1968-02-23

MOTION RESPECTING HOUSE VOTE ON BILL C-193

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
February 21-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193, which had carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister. Order, please. Before the Prime Minister can proceed this order has to be transferred.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that under the terms of the standing order this government notice of motion be transferred for consideration at the same sitting of the house later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.
Order, please. Orders of the day.
Mr. Pearson, seconded by Mr. Martin (Essex East), moves:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193, which had carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -the procedure would have been so much simpler if we had been given unanimous consent to discuss this motion last Wednesday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion I am not concerned at this time with the nature and purpose of the
income tax bill which, on third reading, was defeated last Monday. I am concerned with the circumstances of the vote last Monday and the question of confidence. That is what the motion is about. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it was of course an important bill that was defeated last Monday. There is no doubt about that. It was a money bill. It could have been rejected by the opposition at any of the previous stages.


An hon. Member:: We tried.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend says "we tried". The resolution stage of this bill was carried by 61 government supporters. That does not represent much of a try on the other side. On second reading, which dealt with the principle of the bill, it could have been defeated by 85 members from the opposition. In committee on clause 5, which was such an important clause, it could have been defeated by 66 members of the opposition.


Mr. Starr:: Tell us where your members were.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On third reading it was defeated by a vote of 82 to 84.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: You are changing the rules in the middle of the game.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope, Mr. Speaker, I may be given the same courtesy in moving this motion, which is a very important one, as we expect to extend to speakers opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The decision taken last Monday night, in relation to confidence, was on the question that "this bill be now read a third time." That, as I said, was defeated by 84 votes to 82. I would like to assure all hon. members of the house, if the assurance is needed, that on no occasion and by no words outside the house-because I have had no opportunity yet to speak in the house about it-have I suggested in any way, shape or form that there was any collusion among opposition groups in that vote. Each group voted in accordance with its conscience and as it saw fit, and I have said nothing to the contrary. There was no suggestion of collusion of any kind made by me or anybody else. We, as the government, accept the fact of that rejection.
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote [DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
This confidence motion now before the house does not seek to alter or question that rejection, nor does it ask parliament to reconsider that decision. Nevertheless the requirement for money to be raised by taxation to balance the budget remains, and the government must meet that requirement and intends to do so.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: By a new budget?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is our responsibility, and it is an especially heavy responsibility in the circumstances, economic and financial, which we face in this country at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In doing so-and we will be explaining to the house after this vote is finished, sometime next week, I would hope, how we are going to do this-naturally no taxpayer who in accord with administrative procedure that has been followed for many, many years has paid taxes under Bill C-193 will suffer financially because of that fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is in issue now is not the income tax bill or the merits of that bill; it is simply whether the vote on third reading last Monday was a vote of confidence, a vote which, as the official opposition have held, required the immediate resignation of the government or dissolution of parliament and a general election. That vote on third reading, the official opposition claim-or they claimed it until this morning-prevents a specific motion being made later which would be strictly one of confidence or non-confidence and, as such, related to that particular vote last Monday night. The Conservative opposition up till this morning had said it was a vote of confidence last Monday on third reading, and that there was no appeal from it. That is the position they have taken.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Appeal to the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They claimed-and I am not quarrelling with their claim; I am putting their position-that parliament could do nothing until the government resigned or there was a dissolution, except perhaps to discuss opposition criticism of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing this motion now, and I am very glad indeed that the opposition have come to the conclusion that it is quite proper to discuss it.

The motion of the government is based on the position that last Monday's vote on third reading was not a vote of confidence. We are appealing to the house to reject the official opposition stand that nothing can be done now by parliament, that the issue has been decided; at least that was their stand until this morning.
We do agree, however, that the defeat on third reading of the income tax bill, while not involving automatic and obligatory resignation or dissolution, does put the issue of confidence into question and that this should be cleared up. We would have cleared it up at once on Wednesday last but we could not get consent for that purpose. We are doing now what we would like to have done on Wednesday to clear up all this uncertainty. If this motion now before the house is defeated, then all doubt will certainly be removed. The government will resign or the house will be dissolved if this motion is defeated; let there be no doubt about that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What guarantee have we that you will not put another motion before the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know how strongly my hon. friend feels about everything in the house, but I wonder whether he would let me carry on for a few minutes. Then he will have a chance to make his speech. If the motion carries, then the government carries on with its program of legislation, though a new leader of this party will become prime minister after the convention in April.


Mr. Churchill:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am inclined to echo that "hear, hear".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will he immediately go to the people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question. He will have to answer it immediately after the convention which will choose him, and of course if this party remains in power at that time.
I hope the vote on this motion can be taken without any unnecessary delay, and I am encouraged by the charge made against me in this morning's press by the Leader of the Opposition when he said I have been trying to provoke the Tories into a filibuster and indicated that they would not fall into that trap. So I am encouraged in my hope that we will be able to have an early vote and that
February 23, 1368	COMMONS
the opposition will be able to avoid a filibuster. If indeed I had been trying to lure the opposition into that trap of a filibuster, I certainly would have been guilty of trickery.
There are two forms of confidence motion that could have been submitted to clear up this matter. The first would have been a simple statement that this house has confidence in the present government.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Lester Bowles Pearson: An hon. gentleman opposite says "never". Perhaps that is the reason we did not introduce that particular motion in that form. That would have been simple but perhaps a shade provocative in its simplicity.
The second motion relates the matter of confidence strictly to the vote on which the government was defeated, and asks the house to decide whether that vote was or was not one of confidence entailing resignation or dissolution. That is all. It does not ask the house to rescind or reconsider any vote. In this form the issue is restricted in one sense, but it is unequivocal and clear in its relation to the question of confidence.
It is in the second form that the motion is now before the house. It is perfectly clear. It reads:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193, which has carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
This motion recognizes that the government at all times must retain the confidence of the house to exist; that the question must now be determined whether or not the government does in fact retain the confidence of the house, and that the government has the right to ask explicitly for such determination by the house after the vote we had on Monday night.
Let us look at the constitutional justification for such a motion, which I have no doubt will be attacked by the other side as unconstitutional. I suggest it is universally recognized by constitutional authorities that there are two ways in which the house can express its desire to dismiss a government; either by a strict, clear motion of non-confidence, such as that produced in February, 1963, or by a motion clearly understood to be a motion of non-confidence.
The law of the constitution makes it perfectly clear that a government defeat does not necessarily involve a vote of non-confidence, and there is ample evidence to support this statement. I should like to quote one or two
DEBATES	6923
Motion Respecting House Vote authorities who I think will be recognized by the house as objective and expert. Professor Ivor Jennings, at page 493 in his book "Cabinet Government" writes: e (11:20 a.m.)
It must not be thought that a single defeat necessarily demands either resignation or dissolution.
Then a couple of pages later, at page 495, he writes this:
What the government will treat as a matter of sufficient importance to demand resignation or dissolution is, primarily, a question for the government.
Then he ends with this:
Whenever the government is defeated, even if on one of the traditional occasions of confidence, the speech from the throne, the budget and the granting of supply, for example, it is still up to the Prime Minister and his colleagues to make the decision as to whether the issue upon which they were defeated was of sufficient importance to entail resignation or dissolution.


John George Diefenbaker: You could perpetuate yourself forever under that principle.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope the former leader of the opposition will not intervene in this debate until I am finished. Then we will look forward with the greatest possible delight to hearing him.
Those are authorities which should be respected. They are not partisan political authorities. So far as third reading is concerned they are more emphatic. Erskine May, whom we hear quoted a great deal in the house, has this to say in his seventeenth edition at page 571:
If the question "that the bill be now read a third time"-
This was the question dealt with last Monday night.
-is negatived, such a vote is not only not necessarily a matter of confidence but is not even necessarily fatal to the further progress of the bill.
We have made it quite clear we are not going to ask for further progress on that bill, but according to this constitutional authority that could have been done. Canadian authorities could be quoted along the same lines. For instance MacGregor Dawson, in his book "The Government of Canada" with which all students of parliament and the constitution of Canada are familiar, writes at page 390:
Finally, the bill comes to the third reading, which is usually perfunctory with little debate and rare amendments. The principle of the bill is not debatable nor are the detailed provisions, for these have already been settled. The only debatable point is whether the bill should now be read a third time.
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
Dr. Beauchesne agrees with this. All the authorities I have been able to consult agree, whether it concerns third reading or some other stage, that the government can avail itself of its undoubted right to judge what is or what is not a matter of confidence.
Perhaps the greatest authority on parliamentary procedure in the English speaking world, Professor Berriedale Keith, in his book "The British Cabinet System"-and we follow in these matters the principles and practices of Westminster, writes:
It rests, therefore, with the government to decide what issues it shall treat as vital, and as demanding that it must resign or dissolve if it is denied support thereon.
He adds that a sudden upset of the government without warning is not equivalent to a vote of confidence, particularly when the government is in a minority position. Other authorities confirm this view, and I am thinking of Carter and Jennings as well as Dr. Eugene Forsey, a recognized Canadian authority on these matters. They all agree that when a government is a minority government it is likely that it may suffer defeats without resignation which might lead to the fall of a majority government.
Dr. Forsey, Mr. Speaker, made some interesting observations on this matter in an article in the Journal of Political Science and Economics in 1964, concerning the problems of minority government in Canada. I quote from his article:
There are certain habits of thought or feeling which we will have to change.
The first is that any government defeat in the House of Commons necessarily means either the government's resignation or a fresh election. This is not so. Of course, defeat on a motion of censure, or want of confidence

We have one before us now.
-or on any measure which the government considers vital to its policy is decisive and any government is free to consider even a very minor defeat decisive. But the history of British governments in the XIXth century is studded with defeats which the government simply accepted.
Dr. Forsey concludes:
We shall certainly have to get rid of the notion that every defeat in the house means a fresh election.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to our own house and the constitutional authorities; and we do have some in our own House of Commons. I am being very sincere when I say that that great constitutional and parliamentary authority, the hon. member for Winnipeg North

Centre (Mr. Knowles), agrees entirely with Dr. Forsey and the other authorities I have quoted, and I am glad to call him to witness. In his remarks to be found in Hansard on January 21, 1966 at page 129 the hon. member developed at some length a position which he thought would permit members of the House of Commons to support amendments to the speech from the throne calling for old age security to be increased to $100 a month and old age security to be payable from age 65, both of which at that time were not government policies but were very important changes. The hon. member contended that these steps should be taken by the House of Commons without at the same time, in voting for them, expressing any lack of confidence in the government and thereby forcing an election, even though the government were opposed to the amendments. The hon. member outlined his position as follows, Mr. Speaker:
We intend...to vote...for the amendment that calls for old age security to be raised... In casting these votes, Mr. Speaker, we are not voting for an election. We are not saying that dissolution must necessarily follow. We are voting for what the words say-
And later:
If anyone wants to bring before parliament at any time the issue of an election, the issue of dissolution, and if it stands by itself-
And it is standing by itself today, Mr. Speaker.
-we will take our stand on this issue.
The hon. member marshalled very impressive evidence to support that position. His studies in Canadian parliamentary history led him to conclude that Canadian governments had, and I quote, "received adverse votes dozens, perhaps scores of times" without resigning. He went back to Sir John A. Macdonald, and that is really going back to the father of our country. Nine times in four years his government was defeated without resignation. Indeed, in 1869 they were defeated on a money bill and Sir John, while carrying on, is reported to have been enraged by the result. I can understand how he felt, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Sir John explained his defeat in this year as due to the fact that he had, according to his own words, too many "loose fish, shaky fellows" on his side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
February 23, 1968	COMMONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Dr. Forsey had something to say about this. He said:
In a House of Commons where no party has a clear majority while the "loose fish" may be practically extinct-
And they are, of course.
-his place may be taken by loose shoals of fish, shaky groups of fellows.. .which cannot be depended on by any government.
Those are Dr. Forsey's words. Of course there are groups that cannot be depended upon by any government because they are independent groups, and the government has no right to depend on them. It has a hope that it can depend on their intelligent understanding and good sense. That is all it has the right to hope for. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre's exhaustive analysis of Canadian precedents right down the years led him to the firm and unshakable conclusion-
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


An hon. Member:: Which you rejected.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and I hope it remains, the firm and unshakable conclusion-


An hon. Member:: Which you rejected.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that in cases where a government measure were defeated or amended in parliament-and I quote from page 132-
Then...it is up to the government to decide whether it wants to go to the country... or whether it wants to come and ask parliament whether we should stay here and do our job.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) took exactly the same stand, and indeed the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) had some wise observations to make in that debate along exactly the same lines.


