1967-10-06

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Right Hon. Horace King, Speaker of the British House of Commons. It is indeed a privilege to welcome Mr. Speaker King to the Canadian House of Commons, a house inspired by the same traditions and concepts as the ancient and honourable chamber over which he presides.
We in Canada have welcomed many distinguished guests during this our centennial year. Some have been heads of state, others have been heads or members of governments. But Mr. King's sphere of jurisdiction is strictly parliamentary and he thus calls forth from us, the members of the Canadian House of Commons, a very special greeting.
We Canadian parliamentarians are aware that the concepts of liberty we cherish are nowhere more fittingly embodied than in the person of the Speaker who presides over the most historic legislative assembly in the commonwealth. Seven hundred years of parliamentary evolution have transformed the Speaker's position from that of an obscure spokesman with somewhat unenviable and uncertain duties to one of the most honoured and respected public offices in the realm. Doctor King occupies an office which can be traced almost without a break back to the fourteenth century, even to the remote origins of the institution of parliament.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)

True to a long parliamentary tradition, Mr. Speaker King has to his credit an honourable record of service which brought new lustre to the Chair of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. His visit to Ottawa, the first by a British Speaker to the parliament of Canada is a joy and an honour.
Mr. Speaker, you are welcome among your colleagues and your friends of the Canadian House of Commons.

We are extremely pleased and honoured to welcome you, Mr. Speaker, in your personal
capacity and for the great parliamentary ideal which you represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-158, to amend the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in recent times there has been a great increase in interest at the community level in the building of arenas, swimming pools and other facilities for the promotion of fitness and there has been increased use of these facilities for amateur sport activities. The purpose of the bill is to permit, under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act, assistance to be given to those organizations which are interested in constructing such facilities, as well as to advance interest in fitness and amateur sport and the use of such facilities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-159, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Ellwood Madill: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been introduced for the purpose of changing the name of the new electoral district of Peel-Dufferin to that of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe. The former riding of Dufferin-Simcoe consisted of six townships, several towns and all of Dufferin county. With redistribution half the Simcoe area has been included to form the new riding of York-Simcoe. The remainder of Simcoe is in the new riding which is named Peel-Dufferin. I am requesting that the new

October 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry riding be named Peel-DufEerin-Simcoe in order that it may be better identified.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BROADCASTING


Hon. John N. Turner (for the Secretary of State) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In the light of reports circulating today can he tell the house whether his department has decided on an early phase-out of the Air Canada overhaul base in Winnipeg?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. The statement by the president of Air Canada was made without consultation with the government, and came as a complete surprise.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Can the minister assure the house that there is no change in the policy of this department as far as the future of this base is concerned?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The government has been giving urgent and constant consideration to the best means by which appropriate aviation support facilities can be maintained in the Winnipeg area. There is no change in that policy.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask either the minister or the Prime Minister a supplementary question with regard to this matter. In view of the fact that the announcement by Air Canada is contrary to the commitment given by the Prime Minister in this house, will the government of Canada meet with the government of Manitoba on this issue as requested by Premier Roblin?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly, as far as our department is concerned, I would be pleased to
[Mr. Madlll.)
meet with the premier or his representative on some appropriate occasion and discuss the matter. I can assure the hon. member that in the meantime the consideration we have been giving to this matter will continue because, as I indicated a moment ago, we want to find an appropriate means of keeping facilities at Winnipeg.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board, and I have sent him notice. What steps are being taken to eliminate the backlog of applications for registration by charitable organizations wishing to issue receipts for income tax purposes?


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he confirm that Dr. Dotsenko, a noted physicist of U.S.S.R. origin, has applied for political asylum in Canada, and would the hon. gentleman advise what steps the government has taken in this regard?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It is a fact that Dr. Dotsenko, who is an exchange student at the University of Alberta under the exchange agreement between the University of Alberta and the University of Kiev, has of his own free will asked to remain in Canada at the termination of his ten months visa, and the visa has been extended for a period of a year.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry. Before I do so I should like to congratulate him on his promotion to front
October 6, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry bench status. I am sure we are all glad to see relieved of his duties with the centennial him there.	commission.


An hon. Member:: It was inevitable, Judy-wise.


George Harris Hees: My question is as follows. Have the automobile manufacturers advised the government that the falling off in sales during September was caused by recent price increases; and if so, does the government intend to take any action to remedy this situation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: thank the hon. gentleman for his kind remarks, particularly about the inevitability of promotion. With respect to the question, the automobile manufacturers have not advised the government-because I do not think it is the case-that any change in the rate of sales is the consequence of price adjustments.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Frank Howard: Because of the musical chairs arrangement, and because I cannot see just where the Secretary of State is sitting, perhaps I could direct my question to the Prime Minister. Without touching on the publicity given to this matter by the news media may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he has been given any indication that John Fisher of the centennial commission has submitted, or intends to submit, his resignation.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this question is one of immediate urgency. Of course if the house feels it should be answered I will recognize it.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, having said yes I think I should be permitted to follow that up and say it is not for the reason indicated in the press report at all.


Frank Howard: Am I correct in understanding, though, that Mr. Fisher has submitted his resignation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. He has been offered an important assignment in the journalistic world. He has to take that up some time next month and has asked to be


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Before asking a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I say I did not intend to ask this question because I wrote to the Prime Minister about Mr. Fisher yesterday. However, I wonder whether the government and the Prime Minister do not feel there is an obligation in fairness to this man who served his country very well during this centennial year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend was good enough to write me about this, and I agree with what was said in his letter. Mr. Fisher's services have been of great value to the country during centennial year, and I hope they can be recognized in some suitable way. I am sure they are recognized in one way by the offer he has received and accepted.


George Harris Hees: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has indicated that the government desires to do something very special for such a distinguished civil servant, did the government make Mr. Fisher any offer of an appropriate position in the future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had something in mind which I had discussed with the Secretary of State which I thought might be of interest to Mr. Fisher, and had arranged to see him. As a matter of fact this offer he accepted has come as a surprise to me, but I still hope to see Mr. Fisher, perhaps with the Secretary of State.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding the strike at Malton airport affecting Consolidated Aviation Fueling Limited. Has he anything more definite to report than what he said yesterday, and is the government taking any active part in trying to bring about a settlement in this matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I really do not think there is anything I can usefully add to what I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker. The airport is still in operation, and I personally hope it will be able to continue in operation. This is one of the busiest week

October 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry ends of the year so far as Canadian travellers are concerned, and I hope they will be able to complete their journeys without interruption.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, in addition to the hopes expressed by the minister is the government actively engaged in trying to bring about a settlement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is really a question for my colleague the Minister of Labour, if he would care to answer it.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, might I say my department has intervened in the matter and will be holding exploratory discussions as quickly as possible.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the ability of a very small group to tie up a very important transport facility in this country, has the government given consideration to a different type of supply system Which would make it more difficult for this kind of situation to occur in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the near tragedy at Malton airport last Monday, involving an Air Canada DC-8 and a small private plane, and in view of other similar occurrences in recent months, will the minister take appropriate measures to ensure that air traffic control procedures and other safety measures are strictly enforced and, if necessary, improved?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is a general question which it is difficult to deal with on orders of the day, but certainly I appreciate the problem. Of course the answer to the question is that the department makes every effort to enforce its regulations in order to guarantee the safety of Canadian air passengers. However, that is becoming increasingly difficult, as my hon. friend will appreciate, with the volume of traffic increasing at a tremendous rate and the number of light planes now being operated by Canadian individuals.
This puts an extra demand on the department to provide additional facilities, and the department is studying on a national basis

what it can do in the years ahead to move some of the light plane traffic away from the international airports in order to make it easier for them and facilitate long range travel.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether the minister or the officials in his department are thinking of giving some type of special commendation to the pilot of the DC-8 who used such presence of mind in preventing a serious tragedy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member now is making a submission to the minister.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REVIEW OF TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I apologize for not giving him notice, but I had a most urgent appointment which kept me tied up all morning.
In view of the recent disclosure in the United States concerning the increased power production at Grand Coulee, would the minister consider sending the Columbia river treaty to the appropriate committee in an effort to obtain a revision of this unfortunate treaty?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I believe this would be beyond the capacity or jurisdiction of the committee.



ALBERTA-REQUEST FOR INCREASED WHEAT QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: While I am on my
feet, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce may I answer a question which was asked on Wednesday by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose. On October 2 there were 213 delivery stations in Alberta, 127 in Saskatchewan and 123 in Manitoba still on the unit quota of 400 bushels. There were 197 points in Alberta on the one bushel per specified acre quota compared with 548 in Saskatchewan and 159 in Manitoba. I might add that there is an open quota on Durum wheat and flaxseed.
October 6, 1967

As hon. members are aware, the wheat crop fortunately is higher than was forecast toward the latter part of July. The latest Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimate of the 1967 wheat crop is 574 million bushels. The farmers therefore have a considerable quantity of wheat which of necessity must be delivered to the country elevators as the crop year unfolds and as sales are made in the export and domestic markets.
In the meantime I would urge producers to take advantage of the interest free loans which are available under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act to the extent they feel they need them.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice. Is consideration being given at this time to the request of the Canadian Bar Association for the establishment of a national commission on human rights to combat discrimination in Canada?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: No immediate consideration is being given to this request, for the simple reason that many areas covered by the laws against discrimination in Canada fall within provincial jurisdiction. It would therefore be difficult at this time to have a commission which would have authority in this field. However, I will give further consideration to the question in view of the fact that we intend to have a conference on the bill of rights which would put the question of discrimination above both federal and provincial jurisdiction.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chafierion (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, is the right hon. the Prime Minister today in a position to give an answer with regard to my question in respect of a federal-provincial conference on medicare?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether my hon. friend would be patient until Tuesday, because the minister just returned and I have not been able to discuss the matter with him. I am sure the
Inquiries of the Ministry
answer is very simple and one I should know, but I do not.
equipping of motor vehicles with
EXHAUST CONTROLS On the orders of the day:


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government aware of the statement made yesterday by the health director of the city of Montreal to the effect that because of the slow moving vehicle traffic caused by the strike the air pollution situation has reached a very dangerous level. Because of this and similar situations which face our metro areas, will the government now assure the house that it is speeding up its study of the exhaust control regulations established under mandate by the government in Washington so we could have a national standard as quickly as possible?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am able to agree to the operative part of the question.


Mr. Nielsen:: That was an exhaustive reply.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquetie (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the cabinet. Perhaps the brilliant Minister of Justice will answer. Since the Conservative party, including the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), has endorsed the two nation concept, does the government, instead of the next federal-provincial conference, plan to call a conference at which representatives of the French speaking nation on one side, and representatives of the English speaking nation on the other side, could get together?

INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO CONTROL COSTS On the orders of the day:


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and relates to the minister's comments yesterday in which he suggested that during the past ten years the pharmaceutical industry has done little to control the rising cost of drugs. He indicated that some action may be contemplated by the government, and I am wondering when the house will be informed as to the details of this action.

October 6, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is
proposed that legislation will be introduced during this session. It is being prepared at this time and hopefully will be introduced very shortly.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. The minister indicated that in the face _ of this problem his department would be willing to consider some suitable action. Is the minister contemplating such action to be included in his presentation of the budget to this house next year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is referring to the presentation of the budget next year. This question could properly and easily be placed on the order paper.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Louis Chatterton: Mr Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will he advise the house when he expects to receive the report of the departmental committee on pension rates.


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it is rather difficult for me to answer that question. The report will be presented as soon as it is possible to complete it. Unfortunately it has not been completed as yet, and I cannot place a time on its completion.


George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, will the minister use his influence with this committee to expedite its report in order that the minister's promise to bring forward legislation in respect of the Pension Act before the end of 1964 can be implemented at an early date?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister assure the house that when the report is received it will be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, this involves an interdepartmental study and I am afraid I cannot give that kind of assurance at this time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister how he is going to
[Mr. MacDonald (Prince) .1
overcome the slashing techniques of the Minister of Finance in order to implement the necessary increases in pensions to which reference has been made.



NAVIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, as we now have a Minister of Transport coming from central Canada instead of the maritimes, I would like to put a question to him.
Can the minister tell us whether his department intends to take special measures to maintain navigation on the St. Lawrence river during the winter months?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether this question is really urgent. I would suggest to the hon. member, if he believes there is urgency, to discuss it on the adjournment motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, when the St. Lawrence is frozen, it will be too late to ask the minister whether he has taken measures to maintain winter navigation. Here is the question I asked the Minister of Transport: Have steps been taken to keep the St. Lawrence open during the coming winter?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question could be put on the order paper. If the hon. member feels that it should be discussed on the adjournment motion, he could give notice accordingly.


Gilles Grégoire: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a petition from a residents' committee of Calgary relating to human problems arising out of urban renewal? If he has read that brief I should like to ask what action he plans to take in that connection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.
October 6, 1967


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government received any word concerning the report that the United States is planning an invasion of North Viet Nam, and will the minister make clear Canada's opposition to any such move?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have no information that would in any way support the view that such a plan was in the offing. If it were we would certainly have great reservations.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 5, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith (p. 1197).
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
refer to standing order 5.
In view of the fact that we are being systematically refused the right to speak in this house, or so it seems, may I ask for unanimous consent to be absent from this house, thereby complying with the provisions of standing orders?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, do I have the unanimous consent of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe I gave a ruling a few days ago on standing order No. 5, to which the member has referred, explaining that it is now obsolete. The hon. member may therefore take leave of absence without first obtaining the consent of the house.
The Budget-Mr. Grafftey Mr. Gregoire: Mr. Speaker, I have here the last edition of standing orders dated May 8 1967 and order No. 5 is in it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: If it is obsolete, it should be
removed.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly obvious that I am going to have problems with my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) this morning.
Mr. Speaker, last night the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) opened his speech by discussing a few matters concerning external affairs. Usually, that topic is not discussed during the debate on the budget. It is obvious that foreign and domestic affairs cannot be discussed in a vacuum, since they affect each other and our policy in the field of foreign affairs has a direct and indirect influence on the expenditures of our government.


Auguste Choquette: That is the leader we wanted, a bilingual leader.


William Heward Grafftey: My friend from Lotbiniere is well aware of the national poll we conducted last summer in this country and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the issue with which our Canadian population is most concerned is that of foreign affairs. Our people, as concerns our foreign policy, want greater clearness or, if you wish, a greater Canadian content.


Auguste Choquette: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Not right away, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps at the end of my speech, I shall do what I can to answer. At this time, I am beginning slowly, not fast, but let me begin.


