pensions for retired civil servants. I am personally convinced that one of those voices is that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), and that the so-called drive for economy is now being used simply as an excuse for not going ahead with this proposition which was unanimously recommended on May 8 by a special joint committee of both houses of parliament.
Seldom have a group of people been misled so extensively as have the retired civil servants of the federal government. For many years they have been asked to wait for one thing or another before their plight would be considered. At one time they were told to wait until the Canada Pension Plan was put through.
[DOT] (4:00 p.tn.)
When our Canada Pension Plan committee was in session representatives of the retired civil servants were permitted to appear before that committee to argue their case. They were told, however, that nothing could be done for them under that legislation and that they should wait until it was through. They were told that their situation would be dealt with separately. Also, when old age pensions were being discussed they were told they should wait until that legislation was completed and then their case would be looked into.
A couple of years ago when matters relating to the civil service generally were being discussed they were told that when the coast was clear an opportunity would be made for their whole problem to be discussed by a special joint committee of parliament. That joint committee was given their problem as a term of reference in January, 1967. It held extensive meetings during the early months of this year and made a unanimous report to
The Budget-Mr. Knowles parliament on May 8. It recommended without any qualification that there should be immediate increases in the pensions of retired civil servants.
In our report, when using the phrase "retired civil servants" we made it clear that this should include retired armed forces personnel and retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel as well. Our report also included widows and orphans in all cases. It added up to a comprehensive statement by that committee that this is a problem which parliament should deal with.
Hon. members will remember the atmosphere which prevailed in respect of this matter in May, June and early July. Some of us were on our feet every week in an effort to get the government to act at that time. The type of answers we were given led us to believe that action would be taken before we recessed for the summer. Certain ministers on the other side including the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), cannot deny the assurance they gave me that action would be taken in the month of June. When on July 7 this house was faced with an adjournment some of us opposed that adjournment without action being taken on this question. We lost, but even so we were led to believe then that action would be taken in the fall. We came back on September 25 and the issue has been raised in one way or another by one member or another two or three times a week since then.
We were told repeatedly that the matter was still under consideration, but finally on December 7 the President of the Treasury Board told us a decision had been made not to proceed with these increases. I suggest that this was a cruel way to mislead these people. Their hopes were built up, they were given a feeling of confidence that something would be done, and then they were told that nothing would be done for them either now or during the fiscal year 1968-69. Despite the finality with which the President of the Treasury Board spoke on December 7 and despite the fact that the Prime Minister expressed a hope that this matter could be reconsidered some time which sounded like delaying it for five or ten years, I still appeal to the government to act on this issue during this session of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to make some specific suggestions concerning what can be done. First, however, may I remind hon.
December 13, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Knowles members on both sides of the house that there are about 36,000 retired civil servants and about 16,000 widows of retired civil servants who are on pension. If you add to these two figures the retired members of the R.C.M.P. and the retired members of the armed forces and then add their widows, you arrive at a total of about 58,000 federal superannuates of various kinds and a total of about 18,000 widows of the various federal superannuates. If hon. members are interested, I might point out that answers to questions of mine have been placed on Hansard of November 22, November 29, December 4 and December 11 which give the numbers of these people living in the various provinces and the number receiving pensions in the various categories. Rather than confuse members with a whole host of statistics may I say that most of these people-I am referring to the retired civil servants rather than the widows-are on pensions of less than $200 a month. The average for the widows is much lower.
There was a time when a $200 pension sounded like something one could live on, but I should like to say to the members of this house that the heart-rending letters I get come not only from people whose pensions are down in the $30, $40 or $50 a month bracket but also from people who have served this country and this government for many years and who retired a few years ago on a pension of $150 to $175 a month. These people have seen living costs rise so many times in the decade since they retired that they are now living in virtual poverty.
I submit that the federal government of this country as an employer has a responsibility to these people. What can it do to discharge that responsibility? Let me say that you will never convince these people, no matter how many arguments you advance on the basis of figures, that they are not entitled to increases in pension on the basis of the money they paid in and which is in the superannuation fund. When you tell them that the money is not there, that it is only so many figures on a book and that these figures are there to protect future retirees you do not solve the problem for them.
These people know that on the books of the superannuation fund at the present time there is an amount approaching $3 billion. They know also that the interest paid on that fund each year is greater than the amount that is paid out each year in pensions. They know the fund is growing by leaps