Mr. Aiken:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: believe the Prime Minister refers to some points having to do with a proposal I made for changes in the constitution. Since those proposals have not been accepted, is he not proving himself wrong under our present constitutional practice?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to that; I was referring to some general observations. I wish I had the hon. member's
DEBATES	6925
Motion Respecting House Vote remarks at my finger tips; I could get them in a few moments. I am referring to remarks in which the hon. member said that the defeat of a government need not, on certain occasions, require dissolution or resignation.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister permit a question? Since the Prime Minister is quoting with approval the position I took on January 21, 1966, will he indicate what his attitude was on that occasion toward the stand I took?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will indeed, Mr. Speaker. I took the attitude and our government took the attitude that in an important matter of this kind, since increasing pensions by $25 was against government policy at that time, if that measure were carried it would be a vote of no confidence in the government and we would resign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And, Mr. Speaker, that decision was made clear in advance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Prime Minister permit a further question? Is it a case, then, that he agrees with me only when he is in a corner and needs to get out of it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I only agree with my hon. friend when he is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He knows what great respect I have for his knowledge and judgment in these constitutional and procedural matters.
Getting back to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, on page 75 in this debate on January 20, 1966, he also emphasized the importance of "expression of opinion from the house on vital and essential questions." He said the New Democratic party did not believe that an expression of opinion contained in an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne or an amendment to the budget or a supply motion, even one that defeated the government, necessarily or inherently constituted a motion of no confidence. Then he went on to say:
-if any amendment which merely seeks to get an expression of opinion from the house as a whole were passed, the government-*
6926	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote
That is the government which has been defeated.
-has three choices. It can, if it chooses, interpret the passing of the amendment as a want of confidence and can act accordingly. Second, it can accept the amendment as reflecting the views of the majority of members in the House of Commons. Third, it can if it chooses-
And this is the pertinent point on this particular occasion:
-submit on its own initiative a motion of confidence to ascertain whether the house wants a dissolution.
This is what we are doing. I assume therefore that hon. gentlemen will accept the correctness of our procedure in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who I mentioned a moment or two ago, said as reported on page 446 of Hansard for January 31, 1966:
It should be a normal and accepted practice that parliament should have the right to amend or reject legislation proposed by the government, or any other official act, without the risk of a general election.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: But it is not an accepted practice. I merely proposed that it should be.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to summarize. We believe, Mr. Speaker, on this side that we had no obligation to resign or ask for dissolution on Monday night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We believe, Mr. Speaker, that we had every right to carry on the business of government after Monday night's vote, as indeed we are carrying it on today and were not allowed to carry it on Wednesday or Thursday.
We believe that the position taken by the official opposition that no parliamentary business was possible until there was a change in government by resignation or dissolution was untenable, and they have admitted that themselves today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is too bad it was not admitted last Wednesday. We believe we have every right to introduce a specific motion of confidence, which we are doing, and to ask for the verdict of parliament on that motion, which will determine the fate of this government. And parliament will decide after the case for and against confidence has been put.

DEBATES	February 23, 1968
We are not, as the Leader of the Opposition said on Wednesday night outside the house, if the press reports him accurately, setting aside the rules and conventions of parliament to suit our convenience. On the contrary, this motion is evidence that we are operating within the rules of parliament. If this motion carries, we carry on with our program of legislation because we shall have been authorized by this House of Commons so to do. If this motion is defeated-


An hon. Member:: You will ask for another vote.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that decision, of course, leads to a general election. I ask, Mr. Speaker, is this the time, are these the circumstances, is this a situation in which a general election would help our country-


Mr. Woolliams:: It certainly would.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Prime Minister for some time, and after listening to him came to a number of conclusions. The first was that he was completely unable to cite any precedent where a government under our parliamentary system had suffered such a crushing defeat on a matter of such fundamental importance to government policy as this government suffered on Monday night yet continued to try to do business with the House of Commons.
The second conclusion I came to, and I say this with some regret, is that the right hon. gentleman seems to be taking quite a different line outside the house than he appears to have been prepared to take within the house in the past few days. We agree, of course, that the government could choose to consider even a minor defeat to be decisive. That is not the question. The question is, can the government choose to ignore a major defeat on a major matter of policy? We say that according to constitutional practice this government has no right to place business before us or to place this motion before the house. We have not waived this stand in any respect-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
February 23. 19S8	COMMONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is still our view, and we are still confident we are right. We are prepared to let the only forum in which this matter can be judged eventually, namely the electorate, the people, settle the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Two days ago, Mr. Speaker, you said you were not in a position to settle questions of constitutional law; that you had no authority to do so. What does the right hon. gentleman challenge me to do? Obstruct the business of the house to prevent this motion coming before hon. members? We are content, as I say, to leave it to the judgment of the electorate.
The government was twice defeated on Monday night. It was defeated first on a matter involving the very essence of its financial program. Everybody in the house with the exception of some hon. members opposite voted against the measure. Mr. Speaker, if any member of that front bench, including the Prime Minister, had been asked before that vote was taken whether or not it was a vote of confidence, every one of those hon. gentlemen would have said without any hesitation: "Certainly it is".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not only did they believe this before the vote was taken, but you could see in their faces after the vote had been taken that they knew it was a vote of confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Including the Clerk of the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I see in his place the government house leader who, more than anyone else, is responsible on the other side for this particular act of bungling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps the hon. gentlemen will listen to what I have to say. All this week the Prime Minister has tried to give the people of Canada the impression that it was a snap vote, that it came without warning and that sort of thing. Mr. Speaker, these proposals were opposed during the budget debate which took place before the end of the year. The measure was opposed in committee by the opposition parties. Indeed, the only real filibuster I have seen conducted since I have been here was conducted by ministers of the crown last Monday when this bill was in
DEBATES	6927
Motion Respecting House Vote committee, to try to keep the discussion going until the whip could inform them that there were enough of their supporters present to carry the thing.
Furthermore, why was this bill dealt with on Monday at all? It was dealt with on Monday because the acting leader of the house told our house leader and myself last week that before we could get on with supplementary estimates we had to dispose of this income tax bill.


Michael Starr: What happens to the supplementary estimates now?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We were told it had to be
dealt with before we could move on to supplementary estimates and that we could proceed with supplementary estimates after the bill had been disposed of. The bill came up on Thursday but it was not completed because-and I say this without offence; I am very sincere about this-it was not completed because the Minister of Finance had to visit a very fine part of Canada in connection with other affairs which have nothing to do with this house. I am not making anything of this; he had every right to do that, but because of this the house went on to other business on Friday. Why did we go back to the tax bill on Monday? It was because the government intended that the bill be dealt with on Monday and disposed of before we could move on to anything else.
This is the situation in which the Prime Minister talks about a snap vote, trickery and so on. The measure came before the house because the government intended that it should, and every member on the other side knew it was to be dealt with before we proceeded to consider supplementary estimates.
Thus the carrying of this measure was regarded as a matter of the greatest importance to the government. It was an urgent matter which had to be dealt with before we could get on with other business. It was not a minor measure. It was the principal fiscal measure in the government's budget presented to the house last December, involving the raising of individual and corporate income taxes. It was the central part of the government's fiscal and economic program, a program of management or mismanagement, whatever your point of view happens to be, intended to raise more money from the Canadian taxpayers and to slow down the economy, to fight inflation by creating more slack in the economy and by creating more unemployment.
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
This was the measure before the house. I am directing my remarks at the moment, Mr. Speaker, in such a way as to indicate the importance of this bill to the government. Far from being a minor measure it was treated by hon. gentlemen opposite as a measure of the greatest importance. I might say it was so treated by the opposition parties, certainly by this opposition party.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Our principal criticism of this government has been in respect of its economic mismanagement, its fiscal mismanagement, the degree to which it has permitted our competitive position to be eroded in terms of export, the slow rate of economic growth in recent times and, particularly, the growing rate of unemployment. We have been insisting that because of this mismanagement this government has lost the confidence of the country, and that the lack of confidence has been a matter of the greatest importance in respect of the growing difficulties of the country. Indeed, it is a very central factor in the growing economic difficulties of the country. We have emphasized this point for some time, and we had an opportunity to express our point of view in a very tangible way on Monday evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, for several months we have taken the position that these taxes which the government has been trying to impose on the people are a very high price for the Canadian people to pay for the general lack of confidence in this government. We have taken the position that this bill would not cope with inflation; that it would add to the amount of unemployment; that it would bring on a further slowdown in our rate of growth and would therefore bring about further unemployment. Since the debate in December events certainly have confirmed my view and the view I then expressed.
I say this now only to indicate that the wrongness of the bill that was before us last December has become more and more obvious to the members of the opposition parties. So this bill was regarded by the government as a very important and basic part of its program, and was regarded by the official opposition as an essential part of the government's mistaken fiscal and economic mismanagement.
For the government to try to put any business before this house, as it tried to do on


Monday evening following two votes, is to make a mockery of voting in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has chosen
to try to ignore that vote. It is now asking this house to ignore that vote. It is making a mockery of the House of Commons. These are matters which relate to our constitution. They reach to the very heart and essence of our constitutional democracy. They relate to the very essence of responsible government or government responsible to parliament.
On Monday evening last the members of this house spoke on a very important matter. The government was defeated on a question which undoubtedly was one involving confidence in the government. The constitution and constitutional practice cannot be flouted. The defeat of the government on a measure of such importance must, under our constitution, be accepted by the government as an indication of a loss of the confidence of this house. This is part of our constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is part of our constitution, and the constitution cannot be flouted. I say again that neither the Prime Minister nor anybody else has cited any precedent in which a defeat on a matter of such fundamental importance has been ignored by the government and not treated as defeat on a matter of confidence. The government was defeated on Monday night by the unanimous opposition of the house; that is, by every member of the opposition voting against this measure. It was defeated because of that; and also, I guess, because of a certain amount of bungling on the other side of the house.
I say in all sincerity that we are accustomed to the bungling on the part of this government. I suggest, however, that some of the remarks which have been made by the Prime Minister are a matter of another sort. I do not enjoy attacking or criticizing any man, especially one who has enjoyed a long and distinguished public career; but I cannot explain simply in terms of strain some of the things my right hon. friend said outside the house. He has spent his time charging the opposition with everything he could think of. He has portrayed the opposition, especially the Conservative opposition, as being irresponsible in pursuing a course which he suggests would endanger the future of the country, and for taking advantage of a leadership situation in the Liberal party. My right hon.
February 23, 1968	COMMONS
friend seems to have been saying things wildly. I can only assume, therefore, that he said these things because he really did not think there was very much he could say about the merits of the constitutional matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister chooses to argue that the government has the right to interpret a vote of confidence. I say he is in error, but I do not dispute his right to make this argument. If he chooses to argue that I am wrong concerning the significance I attach to the Monday defeat of the government, then I say I disagree with him; but I do not dispute his right to differ from me in public, or in private so far as that is concerned.
What are we to think when the Prime Minister of this country tries to tell the Canadian people that the opposition is irresponsible because it takes a straightforward and sincere stand on the constitution, a stand which is sincerely taken and clearly based on the best expert opinion concerning what is the right constitutional practice? The Prime Minister attempted to persuade the Canadian people that we are obstructing business. I wish to say that since I have been Leader of the Opposition I have afforded every reasonable accommodation to the government in respect of the conduct of the business of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the process of accommodation has been all one way. I believe the Prime Minister will know what I mean when I say that. Let me give an example. I do not do this because I make anything of this personally, but upon his return to the country on Tuesday I reached an understanding with the Prime Minister that it was reasonable that the house should adjourn for 24 hours in order to give him an opportunity to review what had happened and consider the situation so far as the government was concerned. Then on the motion to adjourn the house I asked for permission to make a very brief statement. In order to make that statement it was necessary that I have the consent of my hon. friends opposite. That consent was refused.


An hon. Member:: By the Prime Minister.
Another hon. Member: The Prime Minister was the first to say no.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is strange that the government should take the attitude that it is perfectly all right to refuse this accommodation
DEBATES	6929
Motion Respecting House Vote to me, and then the next day come before this House of Commons to seek unanimous consent to waive notice regarding a very important matter. I can only believe, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friends opposite have a very strange view as to how matters should be accommodated in this house.
* (12 noon)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hasten to add that this was not the reason we refused permission to proceed on Wednesday, and I hope I never allow any attitude of this sort to influence any attitude I may have toward a matter that is brought before this house. We refused that permission because we took our stand on the constitution. But I do say that I find it extraordinary that in view of the accommodating attitude we have had toward the government and the conduct of business, the Prime Minister at the first opportunity should charge me in public with a desire, or a willingness at least, to obstruct the public business of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Michael Starr: He will stoop to anything.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And if it becomes necessary to conduct business as between the parties at arm's length I hasten to assure the house that the fault is not mine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has also tried to suggest to the Canadian public that we have to accept the consequences of what we are doing and that we may bring about economic calamity in the country. I am very well aware, as are most Canadians, of the precarious condition of the country, very well aware of the precarious condition to which this government has brought this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -a condition to which the government has brought this country through bungling, through politicking, through irresponsibility. Some might go so far as to say through stupidity-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and a stupidity which has brought the government to the verge of catastrophe. I am very well aware of this, and I have every intention to behave responsibly,
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote as do my colleagues. But what are we to think of a government that says it is irresponsible of the opposition to take a stand on the constitution because the government through its own unimaginable incompetence has so undermined the economy that everybody must keep perfectly quiet and not rock the boat, everybody must stay quiet and not disturb this hopelessly incompetent government because if they did it might mean catastrophe?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister has said, as I understood him, that there are few things this country needs less than a general election. I am not insisting on a general election, Mr. Speaker. I have never since this difficulty developed insisted on a general election. I have made it very clear to the right hon. gentleman, through media which I am sure he reads, what my position is and what his alternatives are. I have also said that if the Governor General were to invite me to form a government it would be my duty, which I would carry out, to try to examine the possibilities. I say that I am not grasping for power, although the government is clearly insisting on holding on to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to be the Prime Minister of this country unless I have the approval of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I am sure that most people in this country feel very much like Cromwell did on a certain occasion when I believe he said: "In the name of God, go".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Hamilton:: That chicken came home.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister says there are fewer things this country needs than a general election. Of course this did not deter him in 1965-