Auguste Choquette: According to your poll of the Canadian population-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member for Lotbiniere that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has the floor and should not be interrupted in this way.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member is beginning his speech by referring to me, to a poll. I want to know if this poll shows that the people want
two nations or one nation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Grafftey
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


William Heward Grafftey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I begin I should like to say that the fact that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) last night in the budget debate touched upon the question of foreign affairs was of great interest to me and, I am sure, to the rest of the house. Normally this is not done in a budget debate, but I think it was timely and important that he did so because it is my belief, which may be surprising to most of us in this house, that foreign affairs is the subject which concerns Canadians most at the present time.
Although I do not intend to devote much of my speech this morning to this subject, let me simply say in summary that it is my impression that people all over Canada want, in a bi-partisan sense, more clarity and more Canadian content in our foreign affairs posture. They do not want differences for differences sake. They understand only too well that an independent foreign policy is difficult for a nation such as Canada in 1967. Without being anti-American, Canadians are worried that too much of our foreign affairs policy is dictated by Washington. I do not think this is necessarily the case. It is easier to discuss it than to act.
I think more Canadians would like to see Canada play a greater peace making rather than a peace keeping role. While we must honour many of our traditional commitments such as NORAD and NATO, Canada should display-and I think Washington would welcome this-more initiative and experimentation in this field, something that is not now provided to Washington with its world leadership role in the field of foreign affairs. In view of the fact that perhaps the real challenge is one of an economic nature in areas such as Latin America, Asia, Africa and southeast Asia, this realignment of our foreign affairs posture will certainly affect our budgetary expenses. Therefore I think it was timely that the President of the Privy Council should have brought up this subject last night.
Let me give my opinion on the following subject in brief summary. I have no scientific backing for it, but it is my belief that the things that are concerning Canadians most today, in order of importance, are first, foreign affairs; second, on the domestic scene, taxes and the cost of living, and that is what I intend to speak about this morning; third, national unity; and fourth, political leadership, not only relating to the quality of in-
[Mr. Speaker.)

dividual leaders but relating to the capacity of our institutions, both federal and provincial, to solve the kind of problems that are facing a modern state and its provinces.
As I said, sir, the second most important issue that is concerning Canadians today is taxes and the rising cost of living. The sounding we conducted-and I admit it was not a scientific sounding, of which there are plenty today, but a political one, although not political in the narrow sense of the word-gave us an indication of what the Canadian people were thinking in relation to taxes and the cost of living.
In summary this is what we found. Tremendous concern is shown for the amount of money it is taking people to live these days. Although complaints about taxes have existed as long as taxes themselves, the problem of inflation has not. In general people want the government to exercise more restraint in spending so as to keep taxes down. They want people living on fixed incomes, especially pensioners, to be given a break, and they want the government to tackle inflation before it prices food, for example, right out of their reach. Last week we found that housing is being priced right out of the reach of the people, but I have found, after speaking to thousands of Canadians in every corner of this nation, that today food also is being priced right out of the reach of the people. So Canadians at the grass roots level, no matter what the minister says, expect the federal government to start tackling the problem of inflation and the rising cost of living.
Let us look at the background of this whole problem. Let us go back nine, ten or eleven years. Like the President of the Privy Council I do not want to be inadvertently partisan, and regardless of who was in power at that time let us review in general summary our approach to the problems, of the cost of living, inflation and high prices. In those days both the elected representatives and the economic experts agreed it was a serious matter and it was not a situation with which we would necessarily have to live. Prosperity in the true and profound sense of the word did not mean that we had to get used to spiralling costs and inflation, and if we really were going to have prosperity we should at all times confront the problem of inflation and high prices. So ten years ago there was a general feeling that publicly elected officials and economists would take the problem of inflation seriously, and that it had to be met head on by the federal government.
October 6, 1967

The phrase "by the federal government" leads me to my second contention, namely that ten years ago there was absolutely no doubt about the proposition that it was the federal government which had the primary responsibility to exercise leadership and meet this problem head on. What do we find today? We find this government approaching the problem of inflation in the same way it does every other issue that faces and concerns the Canadian people; that is, by hiding behind the constitution. The Minister of Finance invokes the constitution in exactly the same way as the hon. gentleman who is now sitting beside him did last week on the housing crisis.
What this government should do is go on a national tour and wave the constitution in front of all those people who are faced with these myriad problems. The government say "We cannot do anything; the constitution says we cannot". This government cannot keep fooling the people. Every time a pressing national problem comes up the government gives a little lecture to the municipalities and a little lecture to the provinces and then says to the public "We would like to act but we cannot because of the constitution." The same government whose Prime Minister travels right across the country saying "The real problem today is that there are far too many powerful provincial premiers encroaching on the national interest and chiselling away at federal powers" invokes the constitution every time a national issue comes up such as housing, inflation, air, water and soil pollution, urban development, and highway and automobile deaths and injuries. The government say "We are not going to do anything" and then wonder why people are losing faith in federal leadership.
Lack of federal leadership is another issue about which the Canadian people in every corner of this land are talking. The government has abdicated its responsibilities in all areas involving national issues. No matter what this government says, its attitude today is that it does not consider the high cost of living, inflation and spiralling prices as serious matters. It is not doing much if anything about them, except to inform the nation from time to time that it is chipping away at expenditures here and there. This is what the Minister of Finance tells us from time to time. We wonder how successful he is going to be.
The government is projecting the idea that it is not taking the question seriously. This is the situation today as opposed to the situation ten years ago when there was no doubt about
The Budget-Mr. Grafftey
who had the responsibility in this matter. The government again invokes the constitution.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
In case I am accused of being partisan, Mr. Speaker, let me refer to some more objective sources. Let me refer to the warning given by the International Monetary Fund, something I do not believe it would do lightly. I think bodies like the International Monetary Fund are pretty careful before doing anything that might look as if they are involving themselves in the domestic concerns of nations. So I am sure it was only after much thought and hard work this summer and much, if you will, diplomatic consideration that the International Monetary Fund issued a public warning to the minister and to the government to the effect that they would have to wake up and deal with the problem of inflation if the economy of this country is going to be healthy in the true sense of the word. In addition to the International Monetary Fund the Economic Council of Canada, another independent, non-political body, similarly warned the government.
The Canadian people in every corner of the country are, generally speaking, saying one thing about this government. The picture is not all doom and gloom, though perhaps the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) will accuse me of being a little irresponsible by painting a doom and gloom picture. In spite of this government, say the people, there are many healthy signs in the economy and its future potential. But the general feeling is that as a result of its ill timed and ill considered fiscal, monetary and spending policies this government has destroyed the options open to it and in fact is mismanaging the economy.
I have attempted to pinpoint the background of the problem, Mr. Speaker, and to outline my view that while we must have the co-operation of the municipalities, of industry and of labour in meeting the problems, of inflation and the cost of living, it is the federal government which must give leadership and confront this problem, thus giving the people the feeling that the federal government is leading them in this regard.
Just in case hon. members opposite do not feel that the cost of living today is a serious problem, Mr. Speaker, let me ask them whom it affects. I sometimes think we are a little smug about this, and I have no wish to be demagogic in this regard. It is true that we are blessed with a young country which enjoys the second highest standard of living in the history of the world, but this is small
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Grafftey comfort to the 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the people who are ill housed and who live in deprivation, poverty, even destitution.
These conditions have been defined by, I think it is, the Ontario labour council. They define poverty as a family of four living on an income of under $3,000; destitution as a family of four living on under $2,000; and deprivation as a family of four living on under $4,000. What about the 500,000 rural families living on net annual incomes of under $2,000?
What is the government doing for our pensioners and people who live on fixed and shrinking incomes, those who are suffering from poverty amidst plenty? This hard-pressed core of our society is being affected by inflation and the cost of living.
Those of us whose salaries, investment income or other forms of income rise to compensate us for the increasing cost of living also complain a little, but we are nowhere nearly as badly off as those people living in deprivation, destitution or poverty on shrinking and fixed incomes. These are the people who are affected by inflation and the cost of living, and it does not serve us well to boast about the general high standard of living in Canada and the fact that we have the second highest economic standard of living in the world while this situation confronts us.
What does democracy mean, Mr. Speaker, to these people who are living in grinding poverty, who are faced with spiralling costs which price food out of their hands, who are confronted by a government that shoves statistics relating to housing or the cost of living in front of them and does not give them any feeling that it will grapple with the problem and take some action to correct it? The government does not take the problem seriously. It is a government that, when it is confronted with an immediate problem demanding immediate action, does one of many things. It cites the constitution and says we are going to have a federal-provincial conference on the constitution. We are told we are going to have a symposium on the problem at various points across the country. We are told that studies are going to be conducted. We are told about parliamentary joint committees and task forces.
However, Mr. Speaker, this government cannot fool the people any longer. Of course modern problems demand study and the allocation of research dollars. There are times when there is need for studies to be made, and I am not against studies. But there is also a time to act, and I must say that this is the most inactive, retrograde government that we


have ever seen in the history of this country. I ask the government not to be afraid of leadership in the area of housing or inflation. The people want the government to lead. The trouble with this government is that it has abdicated its responsibilities, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanbury:: What about the previous government?


William Heward Grafftey: I know my sophisticated friend in the back row does not like speeches that come from the heart, but I might tell him that if he only went to his people he would soon discover the facts. He probably thinks I am being demagogic. I realize he was automatically elected in the big swing, but if he would keep close to his people he would soon find there is want in this country. If some politicians speak passionately occasionally it is because they know the problems of their people.
The No. 2 problem with this government, Mr. Speaker, is that it is dominated in its ministry and on its front benches by those who have a bureaucratic attitude. We have a wonderful bureaucracy which is second to none, but I am sure the bureaucrats themselves are worried at the fact that the front benches of the Liberal party are dominated by ex-senior civil servants, including the Minister of Finance. I suggest this is one reason the hon. member who just interrupted me is out of touch with his own people, and why I doubt whether he will stay in office much longer.
If I am demagogic, Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize for one moment. I suggest that hon. members opposite who share the views of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) take a trip across the country and speak to the people and they will soon discover that there is want and poverty amidst plenty in Canada today.
One reason there is inflation and a rising cost of living in this country, creating greater and greater hardship on those living in destitution, poverty and deprivation, is this. I think we often mislead ourselves in terms of what we consider to be social welfare legislation. These laws are passed admittedly by men whose hearts are in the right place, and I like to think that every member of this house has the best of intentions. But it is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, just to have your heart in the right place; you have to pass legislation that will work. And the problem with much of the universal welfare legislation we have passed in the months and years that have gone by is that it is not reaching the
October 6, 1967	COMMONS
root source of poverty among the people it is primarily designed to help.
[DOT] (12 noon)
I think of the pension plan that was passed a number of years ago in the house. In many ways it was good legislation. On numerous instances we attempted to amend it. Of course, ministers of the government and the President of the Privy Council referred to this earlier and they trotted out the old, "have you stopped beating your wife" argument. They asked, "How did you vote?" Everybody knows how we voted on medicare. Yet time and time again, both in the house and in committee, we attempted to amend that legislation.
The difficulties of those in the lower income groups and those living in grinding poverty are coumpounded because many of our classically considered welfare programs are not reaching them and do not help. The pension plan does not help many of the poorest in the rural areas. We told the government that this would happen. We voted for the bill but we tried, tried and tried again to amend the legislation so that it would help those who need help most. After all, the way welfare programs help those in need is the criterion by which they are judged. One does not ask, "How did you vote?"
I say, therefore, that because of the confusion in relations between Ottawa and the provinces and because our normal social welfare legislation is not reaching the root at which it is aimed, the problem of poverty in the midst of plenty is becoming increasingly aggravated. I am fully aware that the grass roots will say: We want our taxes to be reduced and our social welfare benefits to be increased. Such an attitude puts many politicians on both sides of the house on the spot occasionally. No one can have his cake and eat it.
Years ago I felt that many reactionary politicians had the attitude that any initiative by the public sector was retrograde. Let us be frank with ourselves and the people. In this young country we shall have to build many more hospitals, universities, schools and roads. We shall need a great deal of expenditure in the public sector. We realize now that the private sector moves forward only when the public sector has done its part. This modern approach to government and political attitudes makes it more important than ever for us to plan our economic and social spending priorities in Ottawa and with the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	2881
The Budget-Mr. Grafftey


William Heward Grafftey: What do we mean by planning our spending priorities? This was alluded to last night. Many in this house espouse varying shades of political philosophy. The job will be difficult, but we were elected to face difficulties. Ordering our spending priorities is difficult, but we must do so. We all know the problems that face all levels of modern government. The sooner the federal government convenes the proper kind of meeting with the provinces, in fact, with all levels of government, and begins to plan spending priorities, the better it will be for us. Until that happens the difficulties we face will become worse.
The trouble is that we have no guarantee that the government believes in the necessity to co-operate with the provinces in terms of organizing and ordering social and economic spending priorities. This will not be easy. This government has always felt that it has a mandate from heaven to tell the people what is best for them. You cannot force your opinion down people's throats today. Modern communications make it important for us to see that there is municipal, provincial and federal co-operation so that our system works. I say, as I have said again, again and again, that while the task will not be easy the government must open that kind of dialogue with provincial elected representatives and officials which will show our people that there is planning and order in our spending priorities.
As I said before, every hon. member probably has his heart in the right place. Nevertheless, we have only so much money. I am sure that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) would like to print more, but there is only so much to go around. This is becoming increasingly apparent. Expenditures are growing and growing but we can only do so much at one time. The people want an end to the continuing conflict and air of tension between levels of government. People all over Canada are sick and tired that no level of government is confronting seriously many of the modern problems facing the nation. Everywhere in Canada people are talking about the cost of living, housing, air pollution, soil and water pollution, automobile highway deaths and injuries and many other things What is happening in this country is probably happening in no other country in the western world. There is a feeling among our people that no level of government alone, and no government acting in concert with governments at other levels, is confronting these problems.
2882	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Deachman
So long as we keep drifting without leadership the cynicism with regard to our leaders and public institutions will grow in the body politic. I suggest, therefore, that apart from outlining the necessity to organize political priorities not only within the federal domain but in co-operation with other levels of government-


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


William Heward Grafftey: May I finish the sentence?


An hon. Member:: Wrap it up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret that there is not unanimous consent.


William Heward Grafftey: Very well, Mr. Speaker, but I was in the middle of a sentence.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) which he described as a passionate address. I wish to comment on his statement that within the cabinet ranks and within the Liberal party there are so many members from what he described as the bureaucracy. He referred, of course, to those who, having retired from brilliant careers in the Canadian civil service, have entered the public life of Canada by being elected and entering this house. It is curious indeed that after five years in office my hon. friend's party did not make itself attractive to anybody in the bureaucracy, as he describes it. How many of these people went to sit on my hon. friend's side of the house? I should think that if anybody in Canada were able to judge political parties it would be those who had so ably served them. It certainly must be a judgment in itself that none of them has seen fit to seek office and sit on that side of the house, having experienced a Conservative administration between 1957 and 1963.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
We must remember when we discuss the budget today that we are discussing a budget which was brought down in the spring. The summer recess has passed and there has been plenty of time for the country, and for representatives of business and industry in particular, to reflect on matters pertaining to the budget and to finance generally. One of the subjects which has occupied the minds of those who take a serious attitude toward these questions is, of course, the massive Carter report presented in the spring. Some

DEBATES	October 6, 1967
hon. members have had an opportunity to digest it during the summer months, as have a number of people associated with business and industry.
One of the points which caused greatest alarm when the report was issued was a suggestion that a massive overhaul was needed in the system of taxing mines, gas and oil wells and the extractive industry generally. This suggestion resulted in so many protests that the minister gave certain assurances to the industry in the course of a statement he made in the house on May 11, 1967 when he said, as reported in Hansard at page 111:
A number of taxpayers have made representations to us that in some instances the very uncertainty introduced by the royal commission report is causing them to act as though the recommendations of the commission had been adopted by the government.
A little later he said:
We have given careful study to see what we could do at this time to minimize these uncertainties without prejudicing the government's freedom of action in determining the ultimate shape of the tax reform it will propose to parliament.
Further on in his statement the minister described two undertakings which he believed appropriate to give in order that those concerned could carry on with the development of important projects in respect of which incentive provisions now in the law were important. He said:
The first undertaking concerns the three-year exemption for new mines. We have concluded that should the government decide to propose the removal of this incentive it would not do so in a manner which would remove the exemption with respect to income earned before January 1, 1974, nor would it in any essential manner change the method of application of that exemption before that date.
He went on to say:
The second undertaking concerns the treatment presently accorded to prospectors and their backers under section 83 of the Income Tax Act. Should the government decide to impose the withdrawal of this incentive, we would not do so with respect to amounts received before January 1, 1969 that relate to properties or interests acquired before January 1, 1968.
These assurances were welcome, but they are relatively short-term assurances giving an indication to the mining industry that a complete overhaul of the tax system will not in any event take place in the course of the next few years.
During the summer months briefs were prepared by many associations within the industry for submission to the minister. They contained expressions of opinion with regard
October 6, 1967


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he has a copy of the recommendation of the Yukon Chamber of Mines and, if so, whether he would read it into the record?


Grant Deachman: I do not believe I have before me one from the Yukon Chamber of Mines. What I have just quoted is a paragraph from the submission of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines.
Another brief which was sent to members and submitted to the government of Canada is that of Brenda Mines Limited, one of the newer and most successful mining developments in British Columbia. It tells a very important story of what happens when a great new mine is developed in a province. I should like to read just a little about what happens to a community when a mine of this kind comes into production in Canada. At page 31 the brief reads as follows:
The Brenda payroll will reach $3.0 million annually, with employment of 350.
Every job at the mine site will be matched by at least five other jobs elsewhere in the Canadian economy.
By 1972, approximately 900 workers in the central Okanagan alone will owe their livelihood, either directly or indirectly, to the mine.
The full scale operation of Brenda is expected to generate $18.0 million annually in payrolls, of which $7.0 million will be earned in the Okanagan.
The Brenda construction program will generate $9.0 million in tax revenue for provincial and federal governments, while operations will eventually give rise to more than $7.0 million annually.
The export of concentrates will earn as much as $26.0 million annually in foreign exchange.
That is what a single good mine can do as well as giving encouragement to the many prospectors and explorers who fan out all over Canada searching for valuable ores.
There also is a submission from the Vancouver board of trade to the Minister of Finance on the report of the royal commission on taxation. This brief was drafted under the direction of a special committee of the Vancouver board of trade. A great deal
DEBATES	2885
The Budget-Mr. Deachman of work was done to prepare an intelligent and well-researched submission to the minister on the subject of the Carter report. Mr. A. R. Ilersic, who was associated with the preparation of the brief, is a professor of social studies at the University of London. He is the author of two standard works on taxation and fiscal policy. One is called "Government And Fiscal Policy In Post-War Britain" and the other is called "Taxation Of Capital Gains.' Another person associated with the brief of the Vancouver board of trade is Sir Frank Bower who was formerly the head of the taxation department of Unilever Limited. He acted as president of the association of British chambers of commerce between 1958 and 1960 and served as chairman of the taxation committee of the association of British chambers of commerce. I should like to read from this brief at page 18:
The board is not against tax reform in the resource industries as such. What it is opposed to are proposals which would affect adversely the future development of these industries. Thus, the assertion by the commission, that such foreign capital would still come to Canada, can be justified only on two very dubious assumptions. The first is that there is nowhere else for the foreign investor to go for minerals and oil where the treatment, all other factors including tax being taken into account, is better. The second is that there are openings for investment in Canadian industry, other than the extractive industries, of comparable attraction for foreign investors.
Since the commission's proposals will eliminate the depletion allowances and phase out the three-year tax exemption for new mines, the relative attractions of investment in Canada for these industries are significantly reduced. The commission's proposals to tax capital gains could prove even more of a deterrent to investment in the extractive industries, more especially for the small investor, than even the loss of the depletion allowance and initial tax exemption.
In conclusion I should like to say that industry in Canada cannot live and expand unless it exists in a long-term climate of confidence. It must receive that if investment is to flow into Canadian industry. I say this is particularly so in respect of the mining and extractive industries of Canada because it takes an enormous amount of exploration in order to find a mine. Once a mine has been found a great deal of work must be done in order to bring it up to the production stage. Even many of those which turn out to be producers are not the most successful producers. When we analyse the situation we find that 3,000 claims have to be discovered in order to produce one good mine. It is for these reasons that incentives must exist if this great industry is to flourish in Canada.
There are some things I should like to ask the minister to consider in respect of this
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Deachman industry in order to give it the confidence it must have in order to make it flourish as a great Canadian industry. First, despite the assurances given by the minister in his statement of May 11 the mining industry is still in doubt concerning its future as a result of the Carter royal commission report. I ask the minister to give further assurance to that industry that there will be no massive upset which might disturb it and that if taxation reform is coming to this industry it will be done in such a manner that the Canadian mining industry and investment in this industry will not be lost. I ask the cabinet to give further assurance to those who invest in the mining industry in Canada that investment from abroad is welcomed in the Canadian mining industry. I suggest they should be given the assurance that they need not fear that this or any other government will embark upon punitive measures against foreign capital, because those of us who come from the west know that we must have capital in this country.