and bounds. They do not understand why they cannot be paid out of that fund. Roughly speaking, what is happening at the present time is that each fiscal year about $100 million is being paid into the fund by employees who are working and paying their percentage. About $100 million is put in by the government to match the employees' contributions. Something approaching $100 million is put in by the government as interest on the fund that is there. I say "put in"; the employees put the money in because they do not get it in their pay cheques, but apparently it gets used right away. So there is a total of about $300 million a year credited to the superannuation account while the amount being paid out in pensions to the people who are now retired is only $75 million to $80 million a year.
How can any member of this house explain to these people that they cannot have their money in the form of a pension because there must be some kind of an economy drive? I do not accept the reasons for the cut or the budget or the economic plans this government has, but even if these plans are to be gone ahead with by this government one cannot explain to these people why, since the money is there, they should not receive increased pensions. If the members of the government feel that they must not touch the money now being credited-that is what they say-because it is put there for future retirees or, on the other hand, if they say that the money really is not there, what confidence does that give present employees for their time of retirement
Let me remind the government of what I thought was a very useful suggestion made by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada last session relating to the rate of interest the government pays on this money. The rate of interest which this government pays-mind you, it is only so many figures in a book-is 4 per cent. That is a pretty cheap rate of interest to pay on money today. The suggestion has been made that the government might consider paying 5 per cent on that money. I wonder whether hon. members realize that if that were done, if an additional one per cent were paid on the money in the fund, this would produce an extra $25 million or $30 million a year. That would be sufficient to increase the pension of every retired civil servant, every widow of a retired civil servant, and the others I have mentioned, the armed forces and R.C.M.P. personnel, by about one third of their present
December 13, 1967	COMMONS
pension. To put it round figures, this would mean an average pension increase to every superannuate of about $60 to $65 per month. Hon. members can do this figuring for themselves if they read the figures which appear in the various issues of Hansard to which I have referred, and if they will look at the figures in the estimates and elsewhere.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
All the government has to do today is admit that interest rates have gone up everywhere. Interest rates on housing and bank loans have gone up to 8 per cent or more. This government should be fair and credit these people with 5 per cent interest on their own money in the fund which would provide a sufficient amount to make it possible for the government to increase the pensions of all our retired civil servants, members of the armed forces, members of the R.C.M.P and their widows by an average of one-third of the pensions they now receive. In dollars and cents terms this would amount to $60 or $65 per month for every pensioner. I am not suggesting that it should be a flat one third across the board increase because I am aware of the fact that certain adjustments should be made, but I give this figure to indicate what would be possible if the government followed the suggestion made by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, supported by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, to our committee.
There is no use in the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) trying to tell these people that this is a matter involving a cash position versus figures on the books, and so on. These people had money deducted from their pay cheques which they did not get. The same is true of civil servants working today. A deduction of 5 per cent or 6J per cent is being made from their pay cheques. They do not get that money. Where does it go? Does it go into a fund out of which pensions are paid? No, this money becomes figures in the books. The government is spending this money and it should pay interest on it.
These civil servants are assured that the reason they will receive pensions when they retire is that the government is there behind them. If they have to count on the government being behind them 10, 20 or 30 years from now the way the government is behind retired civil servants today in respect of their pensions this will not make for a very happy situation. That is no doubt the reason that Mr. Trevor Gough of the Public Service
DEBATES	5385
The Budget-Mr. Knowles Alliance of Canada wrote such a strong letter to the Prime Minister a day or two after the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) announced the decision of the government not to go ahead with this matter.
There is no question in my mind that there is a need. These people clearly have a right to an increase, and even though the President of the Treasury Board stood up in this house and said the government did not commit itself in black and white that it would raise pensions by a certain date, it did commit itself that it would deal with this matter on the basis of the report to parliament by the special joint committee of both houses.
We hear a great deal these days about what could be done to improve parliament by strengthening the committee system. If this is an example of how the government is going to strengthen committees it should not bother. The committee to which I referred was chaired by Senator Bourget and the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard). This committee held hearings for a considerable period of time over more than a year. It dealt with many matters involving the civil service. It went into these things exhaustively. The committee was made up of members of all parties in both houses and represented all points of view, social, economic and otherwise; yet it came up with a unanimous recommendation that these pensions should be increased. For the government not to follow this recommendation is an insult to the committee and to the committee system, and certainly it is an offence to those people who are affected by this whole situation.
I see that my time is running out and I will have to say in a very few minutes what I wanted to say to put this special problem in the context of a larger problem that is very much with us and will be with us in increasing terms as time passes. People sometimes ask me about other pensioners and whether they should not also receive an increase in their pensions. The answer is a resounding yes. That goes for railway workers and all our pensioners. The day has to come and come soon when the principle is recognized that people who retire should not be compelled to live for the rest of their lives on a fixed pension.
Let me put it this way. There are people retiring in 1967 at younger ages, at 60 and so on, who no doubt have a chance of being alive in the year 2000. Some ten years from now there will be many people retiring who
December 13, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Knowles will have a good chance of living until the year 2000. Does anyone in this place imagine that people in the year 2000, will be able to live under the conditions we will have then on pensions fixed in the years 1967, 1970 or 1975? We must reach the point where there is built into any pension scheme arrangements for pensions to escalate as time passes. This situation is true for all other sections of society. No one expects workers, farmers, businessmen or people in ordinary jobs to spend all their working lives, from the time they are 21 until they are 65, on a fixed income. It is the nature of things for costs to go up and living standards to improve. People are entitled to meet these higher costs and share in these higher standards of living. Where is there any common sense in the suggestion that when you reach 60 or 65 years of age and retire this process must stop? Pensions have to be subject to escalation.
The government can tell us it recognizes this principle, and it has in respect of old age security and the Canada Pension Plan, but this has been a very meagre recognition. Everybody knows what will happen in respect of old age security in January. It is to increase by $1.50. That is a recognition, but it is pretty meagre. It is not good enough to do just that. I suggest we must do this across the board and on a scale to keep up with rising costs and rising standards of living.
I am satisfied in my own mind that the reason the governmment does not want to grant this increase in pensions to its own employees is that it is afraid business will then say it has been put on the spot and must do the same thing. That is the trouble with this government. It never leads and never faces up to problems which require leadership.
It is not good enough to wait until 1980, 1990 or 2000 to discover that our whole pensions structure has fallen apart because we did not make provision for pensions to escalate. The time for leadership in this regard is now, and I suggest the place for the government to begin is in respect of its own employees. That is why I take as strong a stand as I do in support of retired civil servants and other retired employees of the federal government, of the Canadian National Railways, and so on. They have a right of their own and they have their own needs. The government has an obligation to them as an employer and also because of the need to establish a principle that must be carried through the whole of our economy.

Let me return to the position I took at the beginning of my remarks. The government has committed a cruel hoax on these people by giving them the hope that something was going to be done. It is time for the government to undo the harm and offence it has done to these people. It is time to stop the policy of discouraging them. The government must act in respect of this question.
There are broad policies that can be worked out in the next few years with regard to pension increases across the board and they must be worked out. But there is no excuse whatsoever for the announcement of last Thursday night contained in paragraph 13 of the list of cut-backs by the President of the Treasury Board. This money is available and I call upon the government to implement the recommendation of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada during this session. I call upon the government to increase the pensions of our retired civil servants, former members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P., their widows and all our federal superannuates. The time for this action, Mr. Speaker, is now.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
hon. member for Charlotte wishes to ask a question.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Latulippe:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: I believe the hon. member when he says that we have this increase of 3 per cent more or less going on every year, and it is inflationary-


Henry P. Latulippe: On a point of order- fEnglish]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. May I ask the hon. member to put his question.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: I will ask the question in a minute. In 1934 the price of gold was $35 an ounce, and we expect our miners to go on mining gold to be sold at the same price today. The hon. member said there should be an increase in the price of gold because in 1934 it was mined and sold for $35 an ounce and today the price is the
December 13, 1967

same. In my opinion this is really at the bottom of everything. Would the hon. member agree that an increase in the price of gold is necessary? Gold and its control under the International Monetary Fund are at the bottom of everything. Everything is based on the price of gold. Would the hon. member agree that in the interests of our miners the price of gold should be increased and should not be the same now as it was in 1934?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The miners are getting much better wages today than they were in 1934. This is mainly due to their unions. So as far as the question itself is concerned, I think we should get farther away from gold as a standard rather than back to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is the
hon. member for Compton-Frontenac rising on a point of order?


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am calling your attention to the fact-


Mr. Otto:: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Will the hon. member resume his seat.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, we claim we have been treated somewhat differently from the others or unjustly. We also had suggestions to make or solutions to offer on the present budget, but we were not given the opportunity to do so. In fact, only one member of the Ralliement Creditiste took part in the discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac for his remarks concerning the list of speakers who are to participate in the discussion, and I regret that his speech on the budget was interrupted by the vote on the amendment. In view of the fact that only a few minutes remain before the vote on the main motion, I must recognize the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto).