Some hon. Members:: Oh no.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -only two years after the previous general election. My hon. friends opposite seem to have a double standard. We are not insisting that the country should have a general election right away but I do say that in fact a general election before too long may be the only way of achieving stability. It may be the only way the people have to get rid of this government. If the Prime Minister

says there are few things this country needs less than a general election, I say there are few things this country needs less than this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend has suggested outside this house to the Canadian public that there was something underhanded, that there was some trickery involved in what happened on Monday night. I notice he takes a different line here in the house where people can answer him. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that we have offered every reasonable accommodation to the government and to the ministers of the government who are candidates for the Liberal leadership, as they should be and as I agree we should. The order of business of the house has frequently been changed in order to meet the convenience of ministers of the government who are candidates for the Liberal leadership and who need to be absent from the house on that account. I mentioned one example in connection with the finance bill. In fact we have frequently done so. We have been prepared to go along with this although it has made the conduct of the business a little haphazard and disorderly. We have absolutely no wish to interfere with the leadership convention of my hon. friends opposite and will certainly go a long way to accommodate them and make certain they can pursue their leadership convention in peace and tranquility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I do say that no matter how willing we may be to accommodate our hon. friends opposite in this regard we are certainly under no obligation to vote for every measure this government may put before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We do not have to pass every bill. We have an obligation to the public to scrutinize every measure carefully. As I say, we voted against this bill on second reading, in committee and, of course, as everybody knows, on third reading. Yet the Prime Minister has given the Canadian people the impression that somehow or other we have taken advantage of the fact that there is to be a leadership convention, that somehow or other we have not afforded the Liberals the same kind of accommodation that they afforded us. I say in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that it was the Prime Minister who decided, it
February 23, 1968

was his decision, when he was going to resign. It was the government's decision as to when the house was going to sit and what business would be put before it, and it is our duty to deal as sincerely and as honestly as we can with the business that comes before the house. Yet when a government measure of this sort is defeated the Prime Minister suggests there is something underhanded and that somehow we have taken advantage of the Liberal party.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am going to get off this subject, Mr. Speaker, because I do not enjoy it particularly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I must say I was a little upset when the Prime Minister attempted to give the impression in the house yesterday that he had not said there was trickery involved in the proceedings on Monday night, when he tried to give the impression that he had only quoted somebody else who had suggested that there might be trickery involved. I must say I was a little upset that the Prime Minister of this country would tend to slough off such a matter in this way.
Why has the Prime Minister flung charges so wildly since the defeat on Monday night? Why has he attacked the opposition in such a way-I do not know whether "vicious" is too strong a word; certainly he is not a vicious man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think he must be seriously disturbed by the serious condition into which his government has brought the country, and no doubt he was humiliated by the defeat suffered by the government on Monday night. I think that above all he has been very much aware of the weakness of his case and because of this has tried to distract the Canadian people. To my mind it is a little pathetic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and enlarge to the house on why we believe this government does not deserve a vote of confidence quite apart from the issue on Monday night. There is a question of economic mismanagement, the slow rate of economic growth, the attempt to increase taxes, the increasing rate of unemployment and the
Motion Respecting House Vote mounting degree of inflation. Quite apart from anything else, if there was ever a government that deserved a vote of non-confidence surely it is this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Although the tax measure was defeated, the indications to the Canadian people are that the government is going to continue to collect the tax. It has no legislative authority to do this. It did not have any in the first place. If it was entitled to assume that the bill would pass and collected the tax, certainly the government has no justification at all for its high-handed decision to continue to collect this surcharge, these additional taxes, without any authority at all from the parliament of Canada. There is no need for me to use the usual words in connection with this kind of conduct. It speaks for itself.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the introduction of this motion of confidence is contrary to our constitution and a violation of constitutional practice. I say to my hon. friend the Prime Minister that this is the sort of thing that tends to destroy parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is an unfortunate precedent and if it passes it wifi suggest to governments in the future that they can ignore votes in the house on matters of fundamental importance. It would be a most unfortunate precedent if this should take place. If by any chance it does take place I am sure the Canadian people will correct it at the first opportunity.
Somo hon. Members: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I also suggest in all sincerity that the motion has been put in as inflammatory a way as it could be. It is not a simple confidence motion, which the Prime Minister first indicated he was going to put before the house. We say, of course, that he had no right to put forward a simple motion of confidence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Pickersgillian.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I really believe that this motion was not drafted in anger. I assume that my hon. friends think through what they are going to do, and I can only assume that the motion is designed to provoke some sort of reaction by the opposition. We respect parliament, Mr. Speaker, even if the government does not seem to do so. We will say what we think is necessary in this debate. We will take the time that we believe to be necessary-we
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote will not apologize for that-but we will take no more.
My hon. friends opposite are asking the house to swallow itself, to declare that what was clearly a vote of confidence was not a vote of confidence. I do not know what the house will say on a vote, but I say that whatever the house may say the vote on Monday night was a vote of confidence on a fundamental matter and that every hon. member opposite knew it was a vote of confidence on a fundamental matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nielsen:: They still know it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Whatever the outcome may be on this vote when it comes, it will not change the constitution of this country and it will not be allowed to change constitutional practice. Whatever happens, the government was defeated; the government is finished. The government is trying to hang on to power. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the electorate will be the final judge. The electorate sooner or later, and I am a very patient man-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -will have an opportunity to express its views. I do not think there is any doubt as to the verdict it will pass on this government, particularly on the behaviour of the government this week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this motion of confidence the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has done what every good debater does, namely, when one has a weak case one tries to switch the grounds of the argument. The Prime Minister has spent all his time this morning arguing the government's right to introduce a motion of confidence and he spent no time at all giving the house reasons why it should vote confidence in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As I said in the house on Wednesday afternoon, we in this party have never denied the government's legal and constitutional right to ask for a vote of confidence. The Prime Minister took a lot of time quoting my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and myself with respect to the things we said in 1966. We stand by what we said. We suggested then that, particularly when there is a


minority government, members should have complete freedom as to how they vote. They should have a right to vote on amendments to the budget and in the speech from the throne debate so as to get an expression of opinion without necessarily voting no confidence in the government.
We made it clear that at any time the government could say that a particular measure was a vote of no confidence, and the government's right now or at any time, to ask for a vote of confidence is beyond dispute. We do challenge their moral right to ask for a vote of confidence because, as I pointed out, the vote last Monday night was not an expression of opinion but a vote on a specific piece of legislation having to do with the fundamental right to impose taxes, which is the very basis of democratic government.
Did any member on the government side think that the vote on Monday night was not a vote of confidence? Did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), who was piloting Bill No. C-193, get up at any time and say that the government would not consider the defeat of the bill as being a vote of no confidence? Did the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), who was Acting Prime Minister, get up and say on behalf of the government that they did not consider the vote one of confidence or no confidence? Did the constitutional expert, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), rise in his place to give us the benefit of his vast knowledge? The minister has just gone to enlarge that knowledge. Did he get up and assure the house that even if we defeated Bill No. C-193 we were not voting no confidence in the government? Of course these ministers did not. The government knew that it was a vote of confidence and that defeat of the measure would be a vote of no confidence. Therefore we contend that while they have the constitutional and legal right to come before the house and ask for a vote of confidence, they certainly have no moral right to do so. The house expressed its lack of confidence in the government last Monday night.
The Prime Minister has made much of the fact that if the opposition parties had agreed to proceed with this confidence motion on Wednesday we could have saved a great deal of time. In the first place I would point out that if the Prime Minister was so anxious to save time we could have proceeded with this motion on Tuesday. It is true that he only got back from Jamaica an hour or two before the house opened, but surely there are some people on the treasury benches capable of drafting a confidence motion. After their display of
February 23, 19S8	COMMONS
incompetence on Monday night probably the Prime Minister did not trust them to draft a motion. In that I heartily concur.
The Prime Minister, I think properly, did not consult me about the matter, but I think he had a right to have 24 hours in which to think the matter over. But if he was entitled to 24 hours to think the matter over, surely the opposition parties were entitled to some time to study a motion which, if hon. members will take the time to look at it, is not a straight confidence motion but a very tricky motion. Now that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has elevated the word "trickery" to the status of a parliamentary term which is not slanderous, I want to say that this motion is a piece of trickery.
I can tell the house that the members of the New Democratic party agreed in caucus last Wednesday that if the Prime Minister introduced on Wednesday afternoon a straight vote of confidence we would be prepared to waive the 48 hours notice and proceed with the debate. But instead we got a motion which asked us to repudiate the decision we made on Monday night. It asked us to lie in our teeth and say that when we voted no confidence in the government we did not mean we were voting no confidence. It asked us to say we did not know what we were doing. It was the government that did not know what they were doing.
However, we sense a much more sinister implication in this motion. I have good reason to believe that originally the government intended to bring in a double-barrelled motion which would not only ask for confidence but would put Bill No. C-193 back on the order paper. I am convinced still that the motion now before us was intended to be the first step to bring that about and that if the government had not been caught out on it the motion now before the house, if it had been passed on Wednesday, would have been followed by a motion to put the tax bill back on the order paper, which is contrary to our practice and our rules. The government would be fooling no one if they said now, we will not reintroduce the bill, because they have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They were hoping that on Wednesday they would slip this motion through and then today they would introduce another motion to put Bill No. C-193 back on the order paper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They might try it yet
DEBATES	6933
Motion Respecting House Vote


An hon. Member:: Their hand is in the till.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Their tail is in the gate. You can describe it any way you like. The fact is that they are in a bad situation.
Not only do we have this very tricky motion before us-it is because this motion was tricky that we insisted on sufficient time to study it and we make no apology for that -but it is important now that we deal with this motion of confidence quickly and expeditiously. So far as the members of this party are concerned we can see no reason for a protracted debate. We are prepared to debate it and to take a vote on it today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the government is sustained in the motion of confidence we can get on with the business of the country. If the government is defeated we should go to the electorate as quickly as possible. But we see no reason for a protracted debate. We make no apology for asking for time to look into what is not a simple motion of confidence but a very sly attempt to circumvent the expressed wish of parliament by putting back on the order paper a piece of legislation which the members of this house have defeated.
In addition to what has been happening inside the house, a great deal has been happening outside. As a matter of fact, the government has been carrying on most of the debate on television because I have come to the conclusion that the government is under the impression that it governs by divine rule and the news service of the C.B.C. There are times when it is very difficult to distinguish between the two. The Prime Minister goes on television and says that there is an organized plot, a manufactured crisis, that there is trickery in this situation.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Shameful.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He comes before the house today, however, and assures us that there was no collusion. The difference is that today he is going to have some speakers following him. I invite the Prime Minister or anyone on that side of the house to indicate that there was trickery or any manufactured crisis or any organized plot on this side of the house with reference to the vote last Monday night. What the government has tried to do has been to cry foul to cover up its own ineptitude and incompetence. The government has botched the handling of this bill from the
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote very beginning, and they know it. Now the Prime Minister has to find somebody to blame so he has been trying for the past three or four days to blame the opposition. He knows better than anyone else that the responsibility lies with his own ministers. I hope the Prime Minister has learned that never again can he afford to leave the awkward squad in charge when he goes on a holiday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So far as the members of this party are concerned we have made it clear from the time the Minister of Finance introduced his mini-budget that we were opposed to this measure. We opposed it in the minibudget debate. We opposed it at every stage of the discussion of the bill. We contested it in committee last Thursday and again on Monday. The government had adequate warning that there was going to be opposition. The government narrowly averted disaster in a vote in committee by three votes. In spite of that it was the government that went ahead with third reading. It was the government who, instead of prolonging the debate on third reading, allowed it to go to a vote. These are the people who must accept the responsibility if they were caught with their trousers in a nether position. These are the people who botched and bungled the situation.
If the Prime Minister, on returning to Canada, had castigated his ministers, that would have made sense. Instead the Prime Minister endeavours to cook up the concept in Canada that there has been some deep, sinister plot on the part of the opposition groups to take advantage of this poor, defenceless, inept government. The fact is, as everyone knows, that this government has been disintegrating for weeks. The Prime Minister is the one who made the decision to try to carry on a leadership contest and parliament at one and the same time. I think this was a mistake, but it was the Prime Minister's decision. For weeks we have seen members of the cabinet absent a good part of the time. Cabinet ministers who have been here have had to say to most questions, "I will take it as notice", not being completely in touch with their departments. We have seen the economic situation in this country deteriorating steadily. The government has been so preoccupied with the leadership convention that nobody has been minding the store. This has been the situation. If the Prime Minister


wants to lay the blame for the embarrassing situation in which he now finds himself, let him put the blame where it belongs and not manufacture some sinister plot which does not exist.
The members of the house who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, as members of Her Majesty's opposition have a right to oppose measures which they believe are not in the best interests of this country. They have a right to vote against those measures, indeed, they have the duty to vote against those measures, without having to wait and count how many government members there happen to be on the other side. It is not our responsibility to see that the government has been able to muster enough forces from the politicking for the leadership convention to make sure the government can survive. This is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to vote as our conscience dictates irrespective of whether the government has enough troops here to sustain its own measure.
I should like to discuss, Mr. Speaker, not the relevance of the motion but the motion itself. The Prime Minister really gave no reasons at all to the house why we should vote confidence in his government. He has entirely avoided the fact that the measure about which we are talking is a measure which, in the opinion of this party, was designed to further the inequitable burden of taxation placed upon the middle and lower income groups in this country. This is the real issue. It is the measure itself that the government is asking us to support and to repudiate our vote against it last Monday night.
Let me briefly remind hon. members of what has happened with respect to the government's fiscal policy. In 1966 the Minister of Finance reimposed the personal income tax which the government had taken off just before the 1965 election. At the same time he imposed a refundable tax on corporations which was to be paid back, plus 5 per cent interest. Then in 1967 the Minister of Finance decided that he had put the brakes on too much and he had to put his foot on the accelerator. The difficulty with the Minister of Finance is that for the last three years he has had his foot on the brake at one moment, his foot on the accelerator the next moment, and now he has ended up with his foot in his mouth.
In 1967 he decided he had to put his foot on the accelerator, so what did he do? Did he cancel the tax on personal income? No, he rescinded the refundable tax on corporations.
February 23, 1968