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


Grant Deachman: May I have a moment to conclude?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Does the hon. gentleman have unanimous consent to continue?


Mr. Mongrain:: No.
s (12:40 p.m.)


Grant Deachman: Do I have the consent of the house to conclude my remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I am sorry but the hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the house.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am willing to give a minute or two to the hon. member, but I warn the Chair that, in the future, we will insist upon keeping to the time limit.


Grant Deachman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make these few points. There must be long-term assurances that the mining industry is not going to be upset by massive changes in the methods of providing incentives and imposing taxes. There must be long-term assurances that investment from abroad will be welcomed in Canada. There


must be long-term assurances that the total sum of taxes levied on industry is not going to creep up to the point where taxes are greater than the total levy of taxes which allows the possibility for Canadian dollars to compete with United States dollars, for example. We must be able to give the assurance to industry in Canada that we can settle the question of confederation and do so quickly so that foreign capital can move into Canada with these investors being able to be confident of a stable economic climate.
Anyone who read the stories which appeared this morning in the business section of the Globe and Mail, or listened to what Mr. Kierans said recently in Quebec, must be aware of what I have in mind. It is in respect of these points that the mining industry must have long-term assurances in order that it may continue to exist and flourish. Thank you, sir, for your kindness.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) on the excellent speech he has just delivered. It is regrettable that its general tone and tenor should be so out of tune with what we hear from the front benches of his party and that he along with other members of his party from British Columbia who occupy the back benches should be listened to so little by their own ministers who have the responsibility for the decisions which are made concerning our province. Let me remind the hon. member, who I am sure feels that there is very little attention given him over there, that he would be welcome at any time to join us here in raising his voice on behalf of British Columbia.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the hon. member that I can raise my voice from this position very well and frequently do so.


Howard Earl Johnston: That is exactly what I am saying. The hon. member raises his voice very well but it has very little effect. That is the problem.
This morning I should like to refer to an article by Alex Young which appeared in the Vancouver Province on Monday, October 2. It appeared in the column "Victoria Comment" under the heading "Other Provinces More Equal Than B.C.", and it points out some of the problems to which the previous speaker alluded and which are very real to the province of British Columbia. The article was
October 6, 1967

based on some comments by the hon. Kenneth Kiernan, minister of recreation and conservation in the Social Credit government of British Columbia.
He is concerned, as are a great many British Columbians, about the consistent failure of the federal government to carry out policies that would be equitable across Canada. He gives various examples as cited in this article. One has to do with the question of purchases by British Columbia from the central provinces and sales from British Columbia to the central provinces. Of course there is no obvious barrier in this regard because there are no interprovincial tariffs, but he does point out the effect that the present tariff policy has on the province.
It is pointed out in this article that British Columbia buys from the rest of Canada some three to five times as much goods in dollar value as it sells. The goods sold to the rest of Canada are to a large extent sold at world prices but the goods bought from the rest of Canada by British Columbia to a large extent carry a substantial tariff protection mark-up over world prices. The tariff protection markup on British Columbia goods sold to the central provinces is perhaps $10 million over world prices on a year's business. On the other hand, the tariff protection on goods bought from the central provinces is estimated at a tariff mark-up of over $100 million a year over world prices. The people of British Columbia pay that mark-up.
Mr. Kiernan is also concerned about aid by Canada as a whole in respect of local projects and the fact that British Columbia cannot obtain direct federal grants for such things as the Peace River or Columbia River projects or the Pacific Great Eastern Railway development. Yet the central government can put up huge amounts for the Saskatchewan dam, the St. Lawrence seaway or the projected Northumberland Strait causeway. He believes that national policies should have national application on an equitable basis.
This whole question and its reference to this budget debate was emphasized by the reply the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) made on October 4 to a question raised in the house in respect of exports of Japanese fiber to Canada. At that time the minister said, as recorded at page 2800 of Hansard for that date:
Mr. Speaker, the government has already invited the Japanese government to do that.
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
He was referring to a restriction on these exportations of fiber to Canada. The Minister of Finance went on to say:
When I was in Rio I had the opportunity of speaking directly to the Japanese minister of finance in order to support our application.
I do not know whether the minister when he was in Rio was aware that there had been a debate in this house at about the same time on the question of the disappearing market for Canadian wheat in Japan. However, if the Japanese minister of finance had been aware of the debate which took place in this house I am sure he would have been most perplexed at the request of the Minister of Finance.
I was very surprised the other day, when the Minister of Finance made this remarkable statement, that no member in this house representing the grain-growing regions of the prairie provinces got to his feet to ask a supplementary question. I suspect they missed the significance of the reply in relation to this major industry on the prairies. I hope that was the case and that they have not in the last few weeks turned their eyes to the Atlantic area so much that they feel their policy has changed to the extent they can make no objection.
In this regard I again should like to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) for his promptness in asking a supplementary question at that time and point out that although he speaks very ably on behalf of his province, as did the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, his words seem to fall on ears that are strangely deaf. We do have a set of tariff policies and it seems to be the government's intention, if we can accept the words of the Minister of Finance, to carry out actively a policy that has long-range discriminatory effects against exports from British Columbia and from the west, continuing a trend that is becoming increasingly important to us.
9 (12:50 p.m.)
The gap between our sales to Japan and our imports from Japan has been constantly growing. It is increasing annually. Usually we in the west attribute to the east the quality of inscrutability. But one fails to understand the government's actions in this regard, having listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) defending the position of his government during the wheat debate and saying that a most aggressive sales drive is in progress and then having heard the Minister of Finance a couple of days later confessing that the drive is not all that aggressive. One wonders what his reaction would be if the
2888	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Johnston Japanese government requested the Canadian government to restrict our wheat sales to Japan.
This matter is all the more important when we realize that the results of the Kennedy round, which have been hailed so much in this debate and over the last few months, are being severely threatened at the moment by a massive onslaught by protectionist interests in the United States. We cannot assume that the objectives of the Kennedy round of negotiations have been accomplished. Just the other day the house of representatives passed a bill which could have a most damaging effect on the whole concept of tariff reductions resulting from the Kennedy round. We hope that the government gives the matter of trade with Japan and in fact with the entire Pacific rim the importance which it claims it does. After all, this is the government whose Prime Minister went to British Columbia just a few months ago and told that province not to go out on its own into the Pacific rim in order to extend trade, that the federal government will look after the interests of the west in that area. He said it very clearly. Yet I am sure, after the approach of the Minister of Finance to the Japanese minister of finance in Rio the other day, it will take all the charm, ability and good will of the whole cabinet and of the premier of British Columbia in order to undo the damage that was done. British Columbia will have to go forth, independently of any decision made in Ottawa in order to sell its products and extend its trade in the Pacific rim.
I was also very interested in the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis). This summer he made an extensive tour of the province of British Columbia together with a great many parliamentary secretaries and cabinet ministers. I do not quite know the reason for all this activity. One would hope it was in the best interests of British Columbia, but I suspect that the motivation lay elsewhere. I can assure the house that the trails through the province were well worn by these representatives of the government who should be able now to come back to this house and speak clearly and ably on behalf of that part of Canada. However, I am afraid this was not the reason nor the purpose of their visit.
The Minister of Finance was among those who made that pilgrimage. I regret I was not in the town of Salmon Arm when he invited himself to the Liberal conference there and spoke with the good people of the interior of British Columbia. I hope he paid careful at-

DEBATES	October 6, 1987
tention to what they had to tell him about the trade situation and about the development which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra outlined in his speech.
The hon. member for Coast-Capilano said some interesting things about the designated area program when he was in the Okanagan valley. The Okanagan area seemed to be a very popular place with many of the ministers and parliamentary secretaries who visited it. I know that the scenic beauty and the climate which prevailed during this most beautiful summer would attract almost anyone but I doubt that it was the lakes, the air and the skies that caused this sudden interest.
The hon. member spoke about the possibility of ending the designated area program in the Okanagan valley in the near future. I would be the first one to say that this program has been of great benefit to the area but I feel that the benefits it has brought to British Columbia and to the Okanagan valley are in a sense just beginning and that if that area is redesignated it would leave for practical purposes no part of the province of British Columbia within the designated area. The only part of British Columbia left in the designated area would be the town of Fernie which has not yet succeeded in attracting any significant industry despite the program. At the same time, throughout the rest of Canada there are still very extensive areas involved in this program.
We know that the Department of Industry saw fit to remove the Skookumchuk area of east Kootenay from the designated area program when it became apparent that a very important pulp and paper mill would be constructed there. So the benefits of this program to the province have not been very great considering the total sum in grants paid out. They do not compare with what has been spent in Ontario, Quebec or almost any other province one could name. An early end to the program in British Columbia would be one more example of an inequitable national policy on the part of this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I had been talking about the policies of the government in relation to the province of British Columbia and had referred in particular to a recent speech by the hon. member for
October 6, 1967	COMMONS
Coast-Capilano while he was in the Okanagan region in which he made reference to the designated area grants. Yesterday he also made reference to the development of the coal deposits in the southeastern corner of the province in the Fernie area and stated quite bluntly that he was opposed to government subsidies for the development of this resource.
What he did not do at the same time was to indicate his position on the extension of the Great Northern Railway to Fernie, which is certainly a most important issue. If there is no subsidy and the Canadian Pacific Railway is not going to haul this coal there is still one alternative left in that area, but the hon. member failed to make it at all clear where he stood on that matter.
When the hon. member for Coast-Capilano speaks he speaks from a little different position than the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra or the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard inasmuch as we do not know whether he is speaking with an official voice. We do know that sitting on that side of the house he has hopes and aspirations. What we do not know is whether he is merely flying a kite or telling us what is the policy of the federal government. I hope that we will have greater clarification from the hon. member on some of these points.
This then, Mr. Speaker, is the main burden of my remarks. I have tried to illustrate the concern that we in the west have that policies will be favourable to us. We knew, as I am sure the Minister of Finance knew when he spoke to the Japanese representative about textiles, that these textiles were not being dumped in Canada but were coming into this country through the ordinary process of trade. We have that on the authority of Mr. Grey, the assistant deputy minister of finance, and the minister himself must surely have been aware of that. Although he advocates free trade, we in the west should like some indication that this is what the policy of the federal government is intended to promote.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote not Mr. Kiernan, a cabinet minister in the British Columbia government, but rather the writer of an article which appeared in the Province for Monday, October 2 last. After listing certain complaints he went on to state:
These are serious complaints. Yet the reaction of federal authorities to them has tended to be more lighthearted than serious.
Perhaps there is some fun to be had in joking about affluent B.C.'s separatist tendencies. But surely it is not too much to ask that, once the
DEBATES	2889
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
chuckles have died down. Ottawa take a close and sincere look at each of the complaints raised by the B.C. government, through Kiernan, and then give what definite replies it can-if it can.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question? Can he inform the house on what basis the north Okanagan is described as a designated area?


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about the interjections of the members of the New Democratic party. Unlike some of the interjections from across the house they are always useful.


Mr. Groos:: Oh, oh.


Howard Earl Johnston: The other question that is asked in the same breath by other members of that party is: Why was the designated area limited to the region within which the constituency of the premier of British Columbia happened to lie. Of course, there are no grounds for that question at all because the area covered four constituencies in the south central part, South Okanagan, North Okanagan, Similkameen and Salmon Arm. Had the department done right by the community of Sicamous, part of the Revelstoke constituency would also have been included at the time the designated area was first constituted. Perhaps hon. members know that another part of the province which was designated was the former Fernie constituency. It is now part of the Kootenay constituency and is temporarily represented in the provincial legislature by a member from the N.D.P.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The criteria, of course, to return to the question of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), are the national employment statistics issued by the national employment service.
That is what I have been told by the Department of Industry when talking about the expansion of the designated area and the failure to include the village of Sicamous. The decision depends entirely on the national employment service statistics. This is a matter of federal concern, and I am sure that the statistics are reliable. The climate and beauty of the Okanagan area attracts many who wish to retire early and spend the rest of their days in relative ease amid beautiful surroundings. I also know that the rapidly spiralling inflation which has been brought about by this government's policies tends to force many of those who have retired back into the labour force, to which they had not expected to return.
October 6, 19S7

The Budget-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) must have a great feeling of dread when he surveys the fiscal wreckage which surrounds him. Obviously the situation is completely out of control. Indeed, as I listened to the minister last Wednesday on television and in the house, I thought he provided a sorry spectacle. To a degree we have sympathy for him.


Mr. Sharp:: The hon. member is very cheerful.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has nothing to be cheerful about. He is surrounded by a mess, by a situation to which his colleagues in the cabinet have contributed. He had to make a statement in an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Perhaps he is trying to unscrew the inscrutable. He almost succeeded. Nevertheless, the unpalatable fact is that the minister has no options left to him. If he is to pay for the programs of his colleagues that call for uncontrolled spending while fighting a deficit of approximately $1 billion, he must raise taxes. If he does that he will only give his ministers more money to spend.
The minister is like a passenger in a runaway hearse and is rapidly proceeding to the edge of the precipice in the economic affairs of the country. He knows this and is concerned. I am concerned for him, because his colleagues seem so unconcerned.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: In Hamilton last night the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) made a speech about medicare. He was not concerned. What the Minister of Finance said last Wednesday in the house and what he said on television differs somewhat from his former speeches. I so well remember the occasion one or two years ago when he criticized the former government in words such as these which appeared in the North Hill News of Calgary on June 7, 1962:
Canada's economy was further shaken, he said, by the increasing budgetary deficits, the last one, at $475 million, "ill-timed and excessive".
The minister thought that was terrible. On another occasion this statement appeared in the Brandon Sun of June 2, 1962:
"I'm in politics," said the red-haired Mr. Sharp, "because I feel our affairs are being poorly managed. I can think of easier ways of making a living than politics, and I'm not violently partisan."
The minister is also reported to have said on that occasion, "Lester Pearson isn't a financial expert."


An hon. Member:: What?


Erik Nielsen: I will buy that, Mr. Speaker. On another occasion we find the following in the Winnipeg Free Press, which is not known as being overly friendly to those on this side of the house. The date is June 2, 1962, and the headline is, "Sharp Attacks Budget Deficit". In the body of the article this appears:
The first responsibility of a Liberal government would be to restore "order to the nation's finances."