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, it seems that I have a few minutes in which to speak at the end of this debate. I shall try to summarize the issues. First, I think it should be made very plain that the issue is not as stated by hon. gentlemen on the other side, namely, that the government has got
The Budget-Mr. Otto
itself into a financial morass because of political pressures. The fact is that the government at all times has tried to resist the political pressures that have been applied by hon. gentlemen opposite. Time after time we have had votes of confidence because hon. gentlemen opposite wanted more money to be spent and the government was forced into the position of resisting increases in spending. So that is not the issue.
The issue comes about to a great extent because of the report of the Carter commission. I agree wholeheartedly with the minister when he says that the Carter report cannot be adopted in toto. I also believe the minister when he says that the government will introduce very serious reforms in respect of fiscal policy. I believe they are needed. I shall try to explain my position with regard to the Carter report and why I think it cannot be adopted.
The Carter report is, of course, a very fine document. Surprisingly, the commission was chaired by a member of the establishment who will probably lose his membership in the National Club, the York Club, and so on, because of the report. Although vast changes are envisaged in the report and it contains many suggested reforms, in one way it is just as hidebound, just as restrictive, as our present fiscal policies.
For example, it is said of the Carter report that when faced with hard choices between equity and economic expansion the commissioners consistently gave the greatest weight to the objective of equity. This means they are taking the very ancient viewpoint of taxation, namely, that taxation is merely a burden to be shared, in other words, that we should share the poverty. The modern concept of taxation is not merely to share the burdens of the cost of government but it also has a great deal to do with our economic destiny, industrial expansion, area industrialization, balance of trade and efficiency of production. All these things have a great bearing on the question and are indeed controlled by the tax incentives given to industry.
The most important part of taxation today is that which affects industrial expansion, employment, or what we might call the destiny of industrial expansion. Second is equity. If equity is the first principle, as the Carter commission said, it cannot apply today because if this were the case the whole ARDA program would be out, the whole industrial incentive program would be out.

December 13, 1967
The Budget-Mr. Otto
Obviously it is not fair to give a farmer in one area a tax advantage and not give it to another, as the Carter commission report suggests in respect of horizontal equity.
The commission says that the prime objective of taxation policy is equity, but that cannot apply today. Therefore it cannot apply as far as the government is concerned. There is another principle that we must examine very carefully. The commission would tax the command of goods and services and not the consumption of goods and services. But I wonder whether it is desirable today to tax the command or control of goods and services. If those goods and services are used for industrial expansion, would we not be penalizing those who have this command at the expense of industrial expansion?
I believe we should at all times tax the consumption of goods and services, and possibly the command of goods and services where that command is not of benefit to the nation. But where the command of goods and services is beneficial to the country through providing additional employment and industrial growth, to impose a tax strictly because of a very hidebound principle such as the Carter report seems to contain is wrong, and this principle cannot be applied today.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I have no particular quarrel, and I think very few businessmen in Canada have, with a tax on capital gains and a tax on inheritances. But all these things must be pliable. I believe this is the essence of what the minister is trying to get at when he says that reforms will be made. If they are made, I believe we have to be very flexible in these areas. A capital gains tax on land-I shall refer to this matter later-would be beneficial today. But to impose a capital gains tax on the return of risk capital may not be the thing to do. What we need today is a flexible policy whereby a capital gains tax need not be imposed on all capital gains. Indeed, the same applies to inheritance and corporation taxes.
I heartily endorse the recommendation of the Carter commission that corporations should be taxed once, whether the money is in the hands of the corporations or in the hands of the shareholders. But I think we all agree that this must not be an inflexible rule because in some cases it would be advantageous to tax the profits of the corporation and not those of the shareholders and in other cases the reverse would apply. In other words, if the corporation reinvests its money

and expands its industrial potential it is obviously of advantage to the nation not to tax the corporation but rather the shareholders. On the other hand, if this principle is applied inflexibly, as is suggested by the Carter commission, we will find that people will demand shares in companies which always pay good dividends, regardless of their reserve for expansion and growth. So what we want is flexibility.
I agree with the views of the Carter com-mission'with regard to expense accounts, not necessarily because their recommmendation is fair but because I believe that expense accounts do not make good, efficient producers. High living at the expense of corporations must not continue if we expect employees in the lower echelons and workmen to work efficiently. An esprit de corps must exist in industry because it increases efficiency. For this reason I am definitely opposed to expense account living. I believe that it ruins efficient production and therefore I agree with the recommendation of the Carter commission with regard to this subject.
Now I should like to say a word or two with regard to the demand for homes, land development, etc. There is no necessity to repeat that there is a housing crisis in Canada today, because we all know it. It has also been said that there is no money to deal with this problem properly. I suggest we do not need money. The first thing we need is the guts to make changes. Of course, money is required to some extent, but what we really need now is a decision to change the circumstances which make houses very expensive.
Let me put it this way. I can safely say to anyone, and I can back it up with figures, that construction costs today are less than they were 15 years ago when one considers what one gets in material, handling, premanufacture, etc. The construction industry has been very efficient and has kept up to date. This leaves one cause for the crisis in homes-land. The price of land has increased enormously. In 1951 I paid $1,200 for a lot. Now I am paying $16,000 for a smaller lot in the city of Toronto. Historically the price of land has always gone up because it is a hedge against inflation. There is no sense in buying diamonds if you want to ensure that the value of your money will remain the same. What you should do is buy land, and there is tremendous pressure exercised by people who want to buy land strictly as a
December 13, 1967