Then last tall he brought in a mini-budget. Now the foot had to go on the brake again. Did he put the tax back on corporations? No, he put a second tax on the personal income taxpayers, with a ceiling on it, and the proceeds of that tax will go in large measure to pay back the corporations their refundable tax plus the 5 per cent interest.
In the fiscal year 1968-69 this 5 per cent surtax on personal income will yield a revenue of some $185 million, according to the minister's estimate. However, he is going to pay out $230 million in refunds to corporations, plus $14 million in interest, a total of $244 million. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the salary and wage earners of this country, at a time when the cost of living is going up and their purchasing power is being curtailed, will be taxed so that the Minister of Finance can turn around and pay out some $244 million over a period of time to the corporations of this country.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
There is an old saying about robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Minister of Finance is robbing Lazarus to pay Dives. He is robbing the poor to pay the rich. This is the measure that the Minister of Finance is now asking us to approve. This is the measure that the Prime Minister is now saying we should in all humility say we are sorry for voting against last Monday night, that we do not want the government to consider that as a vote of no confidence.
I say to the government that this is an unjust tax, that it further accelerates the inequity in our tax structure, that we were opposed to the measure last Monday night and that we are still opposed to it, and that if the government tries to reimpose it we will fight tooth and nail against it. I say to the government that if they try to reimpose that tax or any similar tax which will further widen the gap between the wage and salary earners of Canada on the one hand and the corporations on the other we will fight it and, if possible, force the government to do what they ought to be doing now, take this issue to the voters of the country.
The Prime Minister said on television the other night-this was not in the house, Mr. Speaker, because that is not where debates are carried on any more-that the government must have the money to carry on the business of the country. If the government needs this $185 million badly, then instead of taking $185 million by means of the 5 per cent surtax out of the pockets of the people
Motion Respecting House Vote with modest incomes the government has the power to postpone the refunding of the tax to the corporations. That is quite within its power. If the government needs money, surely the place to get it is from those who have it rather than from those who do not have it.
Not only has the government been trying during the last few days to divert public attention away from this tax by talking about a sinister plot but the Minister of Finance is now trying to arouse public fears by saying that the dollar is on trial. I copied down what the minister said on television last night and I think I have it accurately. He said that the opposition has deliberately created a crisis and the money markets are waiting to see what will happen. I suggest it is not the dollar that is on trial, Mr. Speaker; it is the Minister of Finance who is on trial. It is this government that is on trial, and it has been tried and found wanting. Why is the dollar in a difficult position? Why are investors and the money markets apprehensive? It is because this government for months on end has failed to grapple with the problem of inflation and has failed to bring forward any realistic solution to the present financial crisis in this country. Here is a government that sits in office while unemployment in the month of January went up over 6 per cent.
According to the Economic Council of Canada, a reduction of one percentage point in unemployment would increase our total wealth production by $2 billion a year. A reduction in unemployment to the figure that the Economic Council of Canada said should be a normal figure would increase the gross national product of Canada by billions of dollars. It would result in hundreds of millions of dollars of extra revenue coming into the treasury of Canada without any change being made in the present tax structure. If the country is in bad shape I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he look at the unemployment figures which are the highest we have had since 1964.
I also ask him to look at the high interest rates, for which he must accept responsibility. The government removed the interest rate ceiling from the Bank Act last year. We were assured that competition would have the effect of keeping down interest rates. The prime interest rate of the banks has now been raised to 7 per cent, which I believe is the highest rate since the early twenties.
If the minister is worried about the money situation, let him look at the slowdown in the rate of economic growth in this country. In
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote constant dollars the per capita increase in the gross national product in Canada in 1967 compared with 1966 was almost nil. There was virtually no growth at all on a per capita basis.
If the minister wants to know why investment circles are apprehensive he has only to look at the cost of living, which has been spiralling. The cost of living increased 4.5 per cent during the last year. In the last four years the cost of living has gone up 14 per cent. What does this mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that a man with a salary of $5,000 a year has had his purchasing power reduced by $700. The reason we are in the present situation is that we are suffering from a cost-push inflation. Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who have talked a great deal about restraints, have done absolutely nothing about some of the unwarranted and unjustified increases in the cost of living.
If the minister wants to know why the Canadian dollar may be in trouble, he should look at the fact that ever since he has taken office he has endeavoured to maintain a fixed exchange rate on the one hand and to keep a ceiling on Canada's foreign reserves on the other-a complete contradiction in policy.
The minister might also take a look at the Canadian capital that has been going across the border to the United States largely as the result of the appeal by the President of the United States to U.S. subsidiaries in Canada to return their profits to the United States. I admit that this is a serious situation, Mr. Speaker, but what did the Minister of Finance do about it? One would have expected the Minister of Finance to call in representatives of these foreign subsidiaries and to say to them: Gentlemen, you are operating under Canadian law, with all the benefits of living in a Canadian society; you are operating with Canadian labour and Canadian raw materials; we expect you to conduct your investment policies and financial procedures with the best interests of Canada in mind, not the financial concerns of any other countries. The minister should have told them he would like them to do this on a voluntary basis but that if necessary he would be prepared to introduce legislation in parliament to ensure that they conduct themselves as good corporate citizens of Canada.
[Mr. Douglas.l
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Did the minister say this to the corporations, Mr. Speaker? No. While millions of dollars were flowing from Canada into the United States the Minister of Finance got on the telephone to the secretary of the treasury in Washington and said: "Will you please tell these companies doing business in Canada to behave like Canadians rather than Americans?" This is the kind of leadership we have had. This is why the Minister of Finance is now worried about the position of the dollar. If the dollar is in trouble, this government must accept the responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We in this party do not want to see a financial crisis but I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that a financial crisis is much less likely to come from an election than from continuing with a government that is floundering around in a morass of its own ineptitude. This government is like a ship without a compass, without a chart and without a rudder. And last Monday night it was without a skipper. As a matter of fact, while the skipper was off the bridge the crew was shooting craps over who was going to wear the captain's hat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister worries about having an election. He was not concerned about calling an election in the fall of 1965, even though only a few months earlier he had told parliament that we would be reassembling after the parliamentary recess. That did not bother him at all then.
The financial soundness of this country will not be as adversely affected by an election as it will be by the continued incompetence and ineptitude of the government. This government has no unity of purpose and no unanimity of opinion. Almost every major issue that has come before them has been set aside because they cannot agree among themselves about what they should do.
Last year the Carter report was presented and the Minister of Finance promised us that we should have a white paper by the fall. Then we were to get it by January 1. Now the Prime Minister has announced that the Carter report is to be put on ice until after the leadership convention-


An hon. Member:: It is too hot.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -because he does not want leadership candidates taking opposite positions
February 23, 1968	COMMONS
on the Carter report. Everybody knows that the cabinet is split down the middle on the Carter report.
The other day the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) brought down the Watkins report on foreign control of the Canadian economy. The speech from the throne said that the government would bring in a white paper about what the government proposes to do about foreign control of our economy. Did the President of the Privy Council bring down that white paper? No. On the contrary, he had to announce that the government accepted no responsibility for the recommendations of the Watkins commission.
For five years this government has been promising us that we would have a Canada development corporation. At the beginning of this session, on May 8 last, the speech from the throne indicated that a Canada development corporation was to be set up. But has it been? The legislation is not even on the order paper. And why is that, Mr. Speaker? This government is divided about whether we should have a Canada development corporation and what kind of corporation it should be.
This government is like a blind Samson with its hands tied. It cannot agree on what it should do. One part of the government wants to go one way and one part of the government wants to go the other, and in this process of indecision they have brought the country to its present state. How, therefore, can the government now ask us to vote confidence in it, to vote confidence in fiscal, monetary and economic policies that have brought this country to its worst state in several years? The government's stock has not been lower since it took office nearly five years ago. Unemployment is higher, interest rates are higher, the cost of living is higher, and the dollar is much more vulnerable and much weaker.
In this state of affairs I say to the government: You have no right in all conscience to ask us to vote confidence in you and to ask us to repudiate our vote of last Monday night. Our vote last Monday night indicated that we would not and will not support any taxation measure which will further aggravate the present inequities in our taxation structure. One can only say to the government these words, and I paraphrase what Cromwell said 300 years ago to the Long Parliament: "You have sat here too long for any good that you have done. For God's sake, go."
DEBATES	6937
Motion Respecting House Vote [Translation]


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, must we adjourn at one o'clock? If so, I move the adjournment.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might suggest to the house that we dispense with private members' hour today and also agree to sit from 8 to 10 p.m. with the normal dinner adjournment.


Michael Starr: That is agreeable to us.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously the minister needs unanimous consent and there is no such consent.


Michael Starr: We agree to the proposal made by the leader of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the hon. member has agreed on behalf of his party but I definitely heard "nays". However, I will ask the question again. Is there unanimous agreement?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, you put both propositions together and maybe some of those who said "nay" did not mean they were opposed to both propositions. If Your Honour were to put them separately it would be possible to clear up this point.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that. At the
moment, however, one proposition has been put to the house and there is no unanimous agreement. However, the minister could well put a separate proposition forward.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: How
often is the house leader going to be told how
to do things?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Every time it is necessary. I am glad to learn. Possibly we could agree to waive the private members' hour and continue this debate during that period.
February 23, 19S8

Motion Respecting House Vote


Mr. Howard:: I understand there was a disposition to proceed between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. with a bill relating to the control of air pollution but possibly it would not be appropriate to do so today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Maybe we could get a decision now on the proposition to sit from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous agreement. This proposition is not accepted.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, before lunch we heard a very eloquent speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who expressed his views about the motion he put to the house on Wednesday.
Later, the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) gave his objections. Then the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) talked about the present parliamentary situation.
Mr. Speaker, Jean-Paul Sartre said one day: "When the rich wage war, the poor are always the ones who die." I could say today that when politicians fight each other, the poor are again those who suffer, get poorer and look on, powerless, at a parliamentary spectacle which does not correspond at all to the aspirations of the Canadian people.
In fact, the situation where the parliament now finds itself is due directly to the government managing the national business. Nobody prevented government members from being in the house last Monday. Both the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the New Democratic party are right in blaming the government and even holding them responsible in the circumstances.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement Creditiste does not want to be any part of parliamentary games involving purely political interests.
It is nice to hear about the good intentions of the leader of the Conservative party when he says that the government has failed dismally in the administration of national business. I would have liked him to propose his solution to the present problem.


e (2:40 p.m.)
Last Monday, the government was defeated. It is a real and actual fact. It was defeated by a vote of 84 to 82 on third reading of Bill No. C-193 designed to amend the Income Tax Act or providing for an increase in the personal income tax. If the government had then introduced Bill No. C-193 with a view to reducing taxes instead of increasing them, it would not find itself in the present situation.
When the government introduced its resolution designed to increase taxes, we opposed it through all stages of procedure and discussion. Since the government, through its Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and all the ministers, has been telling us that Canada was in an alarming economic situation and that inflation was eroding our economy, we felt it was ill-timed to increase personal income tax. As a matter of fact, such an increase would contribute more or less to reduce the purchasing power of Canadian consumers in the face of the abundant riches existing in Canada. If the government had introduced a bill designed to distribute more evenly the actual wealth of Canada, it would not find itself in the present difficult situation of its own making.
Mr. Speaker, since last year, the ministers have been telling us over and over again that the country is in an awkward and dangerous financial situation which should cause us great concern. At the same time, the government has increased interest rates and yet, inflation is being feared. Nevertheless, this is inflation.
Loan companies have been allowed to do likewise. As a matter of fact, they have been allowed to increase their interest rate on housing loans, on pretext that there would be more money available for the construction of homes for the Canadian citizens. However, after the passage of all those measures by parliament, we are not only at the same point, but we are more bogged down than ever.
Some experts of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have established that if a Canadian wanted to build a small $15,000 house, he would have to pay $46,058 spread over a 35-year period. In view of this, how can one declare that such legislation is beneficial to the Canadian people?
While the Minister of Finance and this government allow those increases of interest rates and those tax increases, they are granting loans throughout the world on extremely easy terms.
February 23, 1968