Mitchell William Sharp: Which we did.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says "Which we did". If he calls this country's finances orderly now then I think the members of the press, the editorial writers and those who wrote the comments I have read as well as those who wrote the fourth report of the Economic Council have holes in their heads. I do not believe that is so and I do not believe the minister is correct. The situation is out of order and out of control.
We all remember the minister saying, "Our first responsibility will be to balance the budget." With that usual lack of partisan feeling which the minister is fond of displaying, he and his colleagues were condemnatory in the extreme of the former government for its deficit. Yet we face the largest deficit in the country's history. I have not compared this budget with a wartime budget but I am prone to say that this is the largest budget in our country's history, in war or peace. The minister went on to say as found in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 2, 1962:
Mr. Pearson won't be a one-man show. He listens to his advisors.
I said I was sorry for the minister's position. I only wish that his cabinet colleagues would listen to his advice. Perhaps he might get together with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
After raising these spectres with respect to deficit financing and after saying that the government which preceded this one had been spending money like drunken sailors, the minister went on to make all sorts of promises including $2 wheat. An editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 1, 1962, describes the minister as "The Duke of Eglinton". That reminded me of another duke, the Duke of York. That duke, of course, was connected with the horse guards and hon. members may remember the saying: The grand old Duke of York, he had 10,000 men, he marched them up a very high hill and he marched them down again. When they were up they were up, when they were down they were down, but when they were only half up they were neither up nor down.
October 6, 1967	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he knows the history of the grand old Duke of York? His great contribution to the British army was to restore order from the mess which had been left by junior command.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: I was coming to that later. One solution I might suggest to the minister and his colleagues, in order that this whole mess might be cleared up, is to bring back the predecessor in office to the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: Oh, boy.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: In him we had a man with some fortitude who could say no. The present minister has demonstrated that he lacks this fortitude. That is what is happening here. The minister marches his legions forth with cries of restraints to his cabinet colleagues. Then having admonished them with raised finger, he backs down again. This is evident from the conduct of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) last night. The hon. gentleman charged in the Windsor Star that the former government had "ignored the experts". How these chickens are coming home to roost. "A Balanced Budget, Sharp Pleads" says a headline in the Star. As reported in the Ottawa Journal the minister expressed his thoughts in this way: "We must learn to live within our means and make it plain that we intend to do so from the outset." What has happened to this brave new world that the Minister of Finance envisaged? What is looming over this government and over the country as a whole as a result of the minister's inability to restrict his colleagues is a deficit of $1 billion, and he knows that Canadian business, Canadian industry and Canadian finance will not stand for such a deficit.


Mitchell William Sharp: Could I ask the hon. member to explain his billion dollar figure? I have not heard of it before.


Erik Nielsen: The minister began the budget debate last June by claiming that his budget would be a cure-all for inflation. He forecast a deficit at that time of just under $740 million. As a result of supplementary estimates and other spending commitments, in my view and in the view of the writers I have read that deficit will reach the billion dollar mark.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not so.
DEBATES	2891
The Budget-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: In his remarks on Wednesday the minister tried to draw a red herring across the trail by telling us the government intended to hold the line at $740 million, if that was the precise figure, by making slashes in the estimates next year.


Mitchell William Sharp: I did not say that.


Erik Nielsen: The minister tells us he did not say that.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it would be more impressive if the hon. member were to keep to the facts.


Erik Nielsen: If we could only obtain some facts on which we could endeavour to be impressive it would be easier, but the minister and his colleagues in their usual closemouthed fashion are prone to refuse us these facts when they are requested.


Mr. O'Keefe:: You should come here sometimes and listen to them.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member had better not try an interjection of that sort again. I was sitting in this house just before we rose at one o'clock at a time when there were only 18 members here, and the hon. member was not one of them.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: I will put my record up against yours at any time.


Erik Nielsen: The minister's remedy is, of course, higher taxes. His statement the other night on television was simply an admission of this fact. It was sad viewing indeed to see the minister make this abject admission of defeat, his leadership hopes shattered. He was a picture of defeat. It was the most abject admission of failure ever made by a Canadian minister of finance. Four months ago he brought in a budget which was to have been a cure for inflation, a budget whose object was to control inflation. He expressed confidence at that time that his budgetary plan would provide all the answers. Now, four months later, he admits, as he did last Wednesday, that inflation is the single most serious problem facing Canadians.
Why is inflation so serious? It is serious because it means higher taxes, higher prices, higher rent and higher costs for business and industry. The hon. gentleman has failed completely to control inflation and he admits it. He cannot control inflation because he cannot control his colleagues. I picture him as being a mouse in a den of lions.


An hon. Member:: Some mouse.
28S2	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: Indeed, in order to control his spending colleagues he would have to be a fiscal Clyde Beatty and I doubt that he possesses that kind of skill. He is a member of a cabinet which should be restrained. His colleagues should be cribbed, cabined and confined. Never, since the Klondike gold rush, which occurred in the Yukon, not in Edmonton, has there been such an agglomeration of big spenders. This year they spent $11 billion. The minister's own department-and this will be difficult for him to explain-is spending $250 million more than it did last year. The hon. gentleman rushes about like a modern-day Peter the Hermit pleading for restraint. The greatest lack of restraint is shown by his own colleagues and the worst offender is the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
The Prime Minister is the author of the war on poverty, while in my own riding there are people who still live all the year round in tents. The Prime Minister, the last of the big spenders, is also the author of the war on rural poverty, a program so effective that 15,000 farmers were battering down the doors of this house to show their appreciation. Take the Company of Young Canadians. What are they doing? How much is it costing the country? Think for a moment of the $40 million art centre. It was originally to have cost around $18 million. By the time the excavations were completed the bill was already over $25 million, one of the most expensive holes in history.
One would be tempted to feel sorry for the minister if it were not for the fiscal wreckage he has created, surrounded by spendthrifts like the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Defence (Mr. Ca-dieux), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand). One can only conclude that the Minister of Finance is in complete awe of his cabinet colleagues. Reading a list of departmental spending increases in the latest estimates is like reading a litany of irresponsibility. He is being dragged along in the wake of the most spendthrift government in our history like a cork on a wave.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
He says, "Wait until you see next year's estimates. We have already cut $600 million from them." But he knows full well that this is a routine procedure that goes on year after year. It is a great joke. He tries to convince us and, worse, he tries to convince the people

DEBATES	October 6, 1967
of Canada that he and his government are determined to save us by cutting estimates which we have not even seen yet. This is like a car dealer who allows you a large amount on your old car on a trade-in and then adds it to the price of a new car. The saving is completely illusory.
The minister is a helpless victim of his colleague's spendthrift proclivities. Mr. Ilsley would have cracked down on this, Mr. Abbott would have stopped it, and the former member for Eglinton would have stopped it. Even the minister's predecessor in office would have stopped it, but now the situation is obviously out of control. I do not think the minister has ever been the same since he was forced to bow down to the Rockefellers. His apology for ineptitude was one of the most abject admissions of failure ever to be made in parliament.


Mitchell William Sharp: Would the hon. gentleman elaborate on this business about the Rockefellers? It seems a little low even for the hon. member, so perhaps he might elaborate a little.


Erik Nielsen: I do not intend to have the minister design my speech for me.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it would help.


Erik Nielsen: If he will bear with me for a moment or two I will have a couple of other interesting things which might also ignite some spark of reaction in him. I believe the simple fact is that the minister has completely lost control, and he knows it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman should get away from insinuations and let us have what is on his mind.


Erik Nielsen: I have something here for the minister. Under the new liberal economy four ministers, two parliamentary secretaries, one member of parliament and goodness knows how many other people were to travel out to Edmonton to open the new Camsell hospital. Is that supposed to represent saving?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman obviously does not want to answer my question.


Erik Nielsen: I think the minister cannot divest himself of the deputy minister mentality. Someone else on this side has mentioned that we are confronted with a cabinet consisting mainly of bureaucrats. I think that is the minister's whole trouble. He bows down to his cabinet colleagues. He cannot say yes or no, and so he is carried along and finds himself in a position which it is impossible for
October 6, 1967	COMMONS
him to get out of unless he raises taxes, or borrows money which he knows he cannot borrow at reasonable rates, or causes unemployment. As the minister himself described it last Wednesday, and I quote from page 2809 of Hansard:
I feel that we must-and we will-find some way to bring this inflationary movement under control even, if necessary, by letting the economy develop a little more slack for a year or two while price and cost increases taper off.
What he is advocating there is no more and no less than more unemployment. He says this will cool off the economy, but we on this side do not go for that. We see no reason why the situation cannot be controlled and at the same time keep employment opportunities as high or higher than they are now for the working force of this country.
The reports of the Auditor General in the past two or three years reveal a shocking condition of waste and extravagance. The government has utterly failed to exercise even a reasonable control over expenditures. In his 1966 report the Auditor General states that the house committee on public accounts met only once during 1965 and it did not consider the Auditor General's 1964 report. This is not to criticize the committee. It is an indication that if there is to be any control over waste something more is required.
In his latest report the Auditor General states that 49 recommendations by the public accounts committee designed to eliminate waste have not been implemented by the government. One of his recommendations concerns the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which apparently has become a byword for uncontrolled expenditure. It is all very well for the minister to rise in his place and say, "We have got to cut things to the bone." Where is the bone in the C.B.C.? There is so much fat surrounding the bone that you cannot even see it to cut it. There is to be $30 million more for the C.B.C. this year. This body, spending over $100 million a year of the taxpayers' money, apparently is completely removed from the financial control of parliament and wants to be even farther removed.
The standing committee on public accounts, a committee of this house, has on several occasions asked that the C.B.C. present written replies to the recommendations of the Glassco commission regarding the reorganization of the C.B.C. These replies have not been forthcoming. Instead the former president of the C.B.C. said at that time, "We have got our own Glassco commission." This
DEBATES	2893
The Budget-Mr. Nielsen is one area where expenses are not being carefully supervised and where the Canadian taxpayer is being heavily penalized by the negligence of the government.
The public accounts committee, as far back as 1964, recommended changes in accounting procedures in the Department of National Defence in order to make them more efficient. This has not been done. The Department of National Defence has a tremendous stock of equipment and supplies, amounting to a considerable portion of the defence budget. According to the Auditor General's report, purchases of defence equipment average more than $400 million annually. Yet parliament has not been able to obtain from the defence department a dollar value with regard to the inventory on hand.
These are areas where the government must crack down. In my personal view this is where the Minister of Finance must exercise some authority and demand that something be done to remove waste. Unfortunately for the taxpayer the government has not moved in this field.
The Auditor General has repeatedly criticized the practice of masking expenditures as loans, such as the loan of $14 million to the C.B.C. which should really be listed as ar expenditure, and the various loans made tc crown corporations such as Expo and others which are removed from control by parliament. These are areas where the minister and, to be fair to him, the government have allowed expenditures to run hog wild. The deficit on Expo alone will run into hundreds of millions of dollars. The government has refused to allow any examination of expenditures and the bill will be another astronomical burden on the taxpayers of Canada. The minister wants to know where to save. There are so many areas.
The Auditor General's report has pointed out several instances regarding shipyards and involving the repair of both defence vessels and Department of Transport ferries where the procedures followed were such as to impose heavy additional costs on the taxpayers. No effort has been made to deal with these matters or to improve the situation. If it has, no details of the results have been forthcoming.
Any person who looks at the Auditor General's report cannot but have the feeling that many millions of dollars are being willfully and wastefully thrown away by the government in contracts through the various departments and agencies. Take the famous case of the department of defence hydrofoil which in 1963 was estimated to cost $9 mil-
2894	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Nielsen lion. It is now up to more than $40 million and no hydrofoil in sight. These are the kind of things that Canadians will not stand for.
The government goes on in its reckless fashion, squandering and proliferating new departments like the Department of Industry which was going to mesh the functions of industry and those of the Department of Defence Production. A year after it was created that department was spending more than $200 million. Some mesh. Then the government set up the department of manpower and the Company of Young Canadians. The result is that we have the highest taxes in history. In the field of empire building it strikes me that the minister makes Alexander the Great and Napoleon look like the Smothers Brothers.
e (3:10 p.m.)
In 1966 the estimates of the Department of Defence Production called for a departmental expenditure of $20,289,300. The new Department of Industry was then set up. It started off with an estimated expenditure for 1965-66 of $36 million. The estimates of defence production went down from $32 million to $25 million for that year but the estimates for the Department of Industry went up from $50 million in 1966-67 to a total estimated expenditure of $146,785,300 for 1967-68.
The Department of Industry is spending enormous sums to sustain technological capability in Canadian industry in respect of defence production. A total amount of $60 million has been authorized, of which $25 million is to be spent in the current year. Perhaps these are worth-while objectives, but what control is there over these expenditures? Where is the money going and where are the explanations in this regard? These are expenditures which cannot be watched satisfactorily and there is no indication that they are being watched. Meanwhile these huge expenditures contribute to the ever-rising cost of living and the ever-rising tax rate.
This government's record is one of acting on behalf of large financial interests at the expense of ordinary Canadians. The minister asked for elaboration a moment ago. Let me elaborate in this regard. The committee on election expenses referred to these corporations which are seemingly the beneficiaries of these new programs of the Department of Industry as "friendly corporations". No wonder this government is spending more than any government in Canada's peacetime history.
The United States is fighting a war but Canada has no war. Yet our cost of living

DEBATES	October 6, 1967
and our taxes have risen higher than in the case of the United States. The government started a war on poverty, but it is obvious in scrutinizing the government's accounts that while that war is being won by the big corporations and the economic aristocracy of this country, it is being lost by the taxpayers. Those who are paying the shot for the government's economic adventures are the people who cannot obtain homes because costs are too high, who cannot afford to feed their families properly because the cost of food has gone haywire, who are having trouble paying the costs of education of their children. These costs are being paid by people like those in my own riding who have to live in tents all year round because the government cannot afford to pay for decent accommodation for them. We have heard a lot of talk about destitution in Ontario. The minister should have a look at that northern part of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the house to conclude his speech?


An hon. Member:: No.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be willing to let the hon. member continue for one or two minutes to finish his sentence, but nothing more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Does the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) have the unanimous consent of hon. members to continue his remarks?


Mr. Gauthier:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On condition, Mr. Speaker, that it does not take more than a minute or two.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret there is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Speaker, we are ready to allow him a couple of minutes in order that he may complete his sentence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. It is up to hon. members to make a decision in this matter. As far as I am concerned-I have
October 6, 1967

two ears to hear with-I clearly heard the hon. member say "no".

It was clearly asked if hon. members would permit the hon. member for Yukon to continue his speech and I heard one member say no. The word "no" means no, so the hon. member cannot pursue his speech.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to continue.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, if you will
allow me-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In the course of the address by the hon. member for Yukon he questioned my absence from the house at one o'clock. I happened to be attending a function to which I was invited by Mr. Speaker. A number of members of the opposition were also in attendance, and it is possible that the hon. member was jealous because he had not received an invitation. I will certainly be happy to stand by my record of attendance in this house compared with that of the hon. member.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I shall first open a parenthesis to explain our attitude these last few days in this corner of the house. We have been demanding that all members follow the standing orders and speak no longer than the allotted time.
We understand that the government does not want to appear to gag the members and so did not insist so far. We also understand that the official opposition being so generous towards the government has also refrained. But we have observed that some members have abused the additional time we allow them and we have seen some speaking five, ten, or even fifteen minutes more than provided for in the standing orders, while others are deprived of their right to speak.
So it is our intention in this comer of the house-and I believe that members of the Ralliement Creditistes are of my opinion-to
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain demand henceforth strict observance of the rules. We shall give at the most a couple of minutes to someone who has not finished his sentence or his speech.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to sit back and relax, because I shall not continue that cruel flagellation inflicted upon him for some time, as was the case for his colleague during the debate on the housing crisis. With my remarks, I shall even soothe his wounds with a little balm, and comfort him a little. To start with, however, I shall tell the house about an experiment which I carried out in my riding, which I recommend to all hon. members.
A few months ago, I sent to the 23,330 families in my new federal riding of Trois-Rivieres, among which 487 are Englishspeaking, a questionnaire made up of ten specific questions to which I requested an answer.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I think it might be interesting for the house to have an idea of what the reaction was in the riding of Trois-Rivieres. which comprises the city of Trois-Rivieres and surrounding area. The city is the second French centre in North America, since it was founded in 1634.
This is how we dealt with the questionnaire. We sent it by mail. Naturally the member paid mailing charges, and not the government. The replies were sorted out by a committee of twelve people composed of Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats, Creditistes and Independents. I am sorry to say the Liberals excused themselves as they did not want to accept, but they were replaced by a team of journalists who, to my mind, probably guaranteed as much honesty and integrity.
I am saying it for the information of hon. members, to make things quite clear, because I would not like to accuse or blame anyone and I am saying it also to reassure everyone that the hon. member did not open the mail.
Out of the 23,330 questionnaires sent out, I received 4,136 answers, approximately 17 per cent. Some questions were cancelled in some cases because they had been left unanswered.
The first question read as follows:
In your opinion, should Quebec take part In the centennial celebrations?
The replies went as follows: 3,224 people said "yes", 512 said "no" and 135 said: Decide for us, you are better informed than we are.
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain
The second question was as follows:
To solve the many labour conflicts are you in favour of the creation of labour courts with recognized jurisdictions?
To that question, 3,424 answered "yes", 166 answered "no", and the others did not answer.
Third question:
Should your member of parliament vote against a social measure, such as the increase of the old age pension to $105 a month, because it is supposed to be unconstitutional?
I had written "old age pension" instead of "guaranteed minimum salary" or "guaranteed minimum income". I was asking them:
Should your member of parliament vote against a social measure, in Ottawa, because it is supposed to be unconstitutional?
To this, 3,047 said "no, you should not vote against the measure", 679 said: "yes, you should vote against it".
This was the fourth question:
Do you think Quebec is ready to opt out of confederation?
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the house that Trois-Rivieres is the second largest French-speaking city and a hot-bed of separatism, since the separatist convention is to be held there at the end of the week and we have in our university and normal school, professors who mostly teach separatism.
In spite of all this, 3,300 people answered: "No, Quebec is not ready to opt out of confederation", and only 508 said:	"yes".
However, 194 said: "We do not know, please decide for us."
Of course, I am not a separatist. The decision was already made: 3,500 said "no".
Fifth question:
Are you satisfied with the general attitude of your member of parliament?
I shall give the answer with all due modesty, which, as you know, is the strong point of independent members.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Do not give the answer.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: The hon. Postmaster General says he already knows the answer and there is no need to give it. But in case others would not know it, I must point out that 3,496 answered in the affirmative and 186 in the negative, while 128 said: "Well, we do not know".
I would advise the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) to try that one in his constituency, because I would be eager to see the answer.