hedge against inflation. This applies to insurance companies, pension plans, and all people who wish to ensure that 15 or 20 years from now their money will have the same value in proportion to the price of goods. This is a historical fact.
How must we combat this problem? First of all, we must recognize its existence. At this point may I suggest-and I hope the Minister of Finance is listening-that some form of accelerated bonds might be put on the market, the value of which would rise with the cost of living. This would be another hedge against inflation and would remove the pressure on land. I know this is a radical suggestion but it is now being considered by a well known United States insurance company which is studying the possibility of paying insurance benefits in real money because it recognizes the tremendous pressure on land.
One cannot make more land, but the demand for it increases steadily. As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) said, cities can be further expanded by the addition of suburbs which would have to be made accessible to and from the centre in no more than 20 to 23 minutes or half an hour at the most. A new form of transportation must be introduced, namely, rapid transit systems. This will make suburbs attractive.
There is another point which could be considered by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. People who own land are granted all sorts of exemptions from income tax. We give them exemptions for real estate taxes. Land owners and speculators receive all kinds of advantages. No one but speculators would take issue with the minister if he were to say he is going to impose a capital gains tax on land speculators or on anyone who sells land because, as everyone knows, these people cannot lose money on their transactions. Since no risk is involved, why are these people given an exemption in respect of capital gains?
The municipalities in turn foster higher land prices by allowing land to remain stagnant and by giving tax concessions on vacant land. Indeed, back in the 1940's the city of Winnipeg applied a very good principle whereby land purchased from the city was allowed to be taxed as vacant land in the first year and thereafter was taxed as if a building were on it. As a result there was no land speculation because it was not worth while. In 1946 I bought land in Winnipeg for $1.65 per foot of frontage. Today it is worth $3 or $4, and it is in the suburbs.
The Budget-Mr. Otto
I think the Habitat scheme should be modified to allow people to own their homes. Obviously they would not want to live in the middle of a cube structure. This will have to be modified. N.H.A. mortgage insurance for homes should be reduced from $18,000 to $12,000.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is a good suggestion.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Steven Otto: Essentially this is a provincial matter and only partially under the jurisdiction of the federal government. We must have the guts to say: We will take over the area, zone it and build on it or have someone build on it; if the township or municipality will not take it over, we will make it our own municipality. Essentially municipal politicians are agents of the established people. It is the home owners who elect the municipal politicians to represent them. These politicians do not care about people without homes. They are our headache. We will never get the municipalities to speed up the pace of development. Someone else must do it. I suggest that the province could establish a principle in this regard to the effect that as long as a subdivider or land developer abides by these regulations there will be no trouble. I had to go to 37 meetings before I could get a piece of land subdivided. This involved a lapse of time of about four and a half years. There is no hope that the waiting period will be reduced because these people resist changes of that sort.
With regard to finding more money, I suggest to the minister that a great deal of money that could be used for N.H.A. financing is now being used for short-term investment. This money goes into the banks for 90 or 180 days and billions of dollars are used by the finance companies in this way. By breaking down national housing mortgages into small units this money could be lent for short-term investment purposes and as a result over a long-term period we could derive about $2.5 billion.
Another point is this, Mr. Speaker. In my own case, if my creditors, especially my suppliers and labourers, could be assured that having built my house they would still get their money I am sure many of them would provide credit for the building of homes. I suggest that C.M.H.C. should insure not only mortgages but also creditors to an amount equal to the value of the home. For example, tradesmen and suppliers could be given a certificate for the equivalent amount of the work or materials supplied which

December 13, 1967
Ways and Means
would guarantee payment. When the home was	sold these certificates would be
redeemed. The creditors would all be paid, and I would suggest that as a result more houses would be built.
There is a shortage of money, of course, and people are becoming less and less inclined to lend money for mortgage purposes. They would rather buy equity stocks. Conventional sources of mortgage money will be more and more hesitant to lend. Changes are required, but we must have the guts to make them.
A word about the Carter report in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. The Carter report is a very inflexible document. I believe that the minister is going to introduce reforms which will give it flexibility and will impose a capital gains tax in some instances and not in others. In this way fiscal policy can be brought to bear on industrial expansion rather than merely equity investments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 4.45 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:: On division.
Main motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Batten in the chair.
['Order. The hour for the consideration of private members business has now expired.']
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House 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 paper of Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, 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 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.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister going to make a statement? He is itching to, I am sure.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the first paragraph of the Excise Tax Act resolution, "that effective June 2, 1967, all goods listed in schedule V to the said act be exempt from sales tax", of course proposes that the date of full exemption of sales tax on a comprehensive list of production machinery and equipment described in schedule V of the Excise Tax Act be advanced from April 1, 1968, as originally proposed, to June 2, 1967.
This move forward in the date of full sales tax exemption for production machinery and equipment is motivated by a desire to reduce Canadian production costs. It was stated in the spring budget speech of 1966 that it was not intended that the taxation of these goods should remain as a permanent feature of the federal tax structure. However, fiscal policy considerations in 1966 called for some restraint on investment and therefore it was not advisable to give immediate and full relief for production machinery and equipment at that time. Instead it was announced that the goods concerned would be made
December 13, 1967

exempt from sales tax in stages over a two-year period. When this matter was reviewed before the presentation of the main budget this year the government decided that the need to reduce costs of production and to encourage Canadians to acquire modern machinery so that they could more effectively compete with manufacturers in other countries outweighed all other considerations. Therefore full exemption was proposed on June 2, 1967.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, during the budget debate in the fall all of these matters were extensively covered so far as the resolutions were concerned. I do not think it would lead to any greater clarity if I were to speak to them at length.
All I should like to say is that with regard to the removal of the sales tax on drugs I trust the drug manufacturers and distributors have acted responsibly vis-a-vis the request of the government. In this connection I do not think that anyone in the committee quarrels with the objectives of the government. In essence we are hoping that the drug manufacturers and distributors will pass on to the consumer, who is a very hard hit individual today, every possible benefit from this tax reduction. That is all I want to say in that connection.
So far as the other matters are concerned, Mr. Chairman, the sales tax on production machinery should, of course, never have been imposed. This we know. It was a terrible mistake and is one of the legacies of those notorious 100 days of decision that the present administration inflicted on the country.


Mr. Cowan:: It was 60 days.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, 60 days. I thank the hon. member for York-Humber for reminding me of that bit of history.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We could not have stood 100 days.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, Mr. Chairman, it is a good thing it was not 100 days; I do not think the country could have stood it. Sixty days was bad enough. However, the present Minister of Finance has seen the error of the ways of his administration and is gradually undoing some of the harm.
We will be seeing the bill and the technical provisions relating to the implementation of this resolution, and I will reserve any minor comments I may have until that time.
Ways and Means


Mitchell William Sharp: May I add, Mr. Chairman, that I have only dealt with the first paragraph. The hon. member has dealt with the second paragraph which deals with the exemption with regard to drugs. Then there appear some miscellaneous items under paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6. I will be glad to answer questions about them, but I do not think it is necessary for me to make any general statement.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Herman Maxwell Batten: The house in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Income Tax Act. The text of this proposed resolution is appended to the notice paper of Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, November 30, 1967.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether it might not be more in accordance with the desire of hon. members if we were to take the excise tax changes announced on November 30 instead of dealing with income tax immediately. I suggest that we take the remainder of the excise tax resolutions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. House in committee of ways and means on a certain proposed resolution to amend the Excise Tax Act. The text of this resolution is appended to the notice paper of Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, November 30, 1967.