I have in hand a document which was tabled in the Senate on January 31 last-not so long ago-following a question of Hon. Jean-Fran^ois Pouliot who had asked what were the countries of the world which had benefited from Canadian loans and at what interest rate. Mr. Speaker, it is worthy of notice that, at the very moment the Canadian people are being burdened with new taxes, at the very moment when the government says that it is unable to restart the Canadian economy, we have been lending, under the Colombo plan, an amount of $3 million, at an interest of f of 1 per cent, for a 50-year period, plus 10 years of grace, which means 60 years. The Canadian government is lending money at a J of 1 per cent, when it is unable to find money at a lower rate than 5, 5| and 6 per cent. When provincial governments are compelled to borrow at 7J per cent, the Canadian government manages to lend money at J of 1 per cent for periods up to 60 years.
To India we made a $70 million loan, of which more than $50 million were at zero per cent interest, not f of one per cent interest, but zero per cent, under the pretext that we must give aid to underdeveloped countries. We do not have to go to India to see people in misery. You can see whole poverty-stricken families not only in the city of Montreal, but in every place in Canada where there are unemployed who must live on $36 a week. No need to go to India to see misery when we have plenty at home, but we do not have the courage and we are too heartless to settle those problems.
To Korea, we have made a 37-year loan of $1 million at 3 per cent interest for the development of the dairy industry.
To Pakistan, we have made a loan of $44,263,000 at zero per cent interest for a period of 50 years plus 10 years of grace, that is 60 years.
We lent Thailand $1 million at no interest for a period of 50 years.
We lent the Caribbean Islands $1.8 million at no interest for a period of 60 years.
We lent Jamaica $8.25 million at an average of | of 1 per cent for the construction of rural schools, a bridge, a seaport, a radio system, to buy equipment, to undertake public works, to build small bridges and low-cost housing. Will we have to ask Canadians to go live in Jamaica in order to obtain loans at 3 of 1 per cent interest?
These are government responsibilities and yet we are asked to raise the income tax.
Motion Respecting House Vote
In 1966, in the space of a single year, we lent Trinidad and Tobago $4.89 million at 3 of 1 per cent interest.
To the easternmost West Indies, to help the development of the dairy industry, we loaned $250,000 without interest for 60 years.
In Latin America, to Argentina, we loaned $756,000 at 3 of 1 per cent interest for 60 years.
We loaned Malaysia $1,720,000 at f of 1 per cent for 37 years.
The Central American Bank for Economic Integration was loaned $3,780,000 at J of 1 per cent interest for 60 years.
We loaned Chile $8,640,000, at | of 1 per cent for 60 years for part of the loan, and 3 per cent interest for 37 years for the balance of the loan.
We loaned the Republic of El Salvador, for port facilities, the sum of $3,240,000 at | of 1 per cent for 39 years.
We loaned Mexico $540,000 at | of 1 per cent for 60 years.
To African members of the Commonwealth we loaned $3,500,000 at 6 per cent for 30 years, and $1,600,000 without interest for 60 years.
Those are the official figures of the Department of External Affairs on the loans approved by the Canadian government.
And here is the Canadian parliament discussing whether or not personal income tax should be increased. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said in the course of his explanations to the house this morning: "We will find another way of making up for the funds we are losing." We shall surely find another way to raise the money which we lost by the vote taken on Monday night.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The Prime Minister promises, however, that Bill No. C-193 has been definitely set aside, and that it will never come again before the house. However, plans are being made to move another bill in an effort to recuperate the sums of money which the department will lose an account of Monday's vote.
Last night I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Chretien): When shall we start paying back the Canadian people the amounts of money collected by the government since January 1 last?" It is not known. However, one thing remains: since the defeat of Bill No. C-193, all the amounts which were paid to the government have been collected illegally.
0940	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote
Mr. Speaker, should the Prime Minister tell us that he will present another measure in order to raise funds, I shall answer him that the Canadian people cannot afford to consider another way to be subject to taxation as advocated in the measure defeated last Monday night.
At this stage I say to the leader of the official opposition who contends strongly that the government exceeds its powers and does not respect tradition, that it was defeated and that Monday's vote is a non-confidence vote against the government, that the members of the Ralliement Creditiste who voted that evening against Bill No. C-193-as they had done on second reading and in committee- voted against the tax increase and not to show their lack of confidence in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Why, Mr. Speaker? I hear "Oh, oh" from the Conservative side. Precisely because we do not have any more confidence in the Conservative party than we have in the Liberal party. We would not want, at any price, to see the present Leader of the Opposition replace the Prime Minister, because he does not have a solution. It is all very well to tell the government: You are not doing your job, you are giving evidence of irresponsibility. It is all very well for the Conservative party to say that when it sits in the opposition, but I shall remind the Conservatives that when their party had 208 federal members in this house, it was at that time that Canada experienced its highest level of unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: When the leader of the official opposition says: the government asks us to ignore Monday's vote, it is not at all what I understand. The leader of the official opposition and myself probably did not attend the same school, but I do not understand the motion in that way at all. The motion does not say that we must repudiate the vote taken on Monday, and we agree that the government can introduce this motion. The other day, the leader of the New Democratic party stated that the government had the constitutional right to present its motion but that it did not have the moral right to do so.
Does that mean that the Canadian constitution is immoral? Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that we must always follow traditions,

DEBATES	February 23. 1968
even if they are not solidly established? Must we always follow the same beaten track as in the last 100 or 200 years? Are we not able in 1968 to take our responsibilities ourselves?
On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, the opposition admits that the government has a right to present its motion. On the other hand, and according to tradition, as soon as a government is defeated, it must go before the electorate.
Reference has been made to events dating back to 1869, 1872, 1876 and 1926, when a government was defeated on a vote and did not call a general election anyway.
If it is true, Mr. Speaker, that on those occasions, according to tradition, the government did not resign and that the Macdonald government, for one, was defeated eleven times and did not resign, then the present government could very well not have moved a motion such as we have before us.
The opposition says that Monday's vote was a non-confidence vote. That is the position of the official opposition and the New Democratic party. On the other hand, the government says this was not a non-confidence vote. In these circumstances, what should we do, what should we say?
The government, through the Prime Minister, says: "We are going to introduce a motion in the house in order to determine whether or not you have confidence in the government".
If the motion asked: Do you have confidence in the government, our group would vote directly and completely against the government. We do not have confidence in the government, and we want them to know it.
However, that is not the text of the motion. It says, and I quote:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th... as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
It is a vote of non-confidence with regard to the income tax increase, and I have no sympathy for the government. But I want it to be clearly understood that I do not have any sympathy for the Conservatives either, nor for the New Democratic party.
I sympathize with the Canadian people who witness, at the present time, a political acrobatic game masterminded by the official opposition that refused on Wednesday afternoon to discuss that motion in which a vote could probably have been taken then. But no, the official opposition stood firm on the 48-hour notice, so that yesterday and the day
February 23, 1968

before yesterday we could not do anything, and it is the taxpayers' money which the Conservatives say they want to save that we spend lightheartedly like that.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Who are those who are afraid of assuming their responsibilities? Let the leader of the official opposition answer that.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic party said at noon that the government was asking us to repudiate Monday's vote. I do not understand very well what the leader of the New Democratic party meant by that. There is nothing in the motion asking us to repudiate Monday's vote. On the contrary, the Prime Minister stated at noon that Monday's vote will not be put again, that Bill No. C-193 will not be re-introduced in the house. He merely asked that Monday night's vote be not regarded as a vote of non-confidence.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we do not want to play into the hands of the older political parties, even if the press in general tries to have everyone be a party to the same game.
I was reading in Le Devoir this morning an article signed or written by Mr. Pierre-C. O'Neil, and I quote:
Mr. R6al Caouette in a rather ambiguous statement said that he did not consider as a vote of non-confidence-
Motion Respecting House Vote
Mr. Speaker, these are news which certain unscrupulous journalists give out to the public. I realize that I have never been a great favourite with the press, but I do not care about that. I do not ask for preferential treatment from the press. Since we managed to play them a trick in 1962, we will play them another trick at the next opportunity, perhaps within the next three weeks, perhaps in the next five or six months.
Mr. Speaker, such a piece of news broadcast through the province spreads confusion. Now, we are here today to clarify the situation.
At this stage, I will quote from the speech delivered on Wednesday, February 21, by the leader of the New Democratic party, as reported on page 6904 of Hansard:	'
In our system of parliamentary government the most important right is the right to impose taxes.
"To impose taxes". Then, the leader of the New Democratic party agrees with the leader of the Conservative party as well as with the leader of the government. Our most important right is the right to impose taxes.
Then, further on, and I quote:
This government has been denied that right by a majority of members voting on Bill No. C-193.


Some hon. Members:: 
David Réal Caouette: And this morning, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic party suggested the following: Instead of taxing the low wage-earners, let us tax the large undertakings, the large corporations, the contractors, such as those, for instance, who are prospecting for oil in the Canadian north and will spend $11 million without knowing whether or not they will find anything. Let us tax those people, let us tax the producers, the large producers and we shall see an immediate increase in prices, as happens generally. Then, it is the little man who will have to pay, instead of paying a 5 per cent tax, he may have to take a 10 per cent price increase. Will he be better off then?
The leader of the New Democratic party was during 17 years premier of his own province. When did he remove a single tax? Of course, he tried to tax large corporations; only he drove them out of his own province and they set up business elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote Mr. Caoueile: Mr. Speaker, the solution suggested or submitted by the New Democratic party is not very much different from the one suggested by the Conservatives or the Liberals. Only the solution advocated by the Creditistes differs from all others.
Instead of compelling the low wage-earner to dig deeper in his pockets, let the Minister of Finance go to the sources of money; not to circulating money, but to the source itself, namely the Bank of Canada, of which we should make full use in order to develop our natural resources. By so doing, we would respect the corporations and workers. But no, the Conservatives and the New Democratic party will not consider that solution. The Creditistes alone advocate it, and yet it is accessible to parliament and to the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, that is the heart of the matter we are now discussing and trying to clarify. Basically, is it not a monetary question? It is not merely a fiscal matter. If we go to the bottom of things, it is a monetary matter, which the fiscal question follows.
Now, that is precisely the question-I must wait for the interpretation, Mr. Speaker, because I am told that I am doing well at this point-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the fiscal question follows the monetary question and that is the one we should face. I feel that if we faced seriously the real problem that exists in Canada, it would be possible to find a solution instead of fooling around and saying: Is it a vote of confidence or non-confidence, etc, etc.?
At this stage, and because we are now facing a problem that concerns the constitution and our parliamentary traditions, I would suggest that the government should add the words "confidence" or "non-confidence" to the bills introduced in the house. If the government did that, we would not encounter the kind of difficult parliamentary situation we are dealing with now.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close my remarks by repeating the wish of the Ralliement des Creditistes. The Canadian people need their government. The Canadian people deserve a more responsible management of their national affairs than they get at the present time. Recently, a federal-provincial conference was [Mr. Caouette.l

held which dealt with bilingualism, the recognition of the French language in the other provinces, as we recognize the English language in the province of Quebec. All the premiers of the Canadian provinces deserve congratulations and the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada ought to be congratulated for having proposed and suggested that linguistic policy in the other provinces.
I shall point out that during my early visits in western Canada, in 1962, I said in Vancouver, in Victoria, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan: give our French minorities the same treatment that we give the English minorities in the province of Quebec, and then it will be easier to talk about national unity or national understanding.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
During the last federal-provincial conference, that progressive idea was supported by all provincial premiers as well as by the Canadian Prime Minister.
Now, ladies and gentlemen-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, everybody will agree with me that there are charming ladies in the galleries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: We also realized during the federal-provincial conference that the question of prime importance was, all in all, the economic situation. The province of Quebec and all the other provinces are asking for increased powers. Mention has been made of a special status, a special treatment, etc. In that connection, the federal government has a great part to play, because it is also true that financial matters come under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, the main problem of the provinces concerns precisely financial matters.
The premiers of Quebec and Ontario as well as those of the western and maritime provinces told us: We do not have the capital needed. Only the central government can do it because it is the only one which has the right and the power to legislate in that field. When the provinces secure financial powers, they will be able to administer their own business as they please, according to their aspirations and then all talk of a special status will die down. On the other hand, to reach that stage, we need the authority to administer ourselves.
February 23, 1968
Again that is a matter of finance. If the provinces could borrow at an interest rate of f of 1 per cent today, as India does, if our municipalities could do the same thing, we would have fewer problems to face. All the problems of the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government are the same, that is to say financial problems.
Therefore, we must deal squarely with that problem. If taxes continue to be levied and increased as they are now, when the people lack purchasing power, the federal government will have to assume its responsibilities to the Canadian people, the provinces and the municipalities.
That is why I repeat that the last two or three days have been a complete waste for the Canadian parliament, while the people long for objective and constructive legislation, legislation which would give impetus to our economy.
It is not normal for a country such as ours to have 500,000 unemployed. It is not reasonable, it is even unthinkable, that there should be 75,000 to 80,000 unemployed in the city of Montreal alone. It is unthinkable to see people at grips with extreme poverty in a country of affluence when there is a great surplus of clothing, food and electric appliances. It is not normal to force part of our population to live in abject poverty.
Therefore, I ask the government to introduce legislation capable of alleviating poverty in Canada. It is a good thing to help under-developed countries; we have no objection to this. But let us start by helping those who need it here at home, let us start by putting our own house in order. Since Monday last, the Canadian parliament has been in a turmoil.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this motion will be put to a vote as soon as possible. Like our friends of the New Democratic party, we have no objection to the motion being put to a vote today so that we can get on with the ordinary business of the house on Monday. The money spent when the house engages in terrible discussions on matters that are devoid of interest for the people as a whole increase inflationary pressures which we should be fighting.
If we want our attitude to be meaningful, let us face up to our responsibilities as members of the Conservative party, the New Democratic party, the Liberal party; in short, as members of parliament, let us stop wasting the time of the house and let us proceed with
Motion Respecting House Vote legislation, and the implementation of policies which will help the Canadian people.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part briefly in the special debate this afternoon may I say I am fully aware of the fact that it may be difficult to present arguments which have not already been presented by the preceding speakers. However, I feel we would be remiss if we did not participate in this debate, outline our views on the motion before us and also indicate the position we intend to take on the vote. We in this party are prepared to vote today on this motion or at the earliest possible time because we believe that uncertainty and indecision are not only harmful to this institution but are also doing a disservice to the people right across the nation. Therefore it is not our intention to deal at any length with the motion or to outline our views with respect to the various details of the bill which provided the occasion for this debate.
I should like to refer to some of the statements that were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), some of which were refuted the other day, and also to say a word or two about them this afternoon. Once again reference has been made to the dangers which face minority governments and to the fact that in such a situation we have to make allowances vis-a-vis our ordinary practices and the constitutional position. But once again let me say very clearly that we do not consider that the crisis precipitated by the vote on the tax measure was in any way related to the minority position of the Liberal government. I think it has been amply demonstrated and clearly set forth that although there were absentees from other parties only two-thirds of the members of the Liberal party were present in the house on that occasion. Had the Liberal members been present in force there would have been no doubt as to the outcome of that vote. Therefore I believe that the Prime Minister and his government will have to accept full responsibility for the defeat of the government on that issue and not lay it on the doorstep of the electors of this country because they did not elect a greater number of Liberal members.
The Prime Minister indicated that the vote we took the other evening should not be considered a vote of non-confidence. But I would like to say again that so far as our group was concerned, and I believe I can say so far as every member who was present in the house