The sixth question was as follows:
Would It be advisable for your member to belong to a party?
Now, 2,027 electors said "no", as well as 300 or 400 other constituents, in all 2,524 who said: "No", or added: "We leave that matter to your discretion which, to me, means "no". There were 1,655 who said: "Yes, that I should belong to a party."
The seventh question read as follows:
If so, to which?
Now, 1,139 answered: "To the Liberal party" and 30 said "To the Conservative party."
Now, 104 opted for the New Democratic party, and 30 for the Creditiste party. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the others, 2,524 in all, suggested that I remain unafRl-iated.
Item 8 was as follows:
Do you think capital punishment should be retained in some cases?
In this case, opinion is clearly just as definite, as 3,256 said "yes". I should say, Mr. Speaker, that the meaning of this question had been clearly explained on my radio program to avoid any misunderstanding. I explained that, in my estimation, to retain capital punishment in some cases means, for instance, when evidence of the murder is beyond doubt, or in cases where the crime is more sordid than others. To this, 3,256 said "yes", and only 305 said "no".
I am saying this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is an experience that members should try in their own constituencies. They would have what I call mathematical replies to certain rumours spread all over the country, on the question of separatism for instance.
I know that at home a very great majority of my electors are now opposed to separatism, which does not mean that they object to it, that they are not very anxious for some constitutional reforms or for up-dating the British North America Act. But, we do not go as far as the excesses the newspapers refer to concerning separatism.
Mr. Speaker, the second item I would like to deal with is that I have been listening with considerable interest to the 36 or 37 speeches that were given on housing. You have doubtless observed that I rose 23 times to ask the floor. I am probably too far away from the Chair to catch your eye. Anyway, that is past and I listen to what is being said on the budget. I come to the following conclusion.

October 6, 1967	COMMONS
It did not dawn on me to blame the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) or the present government, because I am sure after hearing all this, that the opposition could not do any better. The present government, just like the opposition, if it were in power, is operating within a capitalistic system with absolutely rigid rules which the government cannot easily evade.
So I wonder whether it is not becoming stylish to be in a state of crisis because so far, that is all we have heard about. It seems to be a standard condition to be in a state of crisis. There is the housing crisis, the labour crisis, the cost of living crisis, the constitutional crisis, the peace or war crisis if you will and tax crises. There are crises on all over.
So I wonder if the state of crisis which is becoming constant, chronic and permanent, is not recognition that the capitalist system, which we call the private enterprise system, is nearing bankruptcy.
I wonder if the greatest favour the hon. Minister of Finance could do the big shots or the big wigs, if you prefer, of our capitalist system, of private enterprise, would not be to get them together in Montmorency or elsewhere, in camera, between four walls and to tell them this: Gentlemen, it is about time that you undertake your self-criticism, your self-examination, that you ask yourselves whether the time has not come for you to suggest reforms in the old capitalist system as it has been understood for centuries, before the people grow more discontented, before they ask you for a reckoning and start a rebellion because of the way things are.
In fact, look at the strikes happening all over one after the other, look at the rebellion of the labour movements against their leaders, even against injunctions, against the law. I say that one or two demagogues a little more daring than those we already have will be enough to kindle the spark which will blow up the barrel of gunpowder. We shall wake up some day with a more or less violent revolution if our capitalistic system does not undertake its self-criticism, if it does not call for the reforms which are essential in our times.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In 1967, people are no longer content to live as people did in 1937, 1947 and 1957 and, indeed as people did in 1867. In 1967, people want a more equitable sharing amongst the masses of the good things in life. The capitalist system, which imposes strict rules, which
DEBATES	2897
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain prevents governments from taking necessary steps, should endeavour to achieve that type of peaceful revolution which is now needed if the aspirations of the masses are to be met. Otherwise, I say it again, we will have revolutions. If the tycoons and magnates of capitalism are unwilling to indulge in self-criticism and reform, the government will be forced to propose drastic means. Otherwise, we will have far more serious and violent crises than we now have. Indeed, it will result in anarchy; the masses will revolt.
Mr. Speaker, some will think perhaps that I am raising a scare without good reason, but I ask all members of the house who are all men of good will to look into the problem dispassionately, without any regard to political partisanship-which must surely be a normal cause for concern, since the government must ward off the attack of the opposition-and to decide whether the time has not actually come for our private enterprise system to have enough sense to reform itself.
The Scriptures say, I believe, that it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. That probably explains the obtuseness of our financial magnates and potentates who are always the last to understand the masses' demands for reform. They wait until the masses become violent. At the start, they blame the masses for their demands, their hunger, instead of asking themselves whether that hunger is not justified and should not be satisfied before the masses decide to take what they want, using whatever means are available to them, which means are not always consistent with the laws and customs of the country.
Mr. Speaker, after last week's discussion in respect of the housing crisis where we heard that this and that should be done, I think that the government should say: "Very well, so there is a housing crisis, but we cannot do any better under the circumstances". The hon. Minister of Finance has given us a brilliant explanation of the situation. The members of the opposition were saying: "This disaster came about because of the government's inefficiency". I for one do not believe in this inefficiency, and I do not think that the opposition would be more efficient. I believe that both parties are obliged to legislate within a system which does not permit, taking what I call the revolutionary measures required to fulfill today's needs.
We will not be able to curb, to hinder the demands of the masses, because, according to an old saying: "It's no use preaching to a hun-
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain gry man". And the Canadian people are hungry now, not only for food, for the good things that were made available by the Good Lord. When they are told that we are living in a wealthy country where the standard of living is one of the highest in the world, they say: We want our share. Whether we like it or not, we will have to give the people their share.
Mr. Speaker, I am therefore saying that the government-and I repeat it, so there will be no mistake-or the Minister of Finance would do well to convene between four walls, behind closed doors those who rule the country's finance, and invite them to do some selfexamination and take the initiative in carrying out those reforms which are necessary, instead of being content with the old traditional methods which consist of raising interest rates and increasing taxes, with the result that the little fellow always gets the worst of it. Then he demands salary increases, of course, and thus contributes to the rise of the cost of living. As a matter of fact, he never gets anywhere, once he gets a 20 per cent wage increase, the cost of living rises by 30 per cent. He is never any better off.
Mr. Speaker, I will now leave this second topic and go on right away to the third one I wanted to discuss this afternoon. I will deal very briefly with what has come to be called national unity.
An unsuccessful attempt was made the other day to start an emergency debate on that matter. The answers to my questionnaire showed that in my riding people are not separatists. But, Mr. Speaker, I think that the time has come for everyone to make his position clear in that debate and I am one of those who are sorry that the federal government lost the initiative when a provincial premier hit upon the idea, which I find brilliant, of calling the provinces together and then claimed all the credit for this idea.
I am not saying that the federal government did nothing in that respect. I know that experts are studying constitutional matters to try and satisfy the aspirations of Quebec in particular and to bring the constitution up to date to meet the needs of 1967. But that is being done too discretely. I say the federal government should publicize what it does and not allow the provinces to upstage it. After all, it is the senior government and, up to a point its attitudes are incorrectly interpreted when it is too discreet. The Canadian people then say: The federal government does not want to revise the constitution, it delays unduly a solution to that problem.


I say that, from a psychological point of view, that is bad. It gives the provinces the opportunity to take an initiative which should, to say the least, be taken simultaneously by the federal and provincial authorities, in a spirit of good will.
I continue and say this, Mr. Speaker. The rest of the country should know that the province of Quebec is no more separatist probably than the province of British Columbia, and the publicity made in that respect is exaggerated. I have given mathematical proof of that back home with the figures I quoted earlier.
I know we have our angry young men. We have our angry young men who cannot forgive their fathers and forefathers for having failed, over the last hundred years, to take advantage of all the possibilities of the Canadian constitution; who cannot forgive their fathers and forefathers for having, during the past hundred years, let themselves be led down the garden path and believe myths instead of fulfilling themselves; who also cannot forgive their English-speaking fellow-citizens for having misunderstood them so long and for not having realized the existence there of a small group with a will to live and survive. Well those young men feel frustrated and indignant; sometimes they express their wrath in a violent way. I do not approve of them for expressing it thus, through anarchy and contempt of law. However, I am ready to make allowances for those who discuss this problem and who propose extremist solutions sincerely and within the framework of the law and of our democratic system because, as I said before, they are angry young men, made furious and frustrated by the indifference of their fathers and the neglect of others, their English-speaking fellow Canadians who should have tried to understand them.
What we ask for in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, is this: equality throughout the country, not only in our own province. We do not want to be a Quebec ghetto, but full-fledged Canadians. If I were going to live in Vancouver or Winnipeg, I would want-well, if I were alone perhaps I would not ask for so much-I would want what English Canadians have in my province. In my province, English Canadians have their schools, and they are addressed in their own language at school and at the municipal and provincial levels. They are members of our clubs and of our institutions. In our courts of justice, they are addressed and are allowed to speak in their own language. They are respected; they are
October 6, 1967

treated as members of the family. There is no segregation in our province.
Well, we want French Canadians to be treated likewise throughout the country; in short, that is what we are asking.
Of course, certain expressions are currently in use: reference is made to a special status, to associate states, to a continued federalism, to complete separatism. Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who share the views expressed by the Hon. Maurice Lamontagne and published in Le Devoir on September 25 last. With your permission, I would like to quote some excerpts of his statement in order to be well understood.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
First of all, with regard to the special status, it is already in existence; this is nothing new. For 100 years, Quebec has been given special treatment, simply because our people are different from the rest of Canada, and we intend to stay different. We believe in unity through diversity.
So, Hon. Maurice Lamontagne wrote:
The idea of a special status for Quebec, as such, should not scandalize anyone. In a supplement to Le Devoir published on this subject last June 30, Mr. Jacques-Yvon Morin showed that even several Unitarian countries, while recognizing a special status for some areas, still continued to survive and develop. Also, in this supplement, Reverend Father Fdehard Ares recalled, not unnecessarily, that the Canadian constitution of 1867 granted a special status to Quebec.
"Is Quebec not the only constitutionally bilingual province, the only one whose civil law is not merely different but protected by the constitution, the only one which is entitled to a fixed number of judges on the bench of the Supreme Court."
The agreements made since then between the governments have emphasized that special situation. For example, Quebec is the only province which collects personal income tax and applies the opting out formula. Therefore, those who reject the idea of a special status do not realize that they are thus denouncing the constitution of 1867. Only the advocates of separatism or of the associate states can logically object to the principle of a special status. All those who favour federalism must support it.
I believe that is a sound doctrine, Mr. Speaker, and he states further:
On the other hand, there are those who are tempted to suggest the more extreme forms of special status, because they believe that only a special status will allow Quebec to develop fully. In fact, those daring individuals often lack faith in the elemental strength of French Canadians. They think that the French-Canadian way of life is very fragile and, in wishing to protect it, they neglect standards of living.
I find the senator's comments very timely. That is the challenge we should give the French-Canadian youth at this time. They must compel recognition by their achieve-
The Budget-Mr. Stanbury ments in all fields, and they must not be afraid of representing but one-third of the population because the other two-thirds are not necessarily enemies; they will be members of the Canadian family where all will compete for achievement.
Mr. Speaker, I would like what my province wants to be understood in that light. Let Let there be no misunderstanding; French-Canadians do not want to dominate anyone. We merely want to live and enjoy an equal status with all other Canadians. We are even willing to learn English. Most of us are bilingual and we suggest that others, in other provinces, at least those who serve the public, should also do the same.
That is what we are asking. Let the other provinces grant us there what we grant English-speaking people in ours.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I say this. I advise the government to hurry and solve the constitutional problems. When I say that, I realize as others do that it must not be done too hurriedly either.
Here is an example. First of all, a general consensus should be arrived at in Quebec in regard to the exact details concerning the remodelling of the constitution. Agreement should be reached at least on that in Quebec.
But the people should also be aware that some good work is being done and I think the federal government is all too reticent in this respect. I think it does not stress enough the studies which are being carried out to try to brighten up the picture.
And I conclude in assuring my Englishspeaking colleagues-and I would ask them to kindly pass the word to their constituents-that Quebec will not be separatist unless it is forced into separatism through an enduring misunderstanding that would allow the continuation of a regime which has been called, and rightly so in many cases, a regime of injustice. Thank you.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, in rising in this debate I do so neither to defend the government nor to condemn it though I might be tempted to do a little of each. Sometimes those who are backbenchers of the government party envy the position of independent members such as the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), who has just spoken, or of members of the opposition who do not have for the present, at least, the responsibilities of government. But in the light of what the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has said it is im-
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Stanbury portant to recognize the importance in this house of party divisions. There is a great value, as the distinguished Speaker of the British House of Commons told us today, in the party system which has served parliaments throughout the world so well through the years. Imperfect as it is, it seems better than any other system because through it our people are provided with alternatives which are essential to the choice of government in a democracy.
Despite obligations on members of the government party to arrive at positions to be put forward and supported for the sake of stability and progress, each of us has his individual points of view which he is entitled to advance in the house. I wish to put forward today a personal point of view which has not yet been accepted by the government but I hope it will be very soon.
Before doing so I wish to comment briefly on a suggestion that, not unexpectedly, has come from the opposition.
No matter what government is in power, I suppose, the opposition will always accuse it of not giving the leadership which the country deserves. I think that such an accusation does not rest well on the shoulders of this government. Its record caused me and I presume many of my fellow freshman members on this side to seek office. I need only mention some of the ways in which this government has attacked problems which had remained neglected in this country for generations. It attacked them with courage and determination and though it lacked a majority in the house it pressed these matters forward and on many measures obtained the acceptance of all parties. The government deserves the acclaim of the country for what it has done.
I wish to mention some of the ways in which this government attacked problems of illness, ignorance and old age. In the field of illness, the health resources fund has paved the way for an orderly application of equal opportunity for and equal access to medical care as well as for a more adequate research and training program for our doctors and nurses. The fund has poured hundreds of millions of dollars already into such facilities. I hope that by July 1, 1968, medical care plans of the provinces which wish to take advantage of federal legislation will open doors to better health for Canadians of all ages and all economic levels.
In the field of education, no government has poured more money than the present one has into improving opportunities for all

time for groups inside our country to be chasing advantage or trading recriminations. The need, now, is for cool realism.
This is what I hope I can bring to bear in the specific area of public policy with which I should like to deal thiis afternoon. We have heard a great deal in recent days about housing. I do not intend to thresh over again all that old straw. To me, it is apparent that the provinces have failed-it matters little whether through inability or inaction-to cope with the problems of our growing cities, an area which undoubtedly lies within their sphere of responsibility. It is clear that our national government-and Canadians wherever they live-cannot afford to allow this failure to persist, because it is one which prejudices the future of us all, and of our country.
The Economic Council of Canada in its fourth annual review recently released says, at page 173:
It seems clear that the rising concentration of people in urban centres-and in the largest ones particularly-will continue to be closely interwoven with the projected increases in the population and labour force, and with the potential growth of output and demand in the Canadian economy.
The council observes further at page 191:
There are glaring gaps in data and information, and research into urban problems in Canada is as yet extremely limited and fragmentary.
And, later:
The regional and interurban aspects of city growth are relatively unexplored, and It appears that analytical and institutional arrangements for dealing with an emerging range of problems are scarcely developed. The task of dealing with these problems is urgent and should be a major preoccupation of provincial public policy.
I could not agree more. But is it a major preoccupation of provincial governments? Can our central government wait for provincial action or should it be galvanizing the provinces into action with a call for a concerted attack on the urban problems which will be central factors in our country's future development?
When I made my maiden speech in this house, as I had the honour of doing on the first day following the opening of this parliament, I proposed the establishment of a department of housing and urban affairs. As the representative of the most populous and fastest growing constituency in Canada I am naturally deeply concerned about the problems of urban growth. I said then that by the end of this century 90 per cent of Canadians would be urban dwellers, with probably al-