[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide among other things:
1.	That effective December 1, 1967, the excise tax on each five cigarettes or fraction of five cigarettes contained in any package be increased from two and one-half cents to three cents.
2.	That effective December 1, 1967, the excise tax on each pound of manufactured tobacco, including snuff but not including cigars and cigarettes, be increased from eighty cents per pound to ninety cents per pound.
3.	That effective December 1, 1967, the excise tax on cigars be increased from fifteen per cent to seventeen and a half per cent.
4.	That effective December 1, 1967, an excise tax of
(a)	two and one-half cents per gallon on wines of all kinds containing not more than seven per cent of absolute alcohol by volume, and
(b)	five cents per gallon on wines of all kinds containing more than seven per cent of absolute alcohol by volume.
[Stage Direction]
December 13, 1967
Ways and Means
be imposed in addition to any other excise tax imposed by the said Act payable at the time of sale by the Canadian manufacturer and at the time of importation or withdrawal from bonded warehouse by the importer or transferee who takes imported wines out of bond for consumption.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr, Lambert:: No, Mr. Chairman. I expect that the minister wants to make a statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, paragraph 1 of the resolution proposes that effective December 1, 1967, the rate of special excise tax on cigarettes be increased by half a cent per five cigarettes. At present cigarettes bear an excise tax of 2.5 cents per five cigarettes or $5 per thousand under the Excise Tax Act and an excise duty of $4 per thousand for cigarettes weighing not less than three pounds per thousand under the Excise Tax Act. In addition, they are subject to the general sales tax.
It is proposed that only the excise tax levied under the Excise Tax Act be increased. The proposed change amounts to an increase of approximately 10 per cent in over-all cigarette taxation. The rate increase will affect both Canadian produced and imported cigarettes because the taxes levied by the Excise Tax Act apply to imports as well as to goods produced in Canada. The additional revenue from the proposed change would approximate $50 million in a full year at 1968 levels of sales. The additional revenue expected over the remainder of the current fiscal year is estimated to be of the order of $12 million.
The rates of the special taxes on cigarettes have not changed since 1959. It is considered fair that cigarette smokers should be called upon to meet a greater share of the increase in the costs of government services which has taken place since 1959.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, since there is a great division of opinion among members of the public about whether tobacco is a necessity or luxury, with some damning tobacco roundly and others praising it just as vehemently, it has become the custom of governments to consider that tobacco and its related items under this resolution are fair game for tax impositions. This has become almost a game of tweedledee and tweedledum with the provinces, the game being who shall impose what increases and when shall they be imposed. Frankly, I am surprised that the federal government has been so patient all this time and has not increased the tax on tobacco and commodities related
[The Chairman.]
to it under this resolution but has left the field open to the provinces.
With regard to tobacco there is one difficulty. No matter how much the tax is increased the demand remains inflexible. There may be minor modifications or abatements in demand as tobacco prices increase but these last for about a month only. Then it seems that the volume of consumption returns to its former level and even goes up.
It is said that increased demand for tobacco results from our increased population. In this day and age it seems that the younger you are, the harder you smoke. Smokers these days begin to smoke at younger ages than formerly. The tax on tobacco is spread right across the population. As one sees youngsters going to school these days one wonders whether they arrive at school smoking. That sort of thing I deplore. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that you can tax this type of commodity to the point where smuggling becomes attractive.
After the war, as many of us remember, a heavy special tax was imposed on cigarettes and tobacco in Canada. The result was that smuggling cigarettes into Canada from the United States and abroad became attractive. Smuggling was a very lucrative and dangerous business but the bottom was knocked out of that nefarious activity when the tax was removed. There are limits to the taxation of tobacco. Under ordinary circumstances, if the minister must obtain extra revenue from tobacco, and there is some question about that, though I smoke not cigarettes but a pipe and cigars I am quite prepared to accept my responsibilities in that regard, as I think all hon. members are.


An hon. Member:: Are you willing to pay for it?


Harold Edward Winch: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman. I am not boasting but I happen to be a cigarette chain-smoker. The minister has increased the cost of my cigarettes by 10 per cent. When he explains the reasons for this tax increase will he be kind enough to explain something else?
The other day on orders of the day the hon. member for New Westminster received a reply to a question he had asked. In the answer that was given we discovered that the Department of National Health and Welfare, if my memory is correct, has spent about $126,000 across Canada on publicity to discourage cigarette smoking and the use of tobacco generally because such activities
December 13, 1967

bring with them the danger of cancer. On the other hand, the Department of Agriculture spent $450,000 on research to develop and improve tobacco that is grown in Ontario.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I see that I am being applauded. The Department of Agriculture spent, as I said, approximately $450,000 during 1966 on research to improve tobacco that is grown in Ontario. At the same time the Department of National Health and Welfare spent $126,000 on publicity in order to tell the people of Canada not to smoke. Would the minister please explain the reasons for this apparent paradox?


An hon. Member:: Half a million dollars lost.


Mitchell William Sharp: At least it can be said, Mr. Chairman, that through tobacco users we are raising money for the purpose of discouraging the use of tobacco. I understand that some provinces raise very large sums of money from the sale of alcohol in order to spread the virtues of prohibition.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: The minister has not understood my point at all. Will he please tell me, as Minister of Finance interested in saving the taxpayers' dollars, why one department spends $126,000 in publicity telling people not to smoke while another spends $450,000 to increase tobacco production? Come now, what is the hon. gentleman's answer?


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No. There is something I want to say with regard to spirits.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: On a point of order, I want to say something on the subject of tobacco before we go on to anything else.


Mr.   Chairman@: Order. I would point out to the committee that the resolution called was the resolution on the excise tax which deals with spirits. The one which follows is the resolution on the Excise Tax Act which deals with tobacco.


Mr. Monteiih:: No, Mr. Chairman, you
called the Excise Tax Act resolution.


An hon. Member:: It is five o'clock,
anyway.
Resolution reported and concurred in. 27053-3401
Suggested External Aid Program EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


AID PROGRAM-SUGGESTED INCLUSION OF FAMILY PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to including in its external aid program, family planning assistance U>
developing countries requesting such assistance, and that the government of Canada should take a more active role at the United Nations and its specialized agencies in supporting measures dealing with world population problems.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is tempting in considering the whole subject of external aid in a debate of this type to begin by discussing whether or not we are doing enough. A recommendation was made a few years ago at the first United Nations conference on trade and development that the developed countries should give 1 per cent of their gross national product toward external aid. We have not reached that target yet. However, time is limited and I shall attempt to keep to the subject of the motion.
Many of us are not satisfied with the total effort Canada is making in the field of external aid. However, it can still be said that this country is doing a great deal. We give food to countries which need it, capital in the form of money and equipment, and we are sending skilled manpower to help operate installations built in the developing countries. In addition we have given a considerable amount of aid to education. The government has done a good deal in this direction and there are many private agencies which have a good record in the field of external aid.
However, there seems to be one blind spot m relation to the question of population which is one of the most important problems facing the developing countries. A year ago a declaration on population was drawn up and presented to heads of government through the United Nations. This declaration was returned to the Secretary General of the United Nations two days ago in New York I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) whether he had been invited to sign it because I noted he had not done so.
I should like to make it clear that I am not one of those who oversimplify this problem. I am not one of those who say that if the developing countries would only do something about birth control and family planning all their problems would be solved. I realize it is not as simple as that. Many things have to be done if we are to minimize
5394	COMMONS
Suggested External Aid Program the suffering from famine which I think will surely come in the years ahead. We need to increase the production of food in this country for export to places where it is needed. We must help the developing countries to increase their own production and to develop both primary and secondary industries. And we must maintain our aid to education. I am, however, suggesting that the question of population is a most important one and that it should be considered by the Canadian government in its external aid program.
Many experts have predicted that whatever is done there will be very serious famine in the world within the next ten years. In recent years there has been famine in India particularly, but from now on famine is likely too occur in many parts of the world in spite of the best efforts we make. I am suggesting we could do certain things to reduce the effect of the famine which hundreds of millions will be facing.
I should like to quote briefly from a speech made on November 24, 1966 by Mr. Herbert H. Lank, chairman of the board of Dupont of Canada Limited, in an address to members of the Society of Chemical Industry, which has since been reprinted in a booklet called "Production And Reproduction, The Great Imbalance." Speaking of the famine threatening the world, Mr. Lank had this to say;