6944	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote was concerned, it was a want of confidence motion and everyone who voted expected it would be looked upon in that way. The suggestion is that we were not voting nonconfidence on that bill because of the situation which existed and the fact that it was not declared to be a want of confidence motion. I say again that we all expected it would be considered as such and therefore the motion before us today in effect is asking us to set aside our understanding of the situation at that time, to set aside what we believed to be the true situation with regard to the bill, to set aside the objective we had in mind when we voted on the bill, to do away with all of that and in the vote on the motion now before us to imply that we did not intend the previous vote to be one of want of confidence.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Unfortunately the impression has been left across the country that on every stage of the tax bill the house in its entirety voted in favour of the measure. Last night I had a telephone call from one of my constituents. This gentleman said, "Is it right that all of you people supported the government on all of these stages of the bill and then voted against it on third reading?" I said, "most definitely not." He said, "Well, that is the impression we have out here in this part of the country." Whether it was intentional or not, I believe the impression created was that members on the opposition side voted in support of that measure during its various stages. This was certainly not so. As has been pointed out by other speakers, the opposition was consistent throughout the various stages of the bill.
There has been considerable discussion about the constitutionality of that vote and whether the government has a right to bring in a want of confidence motion over and above that vote. This reminds us somewhat of events that took place several years ago. The present Prime Minister was leader of the opposition at that time and he did not even believe that a vote of non-confidence in the government was necessary. He said, "You ought to move over and let us form a government." I believe this position was a little more out of line than that taken by the opposition in the house today.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to the Prime Minister's allegation that there was a plot to defeat the government on the tax issue. I say categorically once again that there was no plot so far as we

DEBATES	February 23, 1968
were concerned. There was no collusion. The Prime Minister said he was not implying that there was collusion. There was no collusion with any other party on that vote. We voted as we believed we should vote. Let me ask the Prime Minister this question. Even if the opposition had combined deliberately to defeat the government, what would have been wrong with a situation like that? I cannot see anything wrong with it. I recall that when the right hon. gentleman was leader of the official opposition the Liberals, in order to upset the government of that day, voted for an amendment submitted by the Social Credit party in which they stated they did not believe but they voted for it to get rid of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Bell Patterson: How can the right hon. gentleman now imply there is anything dastardly about the opposition getting together in order to defeat a government when it is felt that government has lost the confidence of this country?
There is another question which I think is fundamental. How would the government have regarded the vote on Bill No. C-193 had they been looking for an excuse to call an election? I do not believe there would have been any discussion about it. I do not believe there would have been any argument. I do not believe they would have thrown up any defence or tried to introduce another confidence motion. They would have gone happily on their way because they would have been anxious to have another election.
The Prime Minister said that the government had to decide whether or not it was in the national interest to have a general election. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman considered it was in the national interest or in the interest of the Liberal party to have an election in the fall of 1965? I do not believe that entered into their consideration when they made a decision to call an election just two years after the country had experienced an election.
We all know that it is traditional for a government to resign when it loses a vote on an essential measure such as the one which was presented to us the other evening. The Prime Minister brought forward a lot of constitutional experts to give testimony on this matter. Once again I say that had it been the desire of the government to have an election he would not have dragged in all these constitutional experts to say that we ought to do
February 23, 1968	COMMONS
this or we ought to do the other thing. They would have simply gone ahead and called an election, forcing the country into another period of adjustment during an election campaign merely for the advantage of the party in power.
It is easy to rationalize, Mr. Speaker, but it is difficult to reconcile the position the Liberal party took when they were in opposition and the position they are taking now they are in office. It has been stated today that the government fully intends to balance its budget. Well, that is a new one coming from this government. They have not bothered about the national debt for a long time and it has been increasing until we are now paying about $1,300 million just in interest. They have not been very much concerned about balancing the budget up until this time. They say they are going to balance the budget this year and they state categorically they are going to get this money. There is no question about it; they say they are going to get the money. I do not know whether they are going to bypass parliament or how they are going to do it. However, they say they are going to get the money.
I should like to know how they are going to get the money. Are they going to increase taxes or are they going to cut back their expenditures? I feel this is a fundamental issue. There has been a great deal of talk about cutting back expenditures but there has been more lip service to the idea than practical application of the policy. I believe we have a right to know just how the government is going to handle the situation. Is there going to be a further increase in taxes or a cut-back in expenditures? If there is an attempt to increase taxes further after the defeat of the tax bill the government will face the same opposition that it has faced on this particular issue.
So far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we cannot vote confidence in the present administration. Looking back over the past months we find confused priorities. The government has forced the house to deal with measures and issues that were not fundamental to the economy of this nation. Those measures had nothing to do with the material well-being of this great nation of ours. The government always had some particular plan it was interested in bringing before us, thus taking up time which should have been spent on the discussion of the serious problem the Prime Minister now states is upon us. Because of the confused priority list which we
DEBATES	6945
Motion Respecting House Vote have been forced to accept during the past months we cannot have confidence in this administration. Because of the contradictory policies that have been submitted we are unable to support the government.
Perhaps I could give one or two illustrations. I think of the housing program. The attitude of the government was that we ought to see to it that every Canadian can have his own home. They held out this ideal and then promptly introduced additional taxes on building materials. They promptly made possible a substantial rise in interest rates on mortgages through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They adopted policies that are making it impossible for Canadians to own their own homes.
The government was going to fight inflation. They said: We have to do this, that and the other to fight inflation. Then the government introduced a bill to increase taxes. We all know what effect increased taxes have on the cost of living. It is not the opposition that is fighting them; they are fighting against themselves. A house divided against itself cannot stand, we are told. I believe that even if we did not oppose the government they would collapse on their own because of their inability to face and to solve the major issues that confront us.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We in this group have constantly recommended monetary and fiscal policies that we believe are necessary to meet the needs of the present day. We have presented them in good conscience. We have presented them as our beliefs and in a way that would commend them to the consideraton of the government. It is acknowledged that the present policies are not solving the problems; yet the government will not accept or follow policies that might lead them out of the woods and once more into the light. Therefore I say that in face of the monetary and fiscal policies of this government we cannot vote confidence.
The entire program of the government over the past months is evidence that the government does not know what to do in face of the urgent problems confronting us. We are told today that we cannot have another election, that we cannot upset the government because the country is in a critical position and Canada faces serious economic problems. We are told that an election might upset the balance and tip us over the precipice. I believe it was said today that if the government stays in office it will push us over the precipice anyway. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I do not
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote believe that this is any reason for voting confidence in the government. All I say is: What a confession to make to this house. The government, having been in office all these years, comes to this house and states that Canada is facing a very difficult situation, that we are facing a crisis and had better not try to change horses at this stage of the game.
The government has brought in this motion, Mr. Speaker. I know the Prime Minister is a great sportsman. He has proven that and we all appreciate that he is interested in these things. However, I do not think the Prime Minister would want to change the rules of the game halfway through the course of the game. He is now asking us in this crisis to change the rules of the game halfway through and allow him to bypass the traditional position of a government in the face of defeat. Many of us agree that some fundamental changes are desirable in our rules of procedure and other matters, but until the rules are changed I say, let us play the game according to the rules.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the members of this party have fulfilled their promise to endeavour to provide a measure of stability in a minority government situation. The government has failed to produce the goods so we cannot express our confidence in the government in this crucial vote.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. McIntosh@: Sorry about that, chief.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say to the gentleman who made that opening remark that at any time the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) feels I am not discharging my responsibilities to the government or to this parliament I will gladly resign.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Why wait till spring?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should add, of course, that I am not anxious to keep the job indefinitely.
This debate, Mr. Speaker, takes place at a critical time in the affairs of our country and in the interests of the nation I urge a speedy and favourable decision on the motion before the house. This is not the time for a prolonged debate that will paralyse this parliament as well as the public business of this country. Nor is this the time to plunge the country into an election. If there seems to be some other alternative available then I should
like to say, speaking personally, that I know of no one else in this house who can discharge the function of Prime Minister of this country better than the present Prime Minsiter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is a lame-duck
Prime Minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: My only regret, Mr. Speaker, is that he has decided to move on to better things after April 6. However, that is a decision he has made personally without consultation with any of the rest of us.
I listened with incredulity to the speeches today of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the leader of the New Democratic party. In the first place I listened to the Leader of the Opposition expecting that he would produce some precedents to bolster the constitutional position that he placed before the house today. However, I listened in vain. The Prime Minister certainly won that particular engagement hands down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Prime Minister quoted authorities which have been recognized throughout the British Commonwealth and in all British parliamentary institutions. The only authority that the Leader of the Opposition could quote was himself, and under the circumstances I really think he was outvoted.
The Leader of the Opposition poses as a reasonable and responsible man. He certainly has the manner; he is very quiet and very dignified. But nowhere in his remarks did I detect the slightest recognition of the nature of the problems facing this country. I have come to the conclusion that what the Leader of the Opposition wants at any cost is an election. He wants an election regardless of the consequences. I suggest he wants to have an election as soon as possible before the image that was created at the Conservative leadership convention fades away entirely, and I do not blame him.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Liberal party has no fear of an election and certainly no fear of the party that is led by my hon. friend. However, this is not the time for an election. Unlike hon. members opposite, the people of Canada do not want an election.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How do you know?

February 23, 1968


Mitchell William Sharp: All they want is to have this parliament, which was elected less than two and a half years ago, go about its business and deal with the urgent matters before it. The Leader of the Opposition did speak at considerable length about the problems facing the country. But what did he propose to do about those problems, Mr. Speaker? He proposed either to paralyse parliament or to call an election. They were the two practical alternatives that he put before us, unless, of course, he wanted to suggest that he himself wanted to be prime minister. He was not very enthusiastic about it; he was rather modestly reluctant. In any event I do not think that this would add greatly to the stability of government under the present circumstances. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition would be better employed carrying on his job as Leader of the Opposition for a little longer. As he went on he might get to like it and would not want to change. [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Michael Starr: You hope.


Mitchell William Sharp: There are serious problems facing this country, problems of an unprecedented character.


An hon. Member:: You made them.


Mitchell William Sharp: They have arisen for reasons which are mostly beyond the control of the parliament of this country.
Since becoming Minister of Finance I have never hesitated to lay before this house and before the people of this country the nature of the problems that face us. I have done that clearly; indeed, I have been criticized for being so frank. Nor do I think-and I want to make this clear-that the measures the government has proposed have invariably been right. In this very complex world you cannot always be right; you can only hope to be right most of the time.


An hon. Member:: What about Monday night?


Michael Starr: That only applies to the minister, I suppose.


An hon. Member:: What about the President of the Privy Council?


Mitchell William Sharp: And I make no apologies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I thought the minister was supposed to be an improvement over the previous finance minister.
Motion Respecting House Vote


Mitchell William Sharp: I make no apology whatever for having, during the time I have been Minister of Finance, altered the direction of our financial and economic policy. Had I hesitated to do so I could have been open to censure. Our circumstances have been changing rapidly. They will change rapidly and as long as I am Minister of Finance I shall try to fit our policies to those circumstances.


An hon. Member:: From day to day.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I listened to the leader of the N.D.P. I came to envy him. I envied his self-assurance. It is quite clear that he knows he has all the answers. Clearly he knows that invariably he is right. He spoke with that self-assurance that has been so pronounced in his demeanour in this house. As I say, I envy him. It must be very pleasant to be happy with oneself and to know that one knows the answers.


An hon. Member:: Boy, oh boy.