The Budget-Mr. Stanbury most half of us living in nine large cities. I called for a concentrated federal effort "to ensure for future generations a meaningful environment in the urban Canada of tomorrow".
Now, the Economic Council has told us that by 1980 over 80 per cent of our population will be urban, with 60 per cent concentrated in 29 cities or complexes of 100,000 or more residents. Further population increases, the council says, are likely to take place entirely in our cities; the pace of urbanization in Canada will continue to be one of the highest among the major industrial countries of the world. The economic benefits to be derived from urban concentration, according to the council, will thus continue to be an important factor in the longer-run rise of per capita output and income. The council goes on later to say:
The dimensions of this challenge-of the need to provide adequately for urban housing, balanced transport systems, water supply and waste disposal, parks and recreation, the control of air pollution and many other urban services, all within a framework of efficient, orderly growth and an environment of improving quality-undoubtedly call for new and imaginative public policies involving all three levels of government, including new priorities in the allocation of resources.
Reference is then made to a broad range of social questions requiring attention as a result of the continued growth of our large cities. The report states:
Many of these are closely related to the physical character of the big city and the adequacy of its services. Obvious among them are those of poverty and low income, of poor health and family breakdown, and of crime and delinquency, all of which are so frequently associated with low levels of education, bad housing, inadequate sanitation and general urban decay.
More broadly, there are in our cities growing problems of divisive social segregation and stratification, of pressures upon the individual from the hurried pace of urban living, of conflicting conformity in the comfortable suburbs, and of anonymity and lack of identification in the face of the immensity of the big city. In all these further respects, the continued rapid expansion of large centres re-emphasizes a complex of challenges if the quality of human life is to be improved, if the fruits of economic progress are to be equitably shared, and if the human resources and human potential of an urban, industrial society are to be fully developed.
e (4:00 p.m.)
The message is surely clear, Mr. Speaker. These problems are primarily provincial but they are unquestionably national as well. I ask the government whether the time has not come to recognize the central importance of these urban problems in our country, and to recognize it by establishing a department of
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Stanbury urban affairs and housing? I suggest that the time has come, and I hope the government will consider this step as a means of focusing our national energies and attention on the urban shape of Canada's future.
Before completing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words, not from the head but from the heart, about the unity of our country. I was encouraged by what the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) had to tell us about the views of his constituents. This summer I had the pleasure of spending a total of about four weeks in the province of Quebec, and I am pleased to say that I gained the same impression, that the people of Quebec are proud of their province, as are the people of each other province proud of their own, but above all they are Canadians.
As a member representing a Toronto riding I know there are Canadians whose language is English who cannot understand, or perhaps will not understand, the forces, the sentiments, the emotions that are present today in the province of Quebec. But I want to say to my colleagues from Quebec, and to my other colleagues in all parties whose mother language is French, I am convinced that by far the largest majority of Canadians outside Quebec would not feel as Canadian, would lose some of their pride in Canada if we were to lose that part of Canada which is the province of Quebec.
Any of us who have had any contact with Quebec, I am sure, feel it is as precious or almost as precious to us as is our own province. I hope the people of Quebec will feel the same about other parts of Canada. I hope there will be an increasing opportunity for Canadians of either official language, particularly young people, to travel across the country in order to understand better the language and the aspirations of our fellow Canadians.
We are approaching Thanksgiving weekend, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be trite to say that we have a great deal for which to be thankful. We in this country know we are faced with tremendous challenges. We know there is much that is not right, much that we can correct. But, Mr. Speaker, I think most of us in this house are convinced that nowhere in the world is there more opportunity to correct the wrongs of our society than there is in Canada, no other place in the world where the opportunity for a good life for ourselves and families is greater, and no country where the people have a greater opportunity to make a constructive contribu-

tion to the well being of their neighbours in other parts of the world. For this opportunity I am thankful, and I believe all hon. members of the house are thankful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: with which this parliament is or should be seized today. In view of the fact it appears not too likely, so far as I can determine, that there will be an opportunity to discuss this question in the house in the immediate future, I should like to make some remarks about what is happening in this field as I observed it during the recess. The remarks I intend to make will be confined largely to my observations on the Pacific coast of Canada, and in particular to the area I represent within the boundaries of which some 5,000 to 6,000 Indian people live.
Perhaps it is unfortunate that because of the juxtaposition of other events, the initiative taken by the indian affairs committee to visit the Indian people across the country was not carried through. I am unaware of any current suggestion that this project of visiting various parts of Canada to see how the Indian people are living is to be followed in the immediate future.
First of all, let me make some comment on my view of what is happening in the field of education. I am very happy to report to the house that some of the experience I had this summer in respect of this area was happy and thrilling. I had the opportunity of attending a conference organized by the extension department of the University of British Columbia with some suggestions and co-operation on the part of the Indian affairs branch. It was so designed that discussions could be held amongst the teachers who are going to teach the Indian children. I am happy to say that as a result of sitting in on those meetings for the best part of a week, I came away pleased indeed with the attitude, approach and interest shown in respect of this whole question of education of Indian people. A great deal of interest was displayed by the teachers assembled at that conference and by some of the spokesmen who addressed the conference on various topics. These included a couple of anthropologists, education experts and one or two members of the administration of the Indian affairs branch.
At that time I was also able to visit one of the old style residential schools in the Alberni valley where I make my home. It has now been completely converted into a hostel for Indian children who are not able to attend school at home because of the isolated circumstances of the particular areas in which they live. I found that the interest and attitudes of the staff there were such that one could be proud of them. It is pleasing to know that the staff includes a man and woman who have special qualifications in the field

The Budget-Mr. Barnett of consultation and guidance, and special knowledge in depth of the requirements of children living away from home, particularly those Indian children under their guidance. They have a genuine interest not only in seeing that these children obtain a proper education but also that they find themselves a proper place in life as adult citizens of the country.
In the undercurrent of the discussions that took place about the fact that all of the children living in this hostel as well as the Indian children living on local reserves in the area are now going to public schools in the community, there was a growing interest and desire that some of the culture and values of life which are cherished in the traditional Indian way on the west coast are to be taught in the curriculum of these schools. In addition, some knowledge and appreciation of these things is to be spread among those of us who come from other ethnic origins. In this field, I am happy to say that I feel we are moving in a way which will better those who are most directly concerned in these activities, at least in that particular part of the country about which I am speaking.
Let me move now to what is happening in the field of housing and community development. We have heard a great deal of discussion in the house in recent days about the whole housing question and the needs of Canadian people generally in this regard. There have been announcements made by the minister responsible for Indian affairs in respect of several programs for housing for Indian people. Some time ago there was considerable fanfare when the minister announced a program under which he said $112 million would be spent in the field of housing and community development for the Indian people. At that time a great deal of interest was aroused, and it sounded like quite a bit of money until one realized that it was a five year program and that this money was to be spread across the whole of Canada. I asked myself what difference there was in the Indian communities of my area as a result of this policy. I am very sad to report that as far as any visible evidence is concerned the results are virtually nil. Because of the expectation built up in the minds of the Indian people that we were moving in this direction, there is a growing sense of frustration and a growing sense of scepticism as to whether or not we really mean business in this area.
Let me give you an example of what I have in mind. I visited a community on
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Barnett Vancouver island which was slated to be visited by the committee, although this visit did not take place. Last Easter, when I visited this community and talked with members of the band council I found that they were expecting the arrival of components for four new houses to be built on their reserve. I had the opportunity of meeting one of the band councillors just before I came back to parliament and I asked him about these four houses. He informed me that they had seen no sign of them yet.
These houses were to be placed on a new town site or subdivision, as we call them in suburban terms. Let me take a minute or two to tell the house something about the kind of planning that went into this subdivision. It is beautifully laid out in sort of a crescent, at least on the map. I do not know why this particular area was chosen, but it was a mound of rock which took the shape of a regular hill. When I was there at Easter the work required to level if off had been partially done. Anyone who has had any association at all with mining will know what I mean when I say they had to drill and blast down three depths to level this off. They then pushed some sand up from the beach to fill in the holes and cracks in the rock. Out on the west coast we have a lot of rain, and the first big rain washed this sand out of the rock. A good deal of it spilled across the little grassy area around the school ruining the school playground.
Apparently they ran short of money and instead of putting the pipelines according to the plan in the rock trenches where they were supposed to be, they went straight across so that in some way or other these Indian people are going to have to get their water up to where the houses were supposed to be built.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
As I said, the new houses which were to arrive last Easter are still not there. It seems to me therefore that so far as this program is concerned the government and the people responsible for the program generally have not much to be proud of, at least judging by what is happening in my particular area of the country.
Another matter about which I would like to speak for a few minutes has to do with the question of the constitutional and legal status of the Indian people. Some of us have had the opportunity to look at the first volume of the Hawthorn-Tremblay report which deals with this question in some detail. We know this is a matter which has been discussed and

considered for quite some time. Various suggestions have been made with regard to action which may be taken in this field. I have in my hand a copy of a press release which was issued by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on September 21 of this year which quotes a statement made by the minister of that department on the same day. It reads as follows:
-work is far advanced on preparation of a new Indian Act. "Working papers which will guide the legislative drafting people in the Department of Justice have been discussed with the National Indian Advisory Council and are now being reviewed by an inter-departmental committee." the minister said. "When the final review has been completed, the act itself will be prepared and representatives of the Indian people will be consulted further."
The press release continues as follows:
The minister said that the act is being given highest priority both in the department and by the government but that there is a long standing commitment to consult the Indian people and this has inevitably slowed the process down a little.
I do not know what is meant by the phrase "slowed the process down a little" but I do know I listened to what the former superintendent general of Indian affairs had to say when he was speaking on the estimates of the branch for 1964-65 on August 14, 1964. The then minister of Indian affairs, Mr. Tremblay, was quoted as saying:
It would also be my hope that we can begin to move ahead over the next year with appropriate amendments to the Indian Act.
We are now in the year 1967. The minister's reference at that time to "next year" meant 1965. Now, the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) says that working papers are in the hands of the Department of Justice. I am not at all certain just what the minister meant when he said the act would be given a high priority. All I do know is that these matters have been dragging on far too long and that in the meantime the hopes of many Indian people for a better way of life are being frustrated as a result of the constriction imposed upon them by the present Indian Act which is in many respects outmoded.
Then again, speaking on his estimates in 1964, the minister said:
Again, we are seeking to bring about the further extension to Indians of services normally available to other citizens. This will involve continuing consultation not only with the provinces and with other federal departments but with the Indians themselves-
He then continued in some detail about the efforts that were being made at that time to
October 6, 1967

work out new arrangements through a federal-provincial ministerial conference. It is true that some steps have been taken since that time. However, it is also true that quite recently one of the ministers of the government of British Columbia, speaking to a delegation of Indians who trecked to Victoria to see him, told them simply and bluntly that so far as he was concerned Indian welfare was the responsibility of the federal government. He said that unless the federal government was prepared to foot the complete bill he was not at all interested in them. Here again, so far as the area I represent is concerned, very few practical results have been achieved in meeting what is the declared desire of the Indian people in the coastal part of British Columbia to have the same rights and opportunities in the field of education and welfare as are enjoyed by the rest of the people living in that area.
Now I would like to turn to the question of the so-called Indian claims commission. We have had in this house many discussions on this matter extending over a good many years. Hon. members will recall that on December 19, 1963 a bill was introduced with regard to this matter, Bill C-130. It was introduced by the then minister of citizenship and immigration, Hon. Rene Tremblay. The government did not proceed with the bill. It was supposed to be studied across the country and the Indian people were to be given an opportunity to make representations regarding their attitude toward the bill, after which it was to come back to the house. Representations were made by the Indian people, and on May 3, 1965 another bill was introduced by the then minister of citizenship and immigration, Hon. J. R. Nicholson, Bill C-123. The new bill was virtually the same as the original draft bill, despite the respresentations which were made by the Indian people. Hon. members may recall that after some debate the bill ceased to exist as a result of the dissolution of parliament for the 1965 general election.
If I may say so, there has been a good deal of criticism about the various actions of the government and its ministers, some of it about the head of the present government. It is my own personal view that the most irresponsible action the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of this country has ever taken was the calling of that rather stupid and ill-fated election of 1965. I am not at all sure that he would quarrel too much with that description of it in view of the later events that took place. It was certainly a waste of

The Budget-Mr. Barnett time and effort when we could have been proceeding with a constructive program on such matters as the claims commission bill. However, the fact remains that this legislation has not been reintroduced since the 1965 general election. A particular circumstance has been given by the minister as the reason for its postponement. He said many times in the house that he was postponing the introduction of a new claims commission bill until the Indians in the province of British Columbia have had a chance to get together to discuss what they thought should be done about what is known as the British Columbia Indian land question.
On the day the house reconvened after the summer recess the minister was asked a question on this subject. His reply will be found on page 2433 of Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the situation in respect of the Indian claims commission is the same as it was when the house rose for the summer vacation. Representations are still being made to us by the Indians of British Columbia that it not be introduced until they have been given an opportunity to discuss the British Columbia land question. I have again advised them that we cannot wait much longer and that I expect we will have to introduce the bill at least by next spring.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Then there was a supplementary question by the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas), who asked:
Can the minister advise the house whether he would consider setting up a deadline for the Indians of British Columbia to complete their representations so that the Indian claims commission could be set up?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, anything I have said to the Indians of British Columbia would make that quite possible.
I should like to suggest to the house and to the minister that the time has come when we in this house should stop pussyfooting around on this B.C. land question. I have no quarrel with the minister's suggesting to the Indians of British Columbia that they should get together and discuss or reappraise their thinking on the B.C. land question. But months and months have elapsed since they did that. The Indian people have met and held discussions. Not only that, but I can understand their difficulty in coming to a decision on the kind of statement they should make to the government and the parliament of Canada in view of the long and rather sorry history the whole question has had and the kind of treatment it has received from past governments and parliaments.
2906	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Barnett
One of the principal reasons that I wanted to intervene for a little while in the debate this afternoon was to suggest that this government and this parliament should come to the conclusion the time has come to speak out on this question that is such a burning one to the Indians of British Columbia. Since the union of British Columbia with Canada, the Indians have maintained that there is a B.C. land question. I think the government and the parliament of Canada should admit that there is a B.C. land question. If we were prepared to make such a declaration, then the Indian people of British Columbia would have much less difficulty at this time in making up their minds what it is they want to say to us about the matter.
The fact that has to be brought home to this parliament generally, I believe, is that there is a basic difference between what has happened in British Columbia in respect to the Indian peoples and what has happened in the rest of Canada. There is, indeed, a basic difference between what has taken place in British Columbia and what has transpired in relation to the rights of aboriginal title to land in any other part of the world that was occupied by and came under the jurisdiction of the English crown.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there is a basic difference between what happened in British Columbia and what happened in the United States of America after that country became independent of the British crown. In fact, in no other part of the English speaking world or in the areas entered into by people from the British Isles was there such complete absence of recognition of any right of aboriginal title to land and all the things that derive from it as there was in the province of British Columbia.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in considering this question we in this parliament are dealing with a situation which is in many respects unique. We are dealing with a situation where the action that was taken in the past in this connection is no longer consistent with the kind of outlook that is generally acceptable to people in this day and age. I suggest it is our responsibility in this parliament to do what we can to redress the action that was taken in the past.
Across the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker, we did at least go through the motions of entering into treaties with the Indian people regarding the surrendering of land. We arrived at certain agreements as a result of which certain areas of land were to be occupied by the Indians under a form of treaty which has
[Mr. Barnett.)
DEBATES	October 6, 1967
been regarded by many courts as binding in many respects, in a manner similar to international treaties that are entered into between nation states.
However, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a small area on the southern part of Vancouver island comprising, I believe, 358 square miles in relation to which certain treaties were entered into between the head of the Hudson Bay Company, Sir James Douglas, and the Indian people in the 1850's, and an area of something like 104,000 square miles in the northeast corner of the province of British Columbia on the eastern side of the Rockies, where part of what is now British Columbia is included in the area covered by treaty No. 8, which was concluded with the Indian peoples in 1899, we have consistently denied any right of aboriginal title to the Indians in the rest of the province now known as British Columbia. This is what we mean today when we talk of the B.C. land question.
As far as the rest of the country is concerned, when reserves were set aside for the Indians under treaties the grant in land area was worked out at 120 acres per family. After confederation with Canada, under which it was agreed that treatment would be as favourable by the dominion as it had been by the crown colony, the British Columbia government took the position that the lands for the Indian peoples should not be more than ten acres per family. The federal government of that day did induce British Columbia to increase the acreage to 20 acres, but that is still only one sixth of the land which was allowed to Indians in the other parts of the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I wish to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I could go on if time allowed and say more on this subject. However, there will be further opportunity, though I hope I have said enough to seize the house of the importance of action in this field.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a challenging privilege to stand in this august chamber before such energetic and enthusiastic benchers and speak on the budget or any other topic. I must say that I suppose in a way it is almost presumptuous of a lowly backbencher to address a few words to the house on a budget which has been prepared and delivered by the respected Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) with the assistance of his officials. But what
October 6, 1967