December 13, 1967
earlier, there were one billion people living in the' world. It had taken all of the time before that to reach that figure.
There are various estimates as to what the population of the world will be at the end of this century. A few conservative estimates put it at something less than six billion, or about double the present population, and there are other estimates which put the figure much higher at somewhere around seven billion.
I have just been reading the minutes of the external relations committee of the Senate, volume No. 1, for Thursday, December 7. Mr. Maurice Strong, director of external aid, was the witness, and in reply to a question about the population of the world he said:
Bv the year 2000 the population could rise to more than seven billion; even with a 30 per cent decrease in fertility the figure would be six billion.
The chairman then asked him what is the present population and he replied:
About 3.3 billion, which would be a little less than doubled at the six billion figure.
But, in terms of food production, this means that even to maintain the present inadequate nutritional levels in the less developed world, we will have to double the world's present food production by the end of the century. This involves matching in the next 33 years everything we have been able to achieve in food production since the beginning
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Famine will probably reach serious proportions in India, Pakistan and mainland China in the next three years. Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Brazil and a number of other countries are only a few years behind this timetable. Tens of thousands of children who will die of starvation within the next decade have not yet been conceived.
Complete anarchy could occur if hunger gets the upper hand in three-quarters of the world. We can hardly expect to escape the repercussions of such a catastrophe.
Storm signals are already flying. There were food riots in India again this year. In some parts of Africa there have been six consecutive years of drought. Fortunately, Australian production of cereals and animal foodstuffs will be better this year than last. But drought and flood in China will reduce this year's grain crops to the lowest in five years.
He was speaking of last year. Whenever we get into this subject I think it is necessary to quote figures which show the population growth in the world. I know hon. members may have heard them before but the figures are quite staggering and illustrate the extent of the problem. Today there are three billion plus people living in the world. In 1900, at the beginning of this century, there were two billion people. In 1800, 100 years
Even if many countries of the world adopt methods to try to control the size of families, the population of the world will approximately double by the end of the century, and that really is not a very long time away. However, the earth will not be any bigger. It will still be the same size as it was when we went to school and learned the facts and figures about the size of the earth, how many square miles of land it contains, how many square miles of ocean, and how much of the land is productive. The earth may become more productive. We may get more yield per acre in many parts of the world, but I suggest it will not be that much more productive. In fact in recent years the increase in population has been 2 per cent a year for the world as a whole and the increase in food production has been about 1 per cent a year. We cannot win at that rate.
When famine comes, and it is almost a certainty in the next 10 to 20 years in different parts of the world, we in Canada probably will not suffer. We will have enough to eat but other people will not. It is altogether unlikely that the food supply can be
[Mr. Prittie.l
December 13, 1967

increased rapidly enough to feed the increased population.
I have heard of various schemes to produce food from the ocean. I have heard of various plans to produce wonder foods on land, to produce synthetic food from chemicals. These things may happen some time but we should not count on them. We must count on the fact that food production in the world will continue to increase at a much slower rate than the people of the world will continue to increase.
There are many factors which block rapid increase in food production. Some of them are historical and cultural. It is hard to get people in underdeveloped lands to change their ways. It requires a long educational process to achieve that. It is possible that there will be more intensive use of fertilizers and the building of more plants to make fertilizers, but I suggest these things will not happen in time to prevent a very great shortage of food in the years ahead.
We can count on the fact that for the remainder of the twentieth century the production of people will greatly outstrip the production of food. Some countries have recognized the problem of the very great increase in world population and have realized that something must be done about it. Some of the developing countries have recognized the problem but others have not. For various religious and cultural reasons some countries will not face up to the problem, but others are ready to accept the idea that something should be done. India and Pakistan are two countries where there are no religious barriers to family planning.
Some of the developed countries which supply aid to underdeveloped countries have taken steps to meet the problem. The United States is one of them. This is something which I have followed with a great deal of interest. I first became aware of the subject when I was a parliamentary observer at the United Nations in 1962. At that time one of the committees I was attending, the second committee, was debating this subject. That year, for the first time, the United States government changed its position. Prior to that time, whenever there was a vote on population matters the United States had taken the same position as Canada had and which I believe Canada still takes. They both abstained. But that year, on orders from President Kennedy, the United States delegation cast a vote in favour of a resolution which called for the United Nations to take
Suggested External Aid Program action in this field. Since that time the United States has gone a great deal farther.


An hon. Member:: Why do you suppose Canada abstains?


Robert William Prittie: Suggested External Aid Program in due course will be coming to this house. I would think that this prohibition in the Criminal Code will be removed within the next few months.
* 15:20 p.m.)
r suggest, however, that this is no bar. No one else in Canada is paying any attention to the law. Indeed, government departments *over the years have prepared contraceptive materials. I suggest that in drawing up the external aid program for next year the Canadian government should change its policy. I suggest that it earmark certain funds to be made available to countries which wish aid in family planning. If the government is not willing to do this directly I suggest that it consider giving some money to agencies which are willing to do so.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out the importance of this problem in very real terms. Let us take a country like India where there are hundreds and thousands of starving people. I am sure all of us have seen pictures of cities such as Bombay and Calcutta which show wretched-looking people lying on the street with their ribs prominently exposed and also beggars in the street. These people do not have enough to eat. If Indian families can be persuaded to have two children instead of three, or five children instead of six or seven, then the problem could be alleviated to that extent. India and Pakistan are quite willing to accept this kind of aid from Canada, from the United States, from the United Nations or from any source which is willing to give such help.
Finally I should like to say that I do not wish to oversimplify the question of external aid. This is just one aspect of it. Increased food production by the farmers of Canada is very important. Increased food production by the people of the developing countries is very important. But let us not ignore this very important aspect of the whole problem of world population and how to feed people. Feeding the people is not the only problem faced by these countries. They do have to find food, but a rapidly increasing population means that somehow or other they also have to find schools, housing and all the public facilities which are necessary. They simply cannot cope with the problem they have today. They deserve some help from us in this particular field.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
IMr. Prittie.l
respond to the hon. member under three particular headings. First I should like to deal with the philosophical background of the problem of carrying out a particular policy in which there may be a contest among the principal religious groups in this country. Second, I should like to place on the record, for the benefit of the hon. member and the house generally, the actual approach which Canada has taken in international discussions. From this it will be seen that his generalities perhaps are a little out of date. Third, I should like to make some mention of the recent international discussions which have taken place in this field and make more particular reference to the international programs which are currently in existence with regard to population control.
First, therefore, the philosophical aspect of the problem, which the hon. member has acknowledged, is not removed from the controversy which has taken place principally among people of different religious convictions in this country concerning the propriety or otherwise of section 150(2)(c) of the Criminal Code. As a Protestant and a long-standing advocate of the amendment of this section I certainly would have no personal difficulty in seeing the government of Canada respond to a request for technical assistance and aid in dealing with the major international problem of population control. But as an elected representative, and one having some association with the government, I should like to suggest that not only this government but any Canadian government would have to take into account the difference of opinion which at the moment at least exists between the two principal religious groups in this country. I recognize the responsibility of taking into account the religious convictions of a very substantial minority of Canadians, a very large number of Canadians, whose religious views differ from mine.
In the face of our internal Canadian policy on this question, I believe the arguments for altering our law within Canada are unanswerable and I am glad the government has taken the initiative by introducing a bill in the Senate. As the hon. member knows, most of the Protestant churches are in favour of family planning not only in a permissive manner but in certain circumstances in an imperative manner. It is therefore contrary to the fundamental concept of our society that conduct which a very large religious group regards as proper should be declared
December 13, 1967