Mitchell William Sharp: It must be pleasant to go on in this comfortable fashion. And today we had a magnificent example of that supreme selfconfidence, a self-confidence that was so supremely unwarranted.
The hon. gentleman expressed his great concern about inflation, but how does he want to deal with it? I listened very carefully to the remedies he put forward and he suggested that we should deal with inflation by following inflationary policies. We should spend more and tax less. That was the remedy he put forward, apparently as the result of that self-assurance that goes with his economic doctrines.


Mr. Grafftey:: Some think this might be a time for humility.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is this kind of talk that helps to undermine confidence. Of course, it may be that the hon. gentleman never expects to be in office and sees no harm in being so completely irresponsible. He said among other things, for example, that Bill C-193 would impose a tax on individuals in order to repay the refundable tax to corporations. Surely the hon. gentleman knows that such a statement is inaccurate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not at all.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yet he persists in repeating the misstatement as if it were the gospel truth. Perhaps that is a carryover from the years when he was a minister of the gospel and not a member of parliament.
6948	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote


An hon. Member:: Cheap.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I was listening to the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: How cheap can you get?


Mitchell William Sharp: -I could see him building up his platform for the next election by making charges of this sort.


Michael Starr: What about the minister and the leadership?


Mitchell William Sharp: And if the Leader of the Opposition is hungry for power, the leader of the N.D.P. positively drools at the prospect of an election. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam knows that the repayment of the refundable tax was provided for in Bill C-193 by way of a prepayment of corporate tax. All the money for that purpose was provided for in the bill, and I hope that he will correct this inaccuracy. But I suspect that he will go on uttering these statements as if they were gospel truth, even though all the facts are to the contrary. What concerns me about the leader of the N.D.P. is his general attitude of irresponsibility.


An hon. Member:: How pompous can you get?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope the hon. member has been following events in the United Kingdom where a government of his persuasion is in office. That government has had to devalue its currency. That government has had to go in for tough taxation measures, tough measures of restraint of expenditure. These measures are of unequalled toughness. Why did the government of that country not take the advice of my hon. friend? Or perhaps that is why they got in trouble. Perhaps they got into trouble because they listened to him when he met with them at Chequers when the leaders of the social democratic parties got together to discuss these problems. I know that if the government were to take the advice of the leader of the N.D.P. there would be an economic crisis of major proportion in this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is now.


Mitchell William Sharp: It would set back its progress for years, and we do not intend to take that advice.


An hon. Member:: You did in 1962.


Mitchell William Sharp: We intend to continue to propose policies to maintain the stability and

DEBATES	February 23, 1968
prosperity of this country. I remind the house that never before in the history of this country has there been such a prolonged period of expansion, such a prolonged period of prosperity and such a period of unexampled increase in the living standard of Canadians.


Michael Starr: Starting in 1961.


Mitchell William Sharp: The record of the progress of Canada since this government took office is without precedent and without parallel. I defy anyone on the other side of the house to find a period in the whole history of this country-


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: When the government has been so bad.


Mitchell William Sharp: -which will compare with the record of the economic progress of this country since this government has been in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: We are now facing a period of difficulty which has been brought on largely by reasons that are beyond our control.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, now.


Michael Starr: What was the minister doing all the time?


Mr. Ricard:: That is irresponsible.


Mitchell William Sharp: This will require from the government tough decisions and it will require from the people of Canada a high degree of co-operation and restraint. This government intends to do what is necessary and I, as Minister of Finance, intend to discharge my responsibilities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You should resign.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian dollar, as I have said on several previous occasions, is on trial.


An hon. Member:: So are you.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, and this government is on trial. I admit that.


An hon. Member:: It is not going to survive.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, it is, and it is going to pass this test just as the Canadian dollar is going to pass its test. The world is watching the performance of the Canadian economy-


Michael Starr: And shuddering.


Mitchell William Sharp: -and the markets and the prices of Canadian government bonds are
February 23, 1968

reacting to every development here in parliament. How we act and how we discharge our responsibilities will have a profound effect on the jobs, on the cost of living and on the standard of living of all Canadians.
In my view it is essential that during this session of parliament we should take the fiscal action that is necessary to maintain confidence in the Canadian economy and in the Canadian dollar. If we adjourn or prorogue this session or, as the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the N.D.P. want, dissolve parliament without making provision to raise additional moneys to pay our bills in the coming fiscal year, the results could be serious. Look at the world around us. The devaluation of the pound sterling is still echoing in the financial markets of the world.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And this is supposed to be our fault.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: The United States is having to take most extraordinary measures, some of which were referred to by the leader of the New Democratic party today. Why? To spite us? No. Because of the drain of gold from that country. The most powerful, the most important nation in the world is under attack. And here we are in Canada sitting next to the most powerful country in the world in these circumstances. Interest rates are at the highest levels throughout the world, not just in Canada. Not since the 'twenties have international financial markets been so disturbed and so jittery. These are the circumstances in which the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic party want to project this country into an election. I think it would be the least responsible action that parliament could take.
In the financial measures I placed before the house on November 30 I proposed a limitation on our expenditures and additional taxation designed to bring the budget into approximate balance in the next fiscal year. The estimates brought down by my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) demonstrate the government's determination to live within the ceiling on expenditures. Some of the tax proposals, those in the fields of excise taxes and excise duties have been approved by this house and are now before the Senate.
Last Monday the vote on the third reading of the income tax bill was negatived. The government accepts that decision, whatever may have been the circumstances of the vote. The government will put before the house
Motion Respecting House Vote further financial measures. It is essential that our proposals be such as to finance our expenditures in a non-inflationary way and reduce the pressures on the capital market. This is the only responsible course that a government in office can take, and I urge upon this parliament acceptance of that responsibility.
In conclusion, I suggest that we should stop this posturing and bickering as political parties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: If we do not, we shall certainly be deserving of the censure of the people who have elected us, and I prefer to listen to the voice of the people-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: I prefer to listen to the voice of the people rather than to the voice of Oliver Cromwell, who has been quoted by both the Leader of the Opposition and by the leader of the New Democratic party. And what is the voice of the people saying today? It is saying: Get on with the job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: We have all listened with great interest to the speech just delivered, or performed, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). He began by telling us he was incredulous. This is not news to us. The Minister of Finance has always been incredulous to us, and never more so than today when one considers the speech he has just made.
He told us the world is watching with interest the performance of the Canadian economy. I grant him this. I have just come back from a trip abroad and I can confirm it. Mr. Speaker, the world is also watching with shock and amazement the horror show which masquerades under the form of the Canadian government today.
The hon. gentleman was humble and modest in his speech. That is understandable, since his government has so much to be modest and humble about. He suggested that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the speech made by my leader was a demand for an election. I challenge the correctness of that statement. If the Minister of Finance had listened carefully, if he had read what has been stated in the press and reported from our discussions, he would realize there is no such indication that the Conservative party is demanding an election.
6950	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote
The statement which has been made is that the government should follow the responsible, respectable and proper course of action byoffering its resignation after having been defeated on a vote which can be interpreted in no other way than as a vote of non-confidence. This is what the Leader of the Opposition has said. This is what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has said. I think it should be made perfectly clear at this time. The Minister of Finance has urged: Let us finish with this business and deal with the problems which face us. Mr. Speaker, that is what parliament did on Monday night. It got rid of the problem which faces us and the country-the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister made much of what the government's accomplishments have been. For my part I should like to paraphrase a remark once made by a distinguished statesman: Never have so many ministers done so little for so many people.
In the first instance I think it must be made absolutely plain that Her Majesty's loyal opposition has not changed and will not change the position it originally took with regard to the status of the government following the events of Monday evening, irrespective of what might be the position of the ministers pursuant to statute. The government has certain privileges and it has certain responsibilities in this house. Those privileges include the constitutional practice, hallowed by hundreds of years, of submitting its resignation following defeat in a vote which can only be interpreted as a vote of no confidence. This is the attitude we took from the beginning. We are taking part in this debate, as we should as responsible and reputable members of parliament, but our position has been made clear as reported in Hansard of Wednesday last when I, on behalf of this party, entered a caveat as to the rights of the government with respect to further proceedings in this house.
The vote on Monday night represented a major defeat and cannot be redeemed. The government lost the confidence of the house at that time and I would say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in the words of the ancient Persian-
The Moving Finger writes: and, having writ,
Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel hall a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it-


Miss LaMarsh:: Just a Jug of Wine and Thou.

DEBATES	February 23, 1968


Gerald William Baldwin: Motion Respecting House Vote
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Let me conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker. What will be the effect if this motion is passed? It permits the government to make a decision after the event and not before, as to confidence. We will be breaking new ground. It will then be incumbent upon the government, if this motion is accepted, with respect to any bill placed before the house to state prior to its being put before the house whether or not it is a matter of confidence. Certainly the opposition will insist that this be done. This is the only and inevitable result which comes from the passage of this motion.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, going down through all the years in our parliamentary history, with parliament now being entrusted with the [DOT]only limitations which can be placed upon the government, surely when a matter of this kind, of this importance, of this consequence has been brought before the house and has been defeated, what other reasonable, honest and logical conclusion can there be but that it is a matter of such gravity that the government has no alternative but to resign?
People have said that there is no difference between members of this party and members of the party which now provides the government. I say there is, and this issue indicates it. Hon. members opposite believe they have a divine right, that they constitute the managerial elite who have the right to govern this country under all conditions and under all circumstances; and if the law, if the rules and regulations of this house, or if the constitutional precedents of hundreds of years interfere they can say, "Oh, we will jump over this law, we will jump over this precedent, we will ignore them." That is the difference.
We in this party believe in the rights of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: We abide by the practices and traditions of parliament, and there is illustrated the difference between hon. members opposite and the members of this party. I would hope under those conditions all members who have any regard at all for the privileges and for the traditions of the House of Commons will vote down this motion which is now before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin this afternoon by reassuring

February 23, 1968
the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on two points: First I want to say to him that there was nothing offensive to him personally intended by any member when unanimous consent was not given to him to speak on Tuesday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John B. Stewart: If unanimous consent had been given it would have applied to all members, and we might then have had a general debate on the matter which is now being debated.


Donald MacInnis: The
Prime Minister refused.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order please?


John B. Stewart: We might then have had a general debate on the matter which is now before the house, a debate far earlier than the hon. gentleman evidently wished.
The second point on which I wish to reassure him was that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was not being unfriendly to him, the Prime Minister did not wish to upset him, when he used terms such as "trickery" and "manufactured crisis". Those terms are mild, even insipid, when compared with some that have come across the floor of this house from the quarter in which the hon. member now sits.


Mr. Monleilh:: The Prime Minister did not use those terms in the house.


John B. Stewart: It is well to remember, sir, that other people have used expressions outside this house since last Monday night. For example, the Leader of the Opposition himself accused the government of trying in a "high-handed and presumptuous way" to make a "farce of parliament".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John B. Stewart: I can assure you, sir, that that harsh and inaccurate statement made outside the house and applauded within the house will not be regarded by the Prime Minister as something that should upset him greatly.
This morning the Leader of the Opposition insisted that last Monday two questions were decided by one vote, and decided conclusively. The first of these questions was whether or not Bill C-193 would then be read a third time, and the second question was whether or not the government had lost the confidence of the house. I think, sir, that there is no dispute on the first of these points.

February 23, 1968

The motion for the third reading then of Bill C-193 was defeated. It was defeated by a vote of 84 to 82.
But there is dispute on the second question. The Conservative opposition says, and my hon. friend from Peace River has just now reasserted, that the vote taken last Monday night was conclusive as to the attitude of the house toward the government. We on this side of the house take a different view. We believe that the Conservative opposition is taking what I will call a mechanistic view of our constitution.
Members of the Conservative opposition are insisting that in this one vote recorded Monday night the whole attitude of the house was reflected conclusively and ultimately. They are suggesting that in this one vote the whole view on the government of all the membership was summed up. I do not think that this is accurate. I think that to endorse this view of our constitution is really to be just a little fatuous. They say this, and they say they are adducing the precedents of the centuries. But I say they have not yet adduced a precedent. What we have heard is a quotation, by an unnamed writer, a quotation from the Canada Year Book. That may be an excellent source for statistical information, but I have never before heard it quoted as a great authoritative source in the field of constitutional law and practice.


Robert Muir: Bob Winters endorses it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is all the Globe and Mail could find, too.