can a lowly backbencher or anybody else say about a budget that finds reception in the ears of the minister?
I should like to take this opportunity to speak about the many problems that face my particular area and some of the problems that face Canada as a whole. Perhaps as I know a little more about the housing, education and transportation problems in the eastern part of Canada I should let others more experienced and knowledgeable direct their remarks to the budget.
It occurs to me that not all of us can be ministers of finance; neither can the 20 million people in Canada be officials in his department. Nevertheless, I am sure that the officials in the minister's department as well as the minister himself would like to hear from some of the representatives of the people, even from the lowly backbencher, on the subject of the budget.
As far as lack of knowledge is concerned, the opportunity exists for members to read reports by bodies such as the Economic Council of Canada and by other economists on the budget.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
For the minister's sake I think I can bend over backwards, and before becoming too critical perhaps I ought to look at the standards and guide lines which I might follow in this debate. I was surprised, of course, on looking back at a speech which our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made in this chamber on April 17, 1962, when he was leader of the opposition, to find this as reported on page 3070 of Hansard. He was complaining about the economy and said:
We have deficits and we have jobless too. That is the ultimate in mismanagement by government.
That surprised me. The Prime Minister, who was then opposition leader judged the government by the jobless figures and deficits; yet the Minister of Finance last Wednesday, by his speech here, admitted that we have a deficit of large proportions. What many Canadians do not appreciate, however, is that we have still many without jobs. It is' not the numbers without jobs that disturbs this backbencher; it is the fact that since December, 1966, according to a statistical review, which is a publication of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics,-and I refer to volume 42 of that publication-the rate of unemployment, has been increasing.
The jobless have increased from over 272,000 to 334,000. In the light of the Prime Minister's statement when he was opposition 27053-1841
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan leader and the minister's speech of last Wednesday, this is a paradox. Nevertheless, it was said that the previous government had mismanaged our affairs.
Something else in the minister's speech of last Wednesday surprised me, and editorial comment was made about this also. The minister suggested that Canadians may face hard tasks; that they may have to make hard decisions and practice restraint. The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) talked about tightening the belt. These are interesting words. As reported in the Globe and Mail of February 28, 1963, the present Prime Minister said at Moncton:
setting the Canadian economy right is going to require unpleasant decisions by the government.
What happened between 1963 and 1967? Why had not unpleasant decisions been taken before now? When the Prime Minister referred some years ago to judging the government by its deficits and jobless, and then presents us with this situation, may we not ask: "What has been done; what unpleasant decisions have been taken so far as the economy is concerned?" Frontbenchers and backbenchers on this side may criticize the government's course of action.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is a courtly and kind man, but I do not think his speech of last Wednesday was courtly or kind to the Canadian taxpayer. He used words such as "readjustment", "moderation", managing the prosperity", and others similar to that. Yet, within a short period previous to that statement we had had two emergency debates, one on housing and the other on the falling price of wheat. That is enough to colour any phrases the minister might wish to use in his budget speech.
I suggest that the minister's speech of Wednesday was a canvas of camouflage. There was lots of paint but no pattern. He swung his whitewash brush, colouring everything, yet he tells Canadians that they may only use a toothbrush. The pattern that the minister painted on Wednesday had a lot of red in it; that colour was offset only by the blank looks of embarrassment on the faces of many objective members on the government side. I detected a note of apathy in the way the minister's remarks were greeted by his colleagues. There was no resounding applause for the minister, no bending over backwards. To be fair, to appreciate the minister's difficulties, it must be understood that this country is growing. As a country grows, so do its problems. One might ask whether our
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan problems have not been caused through our growth.
A quick look at our population figures shows that for the last five years our population has been growing at approximately 1.9 per cent a year. One can say that our growth has been approximately 2 per cent per year during the last five years. This population growth would certainly lead to more federal employees being hired. Yet, when one looks at the total numbers of federal employees, one finds that they have increased out of all proportion to population. During the first two years of this government's tenure the increase in federal employees was related to this country's growth. Between 1963 and 1964 the number of federal employees increased by 1.2 per cent. In 1965 the number of federal employees increased by 2 per cent; between 1965 and 1966, the percentage increase in the number of federal employees was 5.5 per cent, which is more than twice the increase in the population.
When one looks at the payroll increase since 1963 one finds that it is out of all proportion to the increase in population. In
1963	it increased by 8.8 per cent over 1962; in
1964	it increased by 5 per cent over 1963; in
1965	the increase was 7.2 per cent over the previous year. These figures have been taken from December of one year to December of the next. The figures for 1966 show the extravagant and inflationary increase of 19.4 per cent over 1965 in the payroll of federal employees. When one looks at those figures there is reason for concern. I suggest, none the less, that these difficulties are within the minister's control.
The minister's difficulties may be summarized fis problems of percentages. There is the 5J per cent bank rate, the 11 per cent sales tax, the 8J per cent N.H.A. maximum mortgage rate and the 30 per cent increase in labour contracts which the government has condoned. These four percentages I suggest have brought the government to its present dilemma.
That there is a dilemma is evident from reading the minister's speech. While there is talk of easy money on the one hand, the high interest rate on mortgages will help to keep it tight. This minister reminds one of King Canute who tried to hold back the tide. He has repealed the law of supply and demand. How easy can money be when we have the highest N.H.A. interest rate that this country has ever seen.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) said that the increased N.H.A. interest rate


would attract more private money into the housing field; yet he said that at a time when the investment portfolios of most private lending companies have already been allocated. At the same time, we heard a suggestion that the government might be interested in paying a rebate to offset the effects of the high interest rate. On the one hand we hear about increased interest rates and on the other hand ministers of the government suggest that a rebate might be paid to homeowners. Naturally, those who want to buy homes will be concerned about these remarks.
On Wednesday the minister suggested that he was slashing to the left and right to cut expenditures. I challenge the minister to show us where one red cent has been cut from any project or program of this fiscal year. Regardless of this fiscal year even, what has the minister removed by way of expenditure from next year's programs? He said that he had a sharp knife; yet I suggest that his knife will be dull when it comes to cutting. Every year the various departments prepare voluminous estimates for the next year; those estimates are always inflated and invariably reduced.
* (4:50 p.m.)
I challenge the minister to indicate where there has been one cent cut from this year's spending program. The hon. gentleman made his own definition of priorities when he spoke in the housing debate on October 2 as reported in Hansard at page 2731. He said, then:
The test of people who believe in priorities is not what they put at the top but what they drop off at the bottom.
Using the minister's own test, I challenge him to tell the country what one red cent he has cut off the program during this fiscal year or what programs have been reduced or eliminated in next year's plans. It is all very well for him to suggest he has reduced the estimates by $650 million when those estimates have yet to come before the house. He well knows from his vast experience that reviews of spending proposals are carried out regularly each year. Rather than give the impression that the program has been slashed, he should come forward and admit that what has taken place is just the normal, annual exercise which takes place when the Treasury Board, or, finally, the government, reviews departmental estimates.
The estimates for next year have not yet come before the house. It is not true to say, therefore, that $650 million has been slashed from them. Again, I challenge the minister to tell us one project in connection with which
October 6, 1967	COMMONS
he has reduced expenditures by one cent this year, or, using his own test of priorities, to inform us what program he has eliminated from the bottom of the list.
The minister has not told us how many billions of dollars were in the estimates which were submitted to the government. The total could have been two billion dollars or more the first time the list got to somebody's desk for scrutiny. Those are not estimates, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister speaks with a forked tongue when he asks Canadians to exercise restraint and reduce expenditure in these circumstances. Unless he can answer some of these questions, we are entitled to believe the minister does not think about priorities.
Statements recently made by him have given rise to misconceptions. For instance, several Canadian newspapers carry headlines saying "Minister Slashes $650 Million" though in reality he has not cut a cent, yet. When considering lists of priorities we might refer to the words which were used in 1963 by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), then leader of the opposition, when he spoke in Moncton. He said that unpleasant decisions had to be made. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) cannot point his finger at the opposition and put the blame on them by saying "What did you vote against?". The government has to take its own responsibility. Let me call the attention of hon. members to the exchange last night between the minister and my hon. friend from Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) as reported at page 2865 of Hansard for October 5:


Mr. Fulton:: Would the minister say that if we had voted against it (medicare) that would have changed his position?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, you supported it.
Even had we voted against the program, the government would still have implemented it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private member's bills as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills and private bills.


Mr. McNulty:: I believe there is general agreement to postpone private member's hour and continue with the budget debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you. So often in this debate we have heard speakers across the way saying: "You suggested this; you voted for it."
DEBATES	2909
The Budget-Mr. Nowlan
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It is the government which proposes legislation, and members of the government have to take the responsibility, regardless of what the Minister of Finance says about the way each side voted. I say to the minister, if you have a plan or program you are going to implement it, and you are not going to be affected by the way we vote.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member a question. Is he saying that the opposition can be irresponsible without any consequences?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker.


Mitchell William Sharp: That was the inference.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Frankly some of the statements made from the minister's side of the house have not been the most responsible statements on government policy. This is the opposition over here. The minister has the responsibility to implement programs. We do not have the responsibility of bringing programs before the house. We offer criticism. Sometimes it is expected to be negative criticism; sometimes it is expected to be positive, constructive criticism. To all the plans which the minister and his colleagues brought forward, we offered amendments time after time after time. But those amendments were defeated. The government has the responsibility to carry out its own programs.
Criticism must be expressed on this side of the house, unless you want the divine right of kings back again. Sometimes I find in statements from across the way there is too much of the divine right of kings flavour, particularly in some of the high-sounding philosophical statements made by ministers. If a party criticizes that does not mean it is irresponsible.
Taking a layman's approach to the problem, I ask how can one reconcile the 2 per cent growth in population over five years with a 19.4 per cent increase in salaries to federal civil servants between 1965 and 1966? How can one reconcile that 2 per cent growth in population with such huge increases in government expenditure?
I see the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) has just entered the chamber. It is always pleasant to see him here because he knows these facts and figures better than I do. I ask him how can he reconcile a 5.5 per cent increase in the number of federal employees between 1965 and 1966 with the normal growth of population in the country? It
Oclober 6, 1987

The Budget-Mr. Nowlan is because the government has sanctioned this fantastic growth in the number of federal employees and such high payroll increases, together with the implementation of so many plans and programs, that the chickens are coming home to roost.
I suggest that the fundamental catalyst for the present economic difficulties that the Minister of Finance finds himself in was the government's involvement, either directly or indirectly-in one case most directly-in the settlement of labour disputes two years ago. It is rather pretentious to quote oneself, but I would like to refer to what I said when discussing the Minister of Labour's (Mr. Nicholson) estimates on June 22, 1966, as recorded at page 6771 of Hansard for that date.
On that occasion several members on this side of the house spoke of the fantastic seaway settlement wage increase of over 30 per cent, something with which the government was directly involved. That was the catalyst which stirred the present unrestrained inflationary trend across the country. At that time I said it was an albatross which would come back to choke the Minister of Labour and his colleagues. Hansard records my words as follows:
In view of the participation directly or indirectly, and in both cases about which I am talking-
I was referring to the seaway settlement and to the stevedoring strike in Montreal.
-it became direct in the last stages, of the federal government in negotiations which resulted in the approval of a 30 per cent increase over two years for the workers in two recent labour strikes, the federal government has been a party to a precedent for the settlement of labour problems in Canada for the next while. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this precedent is going to. be in effect an economic albatross that will be hung around the neck of not only the Minister of Labour but the government as well.
That is just what has happened. Across the country we have had an inflationary spiral in wage settlements. You cannot blame the ordinary worker when he sees his brother, his colleague or his competitor getting a 30 per cent increase on a two year contract. Of course he is going to look for the same. It was the direct involvement of the government in the settlement of the seaway strike which was the catalyst.
It was the Pearson formula of over 30 per cent wage increases in those two settlements which was too expensive then, and is too expensive now for the country to digest. These settlements were so rich that the government and the economic climate of the country have been suffering indigestion ever since.

The taxpayer is suffering indigestion and the government is getting a bellyache. I think that the government had better pay attention before his bellyache becomes an ulcer. You can get rid of an ulcer in government by defeating the government, but if this particular ulcer stays too long with the taxpayer it just might burst. In this case the taxpayer is trying to tell government ministers that he has a bellyache.
I admit that municipal and provincial governments have also been responsible for increased expenditures, but the federal government must take responsibility. In 1963 the Prime Minister ran an election campaign on the theme that hard decisions, "unpleasant decisions" were his words, might have to be taken. I think it is difficult for the Minister of Finance, four years later, to come into this house and say Canadians now have to meet some unpleasant decisions.