to be criminal. Those who do not share that religious belief are not under any imperative to practice family planning. But for those who do believe in family planning there should be that freedom of choice without running into jeopardy in the face of the criminal law.
I think it is only fair, however, to relate the argument put forward by persons of other religious faith that in dealing with foreign policy on this question the exact reverse of the logic applies with regard to Canadian participation in international aid projects. With regard to the amendment to the Criminal Code to abolish section 150(2)(c), those of us who are abolitionists could quite legitimately say that it should be a matter of our personal choice as to what we do and that that choice in no way binds others. The argument which has been turned on us by those who oppose family planning assistance in the international context is that their funds, taken from them by the general tax system, are being used to further practices which, on religious grounds, they abhor. They say that the freedom of action which I claim for myself would not be reciprocated if they must, like it or not, see their taxes go for family planning at the international level. The logic of that argument compels recognition even though I do not share the premise upon which it is founded.
I am cognizant of the very intensive consideration which this question of family planning, and particularly the question of the world population explosion, is now receiving within the highest councils of the Roman Catholic Church. I am cognizant of the fact that many leaders of that church both in Canada and abroad have expressed support for a change in the church's doctrine. I am hopeful that an effective accommodation between that doctrine and the awesome reality of the world population explosion can be achieved. I also hope for a definitive conclusion in the near future of the re-examination of traditional Catholic doctrine on this question. I think the hon. member would be the first to agree that it is better to make a change by persuasion, particularly a change on the basis of religious faith, rather than attempt to do it irrespective of belief.
Principles which have governed the government of Canada in the field of external aid with regard to family planning are several. I should like to take the opportunity to set them out for the benefit of the house.
Suggested External Aid Program


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member deals with this aspect of his speech would he like to answer a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By all means.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does the hon. member not feel that it is quite impossible to deal with the problem of world poverty by increased production and programs of external aid until the world successfully grapples with the question of population control or the population explosion which the hon. member's resolution has brought before the house?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1 think it is an
indisputable fact that the question of economic development alone cannot be solved without some resolution of the world population problem. It is because of the very awesome nature of this problem that the policies I am about to set out have been followed by the government. As I have said, surely any government of this country should take into account the religious convictions, which at the moment happen to be opposed, of two very large religious groups and should arrive at a policy which we would hope at least would offend neither.
* (5:30 p.m.)
The first principle that should apply in this field is that the initiative for action should come from the governments of the developing countries. Indeed, one could say in general terms that this is the thrust of all international aid programs. The initiative and requests for aid should come from developing countries, particularly where population pressures present the gravest problems for the economic development and well-being of their societies. It is quite reasonable for developed countries, the United Nations organizations and others, to look for a decision by the developing countries in respect of a request for this kind of assistance, and then carry out aid programs in co-operation with the countries in order to deal with population problems.
The second foundation of our Canadian view on this matter is that the United Nations, particularly through agencies included under its own budget such as the United Nations development program and UNICEF, and specialized agencies such as UNESCO, FAO and the world health organization, are particularly well placed to respond in an effective manner to requests for information and other assistance on the question of population problems from developing
5398	COMMONS
Suggested External Aid Program countries. It is in this respect that we have been prepared to support the United Nations' endeavours in this regard.
In respect of our bilateral program I should like to say that the bilateral program, contrary to what the hon. member for Bur-naby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) suggested, is not one in respect of which Canada has received a request from any developing country for assistance. This is the practice followed in this field throughout the world. Canada has not received any requests for bilateral assistance from any developing country. The hon. member mentioned India and Pakistan. No such request has been forthcoming. It has been the view of Canadian authorities that we would be in a position to respond to requests for help in certain specialized fields which are central to the problem of population control, such as demographic and sociological studies.
I should like to refer in this regard to the report of the fourteenth session of the population commission which is United Nations document W/CN.9/219 published in October, 1967. It gives the results of a study and a description of the problems of family planning, and at page 9, paragraph 17, the following is stated:
The growing importance of population trends as a factor in development calls for a more systematic and detailed study of ail factors influencing population growth, its structural changes and the consequences arising therefrom. Nuclei of staff with demographic and related types of background and training are only just beginning to emerge in the developing countries, however; the lack of professional staff in these fields is being increasingly felt. Requirements for professionally trained persons grow constantly, whereas training itself is a slow process.
It is this kind of thing to which the government of Canada is prepared to respond. The report continues at page 11 to emphasize the importance of demographic studies in an approach to this particular problem. In respect of bilateral assistance I think it is fair to note that except for Sweden no bilateral assistance was forthcoming in this field until approximately 1964 or 1965. Since that time three Scandinavian countries, the United States and the United Kingdom have been providing assistance.
The hon. member referred to his experience at the United Nations during the 1962 general assembly. I do not argue with the position that he took, but I should like to point out that the position of the government of Canada in respect of this international council has changed. More particularly it was

DEBATES	December 13, 1967
changed during the 1965 summer meeting of the economic and social council of the United Nations. That was the first year that Canada was represented on that council in its current term. This is a three-year term and it expires at the end of this month.
The question of population control was brought before the economic and social council as a result of the delivery of the report of the thirteenth session of the population commission which has made an extensive study of the problem. At that time the economic and social council adopted, with the positive support of Canada-not just an abstention but an active vote-a resolution with regard to assistance by the United Nations and its specialized agencies to help resolve this problem in respect of population control. This is economic and social council resolution 1084 dated July 30, 1965.
Let me refer to some of the provisions of this resolution to indicate the endorsement given by the economic and social council to these endeavours by United Nations agencies with the positive support of Canada. The resolution endorsed the recommendation in a resolution of the thirteenth session on the long range program of work in the fields of population, including its recommendation with regard to the increase and improvement of demographic statistics, the strengthening of regional demographic training and research centres, and other activities to increase the supply of technically trained personnel in the developing countries, expansion and intensification of research and technical work, widening of the scope and increase of the amount of technical assistance in population fields.
The resolution also called to the attention of the general assembly the need to provide, within the framework of decisions taken to balance the budgets of the United Nations, funds for the United Nations to carry out the intensified and expanded program of activities in the fields of population, recommended by the population commission. It also recommended consultation with other specialized agencies of the United Nations as to the co-ordinated program which might be followed in the population field. One of the particular impacts of that resolution was the authorization of further action by the United Nations development program, a program to which Canada in recent years has provided financial support. It has provided over $10
December 13, 1967

million this year. This is a program undertaken by the U.N.D.P. to assist those countries which request assistance in respect of population control.
The resolution of the economic and social council, which was passed with Canadian support, was further supported by a resolution passed by the twenty first general assembly and the second committee, on which I had the honour to be representing the government of Canada. This is dated December 29, 1966 and is general assembly resolution 2211. I think several aspects of that resolution are of value because they indicate the approach the United Nations has taken to this question of international assistance to family planning.
The general assembly resolution recognized the need for further study of the growth structure and demographic distribution of population to economic and social development, including national health, nutrition, technical and social welfare programs to be carried out at all levels of government activity. It also recognized the sovereignty of nations in formulating their own population policies with due regard to the principle that the size of a family should be according to the free choice of each individual family. The members of the house will note that this also recognizes the sovereignty of individual countries to make their own decisions. The resolution also notes with satisfaction the success of efforts by the world health organization, the economic and social council and other United Nations entities in promoting assistance in family planning.
I think I can say with some justice to the hon. member and to the house that the position of 1962 has been reversed and that in respect of international multilateral institutions the government of Canada has been prepared to support resolutions in favour of family planning and population control and is prepared to continue to provide funds to these institutions in order that they may carry out their functions, including these programs.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Initiatives which have been taken by the U.N.D.P. have also been matched in the World Health Organization to which Canada is a contributor and has given its support, in the Food and Agricultural Organization to which Canada is also a contributor, and in
27053-34i
Suggested External Aid Program the UNICEF program in which Canadians have played a particularly prominent part. I would not like to mention UNICEF without referring to the leadership given to that organization by the deputy minister of National Health and Welfare, Dr. Joseph Willard, who has been chairman of the executive committee of UNICEF for the past two years, and particularly to our late colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg South, Mrs. Margaret Konantz, who played such an active part in the role of UNICEF in this country.
Canadians have been active in the international institutions in dealing with this important problem of population control. The Canadian government, by its formal votes both in ECOSOC and in the general assembly, has given support to the proposals put forward and has seen that funds made available to these multilateral agencies have been applied in carrying out these United Nations resolutions.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think it can legitimately be said that it has been a useful occupation of the hon. member to bring this important question before the house. I think he would agree that his rather pessimistic assessment of the role of the government of Canada in this field has not been justified and we have been active in the international field in supporting these measures.


Henry P. Latulippe: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I feel he is straying somewhat from the subject now under study, that is, the advisability of helping foreign countries with regard to family planning. The hon. member for Comp-ton-Frontenac is constructing a monetary
December 13, 1967

theory which is doubtless interesting but which may not, in this instance, help foreign countries.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for your remarks, but now I would like to point out in turn that, if we are to help foreign countries, we must first try to find the money. This is exactly what I am doing. Money is needed to accomplish something, for nothing can be done without it.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are convinced that our present system is an impediment to peace and disarmament; it gives rise to commercial abuses which degenerate into international conflicts. That is the cause of the serious problems we are experiencing at this time. What other countries are requesting is the means for self-financing, so they can meet their needs for adequate living conditions.
The financial pump is primed for tremendous arms expenditures. In the present state of the cold war, a great deal of money is thus issued for the production of items that are kept off the market. So, when the tools of war, engines of destruction are being made, no food is being produced to feed the hungry.' That, Mr. Speaker, is the point we have reached with our unbalanced system favouring only a few people privileged by the economy or the system who have the avan-tage of controlling everything and of laying their hands on everything. If we want to have something, we must first eliminate the problem, that is to say this vast pact which weighs on the whole economy of the nation or of the nations.
So, I will say that it is difficult to deny the statement of Professor Galbraighth and others who claim that without an economic expansion based on arms production, there would be an economic breakdown in the United States.
Well, I support the statements of this professor. If, tomorrow, we were to cease the production of arms, a recession would settle on the country. There are means other than the production of arms and betting everything on war, mortgaging the whole Canadian economy, taking what the Canadians are entitled to have and what other countries are rightfully entitled to expect from the Canadians so as to invest all that in the making of tools and ships to wage war.
When we go to war, we sow destruction; when we sow destruction, we have no respect for the human being. The human being is the
27053-341}
Suggested External Aid Program primary factor in a world economy; whatever their race, their colour or their language, human beings are entitled to the greatest respect.
We should be able to organize our economy so as to give work to all unemployed in Canada who live at the expense of others, and all those who are in receipt of welfare payments and who do not participate in production. Those who are trained under the retraining program do not take part in production for Canadians or to assist foreigners. By giving work to all these people, in short, by putting the financial economy at the service of Canadians, at the service of production, we could assist others with our surplus products.
We could use our surplus production to help other countries to a large extent and we would be true Canadians. We would be proud to help foreigners.
But since our economy is unbalanced, uncontrolled, misdirected, we cannot do it. We must think of ourselves first; some Canadians lack clothing or wood or oil for-heating.
There is a lot to be done for Canadians and charity begins at home. Even if some foreign countries have great needs, great problems, we have ours. We are told that Canada is the second most prosperous country in the world; we enjoy affluence by borrowing money or letting debts pile up. That is our kind of prosperity.
Nobody can enjoy prosperity without getting into debt. We should realize that changes in our economy are necessary. Our economy should be balanced and we should accept the logical solutions which are proposed in this house. We should do something, that is we should become realistic and stop living in fantasy as we do now.
Realities do exist in Canada; there are physical things which can be achieved. There is a labour potential, capable of doubling Canada's production in two or three years. We could double the country's production if we were to put the financial interests at the service of the Canadian people. Instead of doing that, we restrict credit, we lower the purchasing power of the Canadian people and we put them out of work, we prevent them from producing and developing Canada.

December 13, 1967

Suggested External Aid Program That, Mr. Speaker, is the situation where we find ourselves, and that is the objective we must set for ourselves if we want to help other countries.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution in the hope that it will be passed quickly.


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


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 14, 1967