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


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, on reading again the statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) when he delivered the budget speech, one is led to believe that, in the Canadian government, there is no bureaucracy and that the minister is working alone, guided only by intuition.
He tells us that as early as June last, he had foreseen a rise in prices, an increase in unemployment. However, faced with the wishes of his masters in high finance, that is a raise in interest rates, he lost all his powers of soothsayer.
All of a sudden it is pitch dark for the minister; the crystal ball remains silent and, to console himself, he tells us that the same goes for all his friends who gathered around him last week for the picnic in Rio de Janeiro.
Then, the minister tells us, as given on page 2808 of Hansard for October 4:
All of us agreed that never before had we been faced at one and the same time with easy money policies and high and rising interest rates. In the past, we have associated high interest rates with tight money. Now, for the first time, we have high and rising interest rates associated with easy money.
Further on, he adds:
How do you combine prosperity with stability? [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Prosperity has become a problem for the
minister. Plenty, desired and deserved by the
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Godin figures are favorable on one side, it may be that they are less so on the other.
Intelligent people can very well discuss around a table but, in general it is the strongest who win. And more often that he should. Even before a government which seems satisfied, the Canadian citizen is the loser. When farmers are left with unsold fruits and vegetables, because we import too much at the wrong moment, when egg producers have to sell their production at a loss, in spite of a complete inability to supply the Canadian market, we say that some agreements are inconsistent. Faced with a surplus of eggs, Canada is entitled to export 9 per cent of its production to the United States. But when the shoe in on the other foot, when the United States have surpluses, the percentage granted to them under the Geneva agreement is far too high, considering their great capacity of production.
As far as automobiles are concerned, the agreements are also detrimental to Canada. If a Canadian dealer wants to get a Chevrolet, made in St. Therese, near Montreal, he will have to pay $3,400, when the same model sells for as low as $2,700 in the United States. That is a difference of $700; it was figured out and granted by our representatives at the signing of the Geneva agreement.
Canada is not the only country to deprive its citizens of their due, and the best illustration we have comes from Czechoslovakia in the field of imported shoes. For a pair of shoes which sells for $8 here, in Canada, the Czech people pay $12, that is one and a half more. And yet, we all know that the average salary, there, is $30 a month while that of the average Canadian worker is $250 a month. Therefore, those workers have to pay one and a half times more, with a salary ten times less.
In the case of automobiles, the Canadian people are deprived of their due. In the case of shoes, the people of Czechoslovakia are kept in slavery for the convenience of the small handful of businessmen who run this country. Should the Canadians always pay for the financiers who have enslaved the people of other countries? Should we go on importing textiles and shoes manufactured by slaves? How many factories should be closed in Canada? How many unemployed should we have before the government considers the market is upset?
In the communique No. 1 handed over to us by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) and the hon. Minister of Finance, we find, on page 17, an article which
2912	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Godin would empower us to cancel imports that tend to become prejudicial and I quote:
Reductions agreed to by the negotiating countries in the field of textiles are usually lower than those granted in other sectors. During the Kennedy round, the long term agreement on cotton textiles was renewed for another three-year period. (Under that agreement, importing countries can ask exporting countries to reduce their sales when the market is disorganized.)
We all know that as tar as textile products and footwear are concerned, our markets are disorganized. I wonder when the minister will use that clause to protect our industries.
I also wonder whether that clause would be ignored as was section 19 of the Geneva Convention in 1958.
I have already taken the liberty of discussing that matter in the house and, each time, it has been realized that the government was deriding the people.
The Manufacturers' Association have filed five briefs on May 14, 1964 concerning the serious situation of shoe manufacturers. When I pointed out the fact to the Minister of Trade, he not only overlooked the matter, but also made a false statement as reported on page 11824 of Hansard of January 16, when I asked the Minister of Trade what he intended to do concerning the disastrous situation of the shoe industry, has answered and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, this matter has been brought to my attention before and it is under consideration. It is a fact that imports of shoes have increased, but domestic production has substantially increased too.
I can only say, without being mistaken, that this statement is not only unfounded but entirely false, because in their report the shoe manufacturers quoted figures based on some data of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Those gentlemen informed us that shoe imports had increased by 8 million pairs from 1963 to 1966 while Canadian production had decreased by 1 million.
Since three years ago the minister still seems to ignore those demands.
It is obvious that the government does not care about small industries. Yet, the shoe industry employs 10,000 people in Ontario,
14.000	in Quebec and 15,000 more in related industries. That amounts to a total of 39,000 employees; the welfare and the livelihood of
125.000	Canadians is involved.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Last January 24, when I again quoted the recommendations contained in the brief of the shoe manufacturers association, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
[Mr. Godin.1
DEBATES	October 6, 1967
Trade and Commerce (Mr. Cantin) answered me:
The brief submitted to the Canadian committee on tariffs and trade by the Canadian Shoe Manufacturers Association was given careful consideration by officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Then it was referred to the Canadian delegation at the GATT conference on tariffs; negotiations are presently under way at Geneva.
Well, we did get the answer in the Geneva agreements. There again, we found that the tariffs had been lowered by about 10 per cent for shoes imported from European countries.
It is realized that our representatives in Geneva did not prove equal to the task and the results of their efforts are merely added to the work done by other government officials who create problems for the Canadian people. This is absurd, because most Canadians are now facing insuperable problems. They are no longer able to handle their own affairs and to make both ends meet, because too many governments pick their pockets in order to balance their own budget or to enrich their friends of high finance. With regard to the federal government only, the Minister of Finance is giving, this year, to his friends $1,273 million in interest on the national debt, which means that the charges on our public debt are increasing constantly, and this does not seem to bother the minister.
Faced with this increase, he has again asked us, as may be seen in Hansard of October 4, to help him control inflation, and he also told us to exercise collective and individual restraint in respect to salary increases.
This is the approach of the Minister of Finance. He grants to a handful of his financial buddies an amount equal to a monthly family allowance of $25 for children. This is what he is giving to his friends.
We should not be surprised by these new ways of imposing taxes. War was used for imposing the tax deduction at the source, and when tax rates had to be increased, the parish priests were used. What would we not do to win a war? What would we not do, as Roman Catholics, knowing that our parish priests would help us?
When taxes were increased, taxpayers were told: "Don't worry. If you earn only about $3,000 or $4,000 and you have a receipt for charitable donations from your parish-priest, it won't cost you one penny more." But, at one point, inspectors walked into the rectories and refused the receipts of the parish-priests.
October 6, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	2913
Last spring, to increase taxes further, we turned in pity towards the aged. What would we not have done for our elderly citizens? Once again, we accepted an increase in taxes, under the pretext that the old people would receive $105 per month. But now we realize that when a husband of 70 or 71 finally receives his $105 a month, his 65, 66 or 67-year old wife sees her old age assistance allowance reduced by the same amount, that is $30 per month. That is how the government helps the aged. When the new 11 per cent tax on building materials was introduced, to make things more palatable, a little $500 bonus was granted for the construction of a house. Two years later, once the system is under way, horses are changed in midstream and the $500 is withdrawn.
_ The 11 per cent tax on building materials is still the most debated, and yet, everything is taxed in Canada: cars, electrical household appliances, machines, furniture, clothes, footwear for men, women and children. Everything is taxed.
For a long time, it was even believed that food was tax free. However, a report from Manitoba has made known that on a 12 cent loaf of bread, 150 "tags" of all sorts bring the price of that loaf to 24 cents. Obviously, all Canadians are fleeced like sheep.
With a few laws, the government would make us believe in its war on poverty, but there are so many laws dipping into the pockets of fathers and mothers who bring up their children, that there is little doubt that the government is striving to make a poor man out of every worker. Throughout the province of Quebec, the destitute were inclined to think Montreal is an exceptional area, with great opportunities arising from Expo '67. At the same time, however, responsible people in Montreal were conducting a study of destitution, poverty and hardship in the city of Montreal. A report published in the May 5, 1967 issue The Canadian Worker contains the following passage:
Proportion according to level or threshold:
More than 55,800 families out of 217,000, or 20 per cent of the families living in the city of Montreal, and more than 27,000 families living in the suburbs, or 14 per cent, are poor. For the metropolitan area, this percentage is 17 per cent of families and 20 per cent of the population.
In addition to the families which live on less than the vital minimum "necessary for a tolerable social and human existence", there are 50,000 families in Montreal, or an additional 18 per cent, who suffer from hardship and "whom a simple recession or slightly longer period of unemployment can reduce to the state of poverty they suffered during the depression".
The Budget-Mr. Godin
That means from 1929 to 1939. And it is well remembered that at that time even the notaries, the lawyers, in short all those who had thought themselves very clever in financial matters, were living on the dole.
I continue:
The margin in percentage amounts to 17 per cent of the total population in the metropolitan area, or 325,000 people.
The talk is always about families and to that individuals are added.
The article adds:
The figure jumps from 706,830 to 1,032,000 people, or 48.6 per cent of the total population of the metropolitan area, who live in misery, poverty or deprivation.
Mr. Speaker, if the people of Montreal are poor, I am not afraid to say that such is the case throughout the province of Quebec, which I know best, because 50 per cent of our families earn less than $2,500 a year, and 50 per cent of the farmers have an income of less than $2,000 a year. Now, as far as Nova Scotia is concerned, of which we have heard about a little and from where come not only people of distinction but also important reports, I wish to refer to a report prepared by a Mr. Scott Wood, associate professor of economic research at Dalhousie University.
In his report, Mr. Wood tells us that in Nova Scotia 54,929 families or 36 per cent of the people are poor. The study shows that in the county of Cape Breton, 30 per cent of the people live in hardship; in Victoria county, 58 per cent; in other counties, 56, 57, and 63 per cent. We also know that in Nova Scotia 20 per cent of the families do not have running water in their homes, 20 per cent have no bathrooms or toilets in their homes. Therefore, it means that there is still a lot of work to be done on the part of every government, at the provincial as well as the federal level.
When statistics show that 60 per cent of the people lack the necessities of life in a country which has a gross production of $60 billion a year, or the equivalent of $3,000 for each man, woman and child, it can be said that the system is rotten and that the minister who supports it is also morally bad.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In a country where the production is $3,000 per capita, it is abnormal that married people earning $3,000 per annum should pay income tax. In a country where production amounts to $60 billion per annum, it is abnormal that family allowances should remain stationary at $6 or $7 after twenty years. In a country
2914	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Godin in which the production amounts to $3,000 per capita, it is abnormal also that the recipients of old age assistance should have their pension reduced by $30 per month, allegedly because that of their spouse was increased by $30. In a country in which the production amounts to $60 billion per annum, it is abnormal that building materials should be taxed and become out of reach for those who would like to build a house for themselves. In a country in which the production amounts to $60 billion, it is abnormal that all consumer goods should bear taxes of all kinds.
Mr. Speaker, considering the great needs felt by the Canadian people in the presence of so many resources, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) should be charged of non-support and put in jail until he decides to cash out. But he could avoid the state prison if he used the bank of the state. He could go to that bank to obtain money, to obtain the capital he needs to finance public works. The government could also, with money from that bank, finance and increase all social benefits, the pensions for the blind, needy mothers, invalids, veterans or hospital insurance. The cost of all those benefits could be met. Naturally, by the Bank of Canada.
In a country whose Minister of Finance is certainly intellectually well endowed, it is odd for family allowances not to be increased to $25 a month for every child, that is, the equivalent of what the minister will pay this year just in interest on the debt, because, I shall say it again, the interest on the debt represents no more than $25 a month per child.
In a country whose national product is 60 billion a year, the government could encourage house building by replacing the 11 per cent sales tax by a 10 per cent discount on building materials. In a country whose gross product is $3,000 a year, per person, the sales tax should be removed on all products made and consumed in Canada, and replaced by a discount of 10 per cent. That would be a way of encouraging Canadian producers of preventing the breakdown of our industries and our commercial enterprises to the advantage of foreign products.
The Bank of Canada may allow through the Minister of Finance the humane financing of all our needs. In financing our public activities across the country, through the Bank of Canada, would also enable the minister to stop fleecing married men who earn less than $5,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker my most sincere hope is that the minister will glance at all my recommen-

DEBATES	October 6, 1967
dations which have the support of the 20 million, the inhabitants of this country, the
22,000	voters of the riding of Portneuf which I have the honour of representing. I should like our $60 billion production to be used for the benefit of our people who richly deserve it.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I shall first of all recall a rather sad event: tomorrow, one year will have elapsed since the Dorion tragedy which caused the death of many school children, in the riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
During the last session, I had the opportunity to speak on many occasions and to urge the former minister of transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to take the most stringent safety measures to enable our citizens to use level crossings without endangering their life.
Therefore, it is on a rather grim note that I start my remarks, expressing hope that next year all necessary steps will be taken at all levels of administration to ensure maximum safety at level crossings.
Departing from that sad vein, I would now like to enjoy myself a little by recalling the recent convention of the Progressive Conservative party. The famous resolution passed by the political committee of the Conservative party to the effect that Canada is made up of two nations is certainly likely to raise a good laugh.
I feel that our friends opposite are not reminded enough of the resolution they passed, of the wish they expressed when they recognized the existence of two nations in Canada. I deplore the absence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Churchill), one of the most fervent supporters of that resolution purporting the existence of two nations in our country, and I now wish to point out incidentally that the passage of such a resolution is nothing else than a concubinage with the Union Nationale party, in short, an attempt to gain the support of the Quebec premier, Mr. Daniel Johnson.
I have a feeling that this hoax of the Progressive Conservative party will be widely publicized so that the people will finally understand that it is nothing but bluff, because if this is really a two-nation country, there won't be any more federal-provincial conferences. No need for such conferences, with two nations within our border. There will be representatives of the French Canadian nation, facing their English Canadian counterparts.
If the Conservatives are sincere about applying this two-nation principle, they should
October 6. 1987

stop calling for federal-provincial conferences and just ask for meetings where representatives of both nations will discuss matters. If they do not do it, it is because they are neither sincere nor consistent.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, as I belong to a party whose philosophy is much more orthodox, being the doctrine of the Liberal party, I do not believe in this theory of the two nations. There may be on the cultural or sociological plan a nation that may be called French-Canadian, but there are certainly not two nations in Canada, because Ukrainians and Germans do not claim to belong to the English-Canadian nation, nor the people of Italian origin.
They are first of all Canadians, and if one wants them definitely to assume an extra title they may call themselves Canadians from Italian, German or Ukrainian origin. Therefore, the Tories went astray, which would be normal, since they err almost every day, or they lack sincerity. Our duty will then be to tell the population: "Those people are not sincere, they are not consistent, and despite the "new look" they want to sell us, they pretend to offer, they deserve to carry on without the confidence of the population, and the population will continue to deny them that confidence."
Now, Mr. Speaker-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I am sure many hon. members on this side are grateful for the free publicity which the hon. member for Lotbiniere is giving to the activities of our party, I fail to see what relationship his remarks have to the current amendment with regard to the budget.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): It is very difficult for the Chair to find what point of order the hon. member is raising.


Auguste Choquette: It is a nice try, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am now going to deal with another subject. Indeed, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) may be right when he says that politicians nowadays tend to discuss the constitution and I think we have a certain complaint to make about the press in general in this connection.
It is obvious, at the present time, that all the newspapers in Canada put a special emphasis on constitutional debates, on all statements pertaining to the constitution. I think
27053-185J
The Budget-Mr. Choquette this is unfortunate, because it is quite apparent that many politicians seek to make the headlines. They know that if they discuss the constitution they will succeed, so they try their best to deliver long speeches on the matter. Consequently, if the newspapers and the news media in general wanted to co-operate and to stop underlining the constitutional debates, we would probably be in a position to create a better climate of Canadian solidarity and to prevent, if you wish, the emergence of prejudices which are more and more difficult to eradicate.
As far as the constitution is concerned, I feel that we should tend more and more towards constitutional ecumenism, that is to say towards a situation where one option deserves as much consideration as the other.
There is no need to treat a separatist like an outcast; he is entitled to his own opinion. A dyed-in-the-wool monarchist is entitled to his own opinion, and it is respected. A man who believes that Canada is doomed to disappear is entitled to express his opinion.
I think we should steep ourselves in this ecumenical spirit and try to solve these problems as serenely as possible.
Nevertheless, I should like to express some reservations concerning the statements made by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain).
The hon. member told the house about a survey made in his riding. Firs of all, the findings of this survey, from the sociological point of view, are questionable, since the age, the profession or trade and the sex of those who answered the questions asked by the hon. member is unknown. For that reason, the results of this survey are of doubtful value.
From our experience, we who belong to the younger generation in Quebec, and this is our major concern, feel that separatism, of itself, is not dangerous. In respect to the present state of things, I say that separatism is not dangerous; what is dangerous, is latent separatism, by which I mean that in the heart of every French-speaking Canadian, there lies an emotional feeling toward secession.
This is normal, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing revolutionary in all this, and it is admitted by everyone, I think, that the older generation sees and considers Canada as its homeland. While the young generation which is certainly led by teachers, agitators, even by anarchists, is rather inclined to consider Quebec as its fatherland.
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Choquette
If 50 years hence, all the generations have been led to consider Quebec as their fatherland, it will be difficult to consider Canada otherwise than a mere economic common market. This is the danger, the possibility of separatism which any young Quebecer sets his heart on.
There is then a single solution, that is to create a Canadian ideal which does not exist, it is a fact. The Quebec citizen is quite indifferent to the Vancouver citizen. The Vancouver citizen is rather indifferent to the Newfoundland citizen. Canada is a big country not easily held together, although quick and easy means of communication raise great hopes. I think that the best way to create this Canadian ideal would be first to give some encouragement to the government-I mean government generally, not necessarily Liberal, Conservative or what have you. I mean government as such. The federal government should behave as it is beginning to do, in order to show that it is really the government of all Canadians. Let me explain.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the economic factor.


Auguste Choquette: I will come to that later on, Mr. Speaker. I am not as qualified in economic and monetary matters as my hon. friend, but I will try to talk on his own level shortly. I want to complete my remarks on that subject. I say that there is no Canadian ideal and that the best way to create an ideal is first of all to ask our government, the government of all Canadians, to act as if it were really the government of all Canadians.
I think that I will not offend my Englishspeaking colleagues in saying that from 1867 until a certain period-I do not want to quote figures, dates or years-clearly the Canadian government acted as if it were only the government of the majority of the population. The existence of the French fact was tolerated and the group was handled gingerly for electoral purposes.
This is indeed the truth. The turn of mind which inspired Durham's report has not completely vanished.
Let me give an example of what is happening. Since 1945 hundreds of thousands of immigrants have entered this country. The Canadian government is not at all concerned by the fact that all these people, ninety five per cent of them assimilate the English culture. I have nothing against the fact itself. I am glad that these people can speak English. I tell myself that if the government is not concerned, it is because it is not worried about


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	2917
The Budget-Mr. Choquette


Auguste Choquette: However, I certainly have the right to think that some day changes will be made. Such thinking does not involve any sacrilege, any scandal, and those who would want to deprive me of the right to promote such reforms, are those of the ilk of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who are guilty of sacrilege because they have not understood the meaning of democracy.
Mr. Speaker, 1 shall go on. I have a few minutes left, at any rate, but I will come back to it on Tuesday-
Mr. Speaker, I am well known for my attendance. Some members opposite do not follow the instructions given by the new leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Robert Stanfield, who asked that absenteeism disappear from the house. A large number of his own members disobey the orders of their leader and I wonder what kind of authority he has on his party. Mr. Speaker I count 1,2,3,4,5 members, when their leader asked them to be present in the house. It is obvious that they are not pleased with the Conservative convention, since they do not respect the orders of their leader.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member will permit me to point out that none of us can be very proud of the attendance on Friday afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I should like to be tolerant, but I should also remind the hon. member that he is not always in order.


Auguste Choquette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
will admit that my remarks had certain caricatural aspects; nevertheless, it is interesting to see that some hon. members are not in the house, although their leader requested them to attend. I feel sorry about this, for if I were asked by my leader to be in the house, I would remain in the house, because, it must be said, we of the Liberal party have faith in our leader. There lies the whole difference.
Now, I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, how the problem of Canadian fellowship could be solved in two ways. I should like to indicate a third solution. Much has been said about bilingualism, a subject that sometimes must be broached gingerly especially when one speaks in the vicinity of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).
October 6, 1967

The Budget-Mr. Choquette
One thing is sure: the member for York-Humber, in whom I do not see a Liberal, is a man of frankness and courage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Auguste Choquette: I admit it: he is frank and courageous.
Unfortunately, his philosophy is obsolete. His philosophy is rather conservative. Yet he has the right to express his views and I congratulate him for doing so with so much vigour.
Now, Mr. Speaker, here is what I have to say about bilingualism. It is obvious that to hope for all Canadians to become bilingual would be utopian, as has been said time and time again. But bilingualism does not mean complete bilingualism. Incidentally, I find it unpleasant when members, such as the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), for instance, demand that a clerk or a constable be bilingual. How can that be expected when even the members of the House of Commons are not bilingual?
What is being asked, for instance, is that all technical facilities be put at the disposal of the people so that they will have the right to express themselves in one of the official languages. That a member of the police force be bilingual, I do not have the right to insist on that; but I have the right to ask that my government see to it that when a French-

speaking Canadian deals with it, all the human and technical resources are used to allow him to be understood. That is why I want to eradicate the prejudice which often results from statements such as those made by the hon. member for Lapointe who asks for bilingual R.C.M.P. officers. I cannot ask that a constable be bilingual when a member of parliament, who might be a lawyer or a doctor, is not even bilingual. But we have the right to ask the government to take every possible means in order that one or the other of the two official languages in the country be understood.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Auguste Choquette: I see that my hon. friend from Newfoundland is in such agreement with my ideas that he is anxious to see me in the house on Tuesday next.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order.


Auguste Choquette: I shall abide by your order, Mr. Speaker, and next Tuesday I shall continue my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 4, the house stands adjourned until next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 10, 1967