John B. Stewart: When we come to this matter of how a vote in this house shall be interpreted, there are, I suggest, two parties who are principally involved. In the first place the question of the interpretation of a vote is a question for the prime minister. The reason for this under our constitution is perfectly evident. A prime minister, holding office, has certain great and heavy responsibilities, and sir, it is for a prime minister to decide what support he must have, what co-operation he must enjoy, in the house if he is to continue to sustain his responsibilities. That is why over the years the first decision as to the significance of a vote taken in the House of Commons has been for the Prime Minister to make.
I have brought along an authority with me, sir. It is not the Canada Year Book. It is not a book endorsed by any member of the present government or even by any member
Motion Respecting House Vote of the shadow cabinet opposite. It is a book by Arthur Berriedale Keith, entitled "The British Cabinet System." Although the quotation I wish to put before the house is somewhat long, sir, it is so germane to the discussion before us that I hope you will bear with me. I quote from page 215 as follows:
It rests, therefore, with the government to decide what issues it shall treat as vital, and as demanding that it must resign or dissolve if it is denied support thereon. It is, however, more and more the practice for ministries to restrict the freedom of the members, by insisting on making the vote a matter of confidence.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The days are gone when the Melbourne ministry suffered repeated defeats with equanimity, and dissolved only when an actual vote of non-confidence was carried by a majority of one, after it had refrained from resignation on a defeat on the sugar duties. The coalition ministry in 1853 accepted minor defeats without serious difficulties. Lord Rosebery's ministry treated a defeat on the address in 1894 with calm, but the vote was a snap one, and though such votes discredit a ministry, or at least suggest that its members are slack in their allegiance, or the whips rather below par, still resignation is by no means essential. On this occasion the government subsequently secured the rejection of the amended address and the passage of the original version. In June, 1895, the same administration was defeated on an amendment in supply reducing the appropriation for the parliament buildings. The vote was small and the government remained in office. But when they were defeated again, a week later, on the army estimates they resigned. This second vote was also a snap vote, but appears to have been taken seriously, not on its own merits, but because it came at the end of a period of very small majorities. It was more striking, when in 1905 Mr. Balfour was defeated on an Irish issue in committee of supply, without resigning or dissolving.
Then the author goes on to discuss the position of minority governments. He says this:
The position, of course, is different when a government is distinctly a minority government, as in 1886, when Lord Salisbury advised Lord R. Churchill to make it clear that the government would not treat private members' bills as raising issues of confidence. But he did not suggest indifference to the fate of governmental proposals. On the other hand, Mr. MacDonald in 1924 announced that his government would not go out-or, we may presume, dissolve-on defeats, not on principle, but would do so if a vote of no-confidence was carried. In fact it was defeated ten times between January and August, and the defeat, which it deemed decisive, was one on a comparatively minor issue, which the Liberals were most anxious not to treat as one demanding resignation or dissolution.
There, sir, is a genuine authority. By saying that I do not wish to denigrate the statistical authority of the Canada Year Book.
February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
If the question of the significance of a vote is in the first place one for the Prime Minister and the government, in the second place it certainly is a matter for the House of Commons. On this occasion which we are now discussing, brought on by the vote which took place here last Monday, the Prime Minister has not, as did other prime ministers as suggested by the passage I have just read to the house, decided to ignore what has taken place. He has realized that the House of Commons is directly involved here because the motion before the house last Monday dealt with a bill of great importance.
Consequently, the Prime Minister has now come to the house asking the house to interpret the meaning of its vote last Monday. This is not unusual. I refer you to another example, sir. As recently as 1944 in Great Britain the government of the day lost a measure by a vote in committee of the whole, as we would say.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, in committee of the whole.


An hon. Member:: That is different.


John B. Stewart: It lost a measure in committee of the whole by a vote of 117 to 116. The following day the prime minister, Mr. Churchill, had this to say:
It would not be possible for His Majesty's government to leave matters where they stood when the motion to report progress was accepted. At this very serious time in the progress of the war, there must be no doubt or question of the support which the government enjoy in the House of Commons. Accordingly we have decided, as the first business on the next sitting day. to resume the committee stage of the education bill, and to delete clause 82, as amended, entirely from the measure. This act of deletion will be regarded as a vote of confidence in the present administration. If the government do not secure an adequate majority, it will entail the usual constitutional consequences. Should the house agree to the deletion of the clause, the government propose to move to reinstate the original clause, without the amendment, on the report stage, and to treat its passage throughout as a matter of confidence.
I should add, just to complete the story, that the motion was carried by a vote of 425 to 23. What the prime minister of Great Britain, Mr. Churchill, did on that occasion was not only to put aside a decision made in committee of the whole on a bill, but also to insist, under confidence, that the committee of the whole reinstate the clause as put before the committee by the government. This is going far, far beyond what the present government is asking in this instance. All the present government is asking in this instance
[Mr. Stewart.l

is that the house make a distinction between two questions: first, the question on the third reading of the bill that was before the house last Monday and, second, the question of confidence. It is the second question that is now being debated in this house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


John B. Stewart: If I have time, Mr. Speaker, when I have concluded my speech.


Robert Muir: Don't take him away from his notes; he will never get back to them.


John B. Stewart: The course the Prime Minister has taken is the one counselled by various constitutional authorities and counselled also by certain newspapers. I have here a quotation from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. In this editorial, which has some unflattering things to say about this government, we find these words:
Mr. Pearson can ask for a vote of confidence in his government.
This is what the Prime Minister is doing. It was suggested this morning by the Leader of the Opposition that the motion that has been put before the house is inflammatory. I think if we read the motion we will see that this is not true. The motion is not asking members on this side or members opposite to confer a kind of blanket blessing and endor-sation on the policies, past actions and future expectations of the present Liberal government. It would be foolish, I think, to propose to embarrass hon. members opposite in that way. The government has put before the house a motion which is very carefully drawn to one question, namely the significance of the vote here last Monday. It is essential for hon. members to decide whether or not the taint of non-confidence pertains to the vote that took place. There is no question as to the effect of the main decision; but the question is. does it also bear the taint of non-confidence? That is what the house now has to decide. That is what is in dispute here this afternoon. I think there is really nothing very deceptive about the motion.
The Conservatives have said that the vote that took place last Monday is parallel to the vote that took place here on February 5, 1963. I think they are wrong in saying that. In the first place, what was then before the house was a supply motion to which an amendment had been moved, and as if to make the matter doubly sure there was a subamendment
February 23, 1968

submitted by hon. gentlemen in the Social Credit party which spelled out-if it had not been a brief amendment and subamendment I would say, in chapter and verse-non-confidence in the then government. Second, as has been suggested, the motion that was defeated here last Monday was preceded by the successful passage of earlier motions.
I think it would be very unfortunate if anyone thought there was any suggestion that all these motions were carried unanimously. These were decisions of the house, just as the decision on the motion for third reading was a decision of the house. There is no suggestion that all hon. members on this or on the other side unanimously acclaimed each of the several clauses, or indeed the bill at the resolution or the second reading stage. But it is true that just as the motion for the third reading of the bill was defeated by the house, so the motions for the earlier stages of the bill were carried by the house, o (4:30 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from what the hon. member has just said about the earlier motion being carried in committee. I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that following the vote a question of privilege was raised regarding the fact that some Liberal members had walked in from behind the curtain and had thus abused the voting procedure of the house.


John B. Stewart: The third point I want to submit brings our attention to the attendance and to the mood of the house on that occasion. I think we have only to read the record to see that there were elements of comedy and tragedy about it which we need not now review. It is all these differences which make it impossible and improper to draw a parallel between the vote last Monday and the vote which took place on Tuesday, February 5, 1963. I am suggesting that the genuine parallel is between the vote taken in 1963 and the vote which will take place on the motion now before us.
There is another point which I want to make. It is that the Conservatives have adopted a really untenable position. They say that the house has no confidence in the government. This is a perfectly reasonable position for them to take, in view of their interpretation of the vote. They insist, however, that in their view there should not be another opportunity for the genuine attitude of the
Motion Respecting House Vote house to be tested. So one is driven by inexorable logic to the conclusion that they think that either their reading of the vote last Monday was incorrect or that since that day there has been a change in attitude of the house toward the government.
They cannot have it both ways. If they believe, as they say, that this government has lost the confidence of the house, then I should have thought that it was incumbent upon them to take whatever steps were necessary to bring about the expulsion of this government immediately on Tuesday. Let me correct that, sir and say, on Wednesday or Thursday.


Mr. Crouse:: It is we who accommodated you. Get your facts straight.


Robert Muir: The Prime Minister begged for 24 hours.


John B. Stewart: Presumably also they would want to expedite the vote today. If on February 19 the opposition had defeated the government and if the government had not then taken cognizance of this vote in the house and had insisted on going on with business, the opposition would have found a remedy. The remedy they would have found would have been a vote of non-confidence or vote of censure. This is what they would have done.
But, the Prime Minister has brought in a motion, and consequently they will have nothing to do with it. They are not happy because the proposal to test the confidence of the house comes from this side rather than from their own side. If this were their remedy, they would rejoice in it. On the other hand, because it comes from this side of the house they boggle and buck.
The people of Canada do not want an election at this time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is what you say.


John B. Stewart: I am submitting this as an argument. I believe that the Prime Minister should not inflict an election upon the people of this country at this time, in view of the uncertain nature of that vote. Consequently I say that it is the duty of the Prime Minister, not just his right, to test the attitude of the house. I am sure that the house will speak with an unequivocal voice.
If the house is prepared to let the government continue, then the government will continue and there will be no immediate election. On the other hand, if the house decides it is not prepared to let the government carry on,
6956	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote then there will be an election. It seems to me that this important question should not be decided by what one or the other side of the house says is its interpretation of the vote which took place here last Monday. This is why I say, supported by better constitutional authorities than the Canada Year Book, that the Prime Minister is fulfilling his duty when he brings such a motion before the house to give the house an opportunity to state its view unequivocally, and I say it will be the responsibility of the house in every quarter and through each of its members to decide what shall be done.
As I look back over the events of this week I have the impression of a kind of high fantasy. It started on Monday night, but I will not detail the things which happened then.


Donald MacInnis: It's too painful.


John B. Stewart: It is on the record, and anyone who reads can refer to the record.


Mr. Hales:: You would like to change the record if you could.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is trying to change the record now.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he recall the situation on Monday night? After the vote was taken, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) rose to bring in further business. We said, no, we would not do any further business. The house then took a vote, which was a vote of confidence, on a motion by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) which resulted in 79 to 78 votes against the government. That was a vote of non-confidence.


John B. Stewart: The hon. gentleman is entirely free to develop any argument that he wishes in his own time. I certainly do not dispute that he can use the record to support his argument. I would hesitate to do so because there are certain other things which appear on the record such as, for example, the suggestion that there was no unanimous consent. As I said, we get the impression of high fantasy.


Donald MacInnis: You are
reflecting on Mr. Speaker.


John B. Stewart: Then, after Monday, we find that the opposition takes the view that the government should be thrown out, and yet from day to day it delays the final test which 
DEBATES	February 23, 1968
could have the effect which it so ardently desires.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which again arises from the remarks made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough who keeps insisting on describing what the opposition did from day to day. Let me pound it into his head, and let it be understood clearly, that it was the Prime Minister who requested a 24 hour recess.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should be allowed to suggest that this is not really a point of order, but more a point of debate, and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough should be allowed to continue his speech.


John B. Stewart: I am very anxious that the hon. member for Cape Breton South be at ease. Let me say to reassure him, that there is no doubt in my mind, or that of any hon. member, that it was agreed we should not proceed on Tuesday, and that it was gracious of the Leader of the Opposition not to wish to go on with the regular business on Tuesday.


Donald MacInnis: You are
twisting it. It was the Prime Minister's wish.


An hon. Member:: What about Wednesday and Thursday?


Donald MacInnis: You
keep getting into trouble.


Robert Muir: You always put your foot in your mouth. Be more careful.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have improved order, please.


John B. Stewart: I have the greatest sympathy for the hon. member for Cape Breton South and also for his leader.
a (4:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: You are going to need it.


John B. Stewart: I think, sir, the time has come when the House of Commons should focus its attention upon the nation's business. I do not dispute that there is room for argument as to the interpretation of the vote last Monday. I think it is well that we should have this argument and settle the matter conclusively. However, we should not have, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, an election precipitated in this country because of what certain hon. members think is the effect of the vote recorded last Monday.
February 23, 1968

I believe the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had a question. If he still thinks it is worth while, I shall be happy to try to deal with it.


Erik Nielsen: I should like to put the question because it is nice to have a reply from an expert in constitutional matters. The hon. member cited an example in which a decision was made in committee of the whole and the house sent the particular clause back. I presume the house acted on the basis of a motion to do so. If the house had defeated that reference and the government had been defeated at that stage, would the hon. member think that would have been a motion of confidence?


John B. Stewart: I think the answer to that is a matter of record. The Prime Minister had risen in his place and said that not only the expurgation of the amended clause but also the reinstatement of the original clause would be treated by the government as a matter of confidence. This was clearly stated in advance.


Erik Nielsen: That being so, does it not follow that the motion in the house last Monday night would have the same effect, its having come from committee of the whole?


John B. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, the vote which will come on the motion now under debate is the one which will reveal the genuine attitude of this House of Commons.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the motion we have before us claims that a vote taken in this house last Monday on a money bill, the most important kind of bill that any parliament can have come before it, does not constitute a vote of confidence. It is the government that claims this is not a vote of confidence. I believe therefore it would be a good thing to ascertain exactly what this government, by the printed word, says ought to be the procedure in cases of this kind. I have before me the Canada Year Book for 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: The Canada Year Book is described in its frontispiece as the official statistical annual of the resources, history, institutions and social and economic conditions of Canada. It is published-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: You are not going to be so happy when you hear what it says. It is published
Motion Respecting House Vote each year under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is now Hon. Robert Winters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should be allowed to make his speech.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This volume is produced by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. This is the government's bible of what is done in Canada each year, how it is done and how it should be done. If that is not the case, then the government has no right to publish a book of this kind, making the claims that I have set out. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows exactly what I am talking about. This book was produced under his authority. I know, because at one time it was produced under my authority. I know the care that goes into the publication of it, and I know that this book contains an outline of things as they are and as they should be in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what this government which, unfortunately, has been in office for five years and has had an opportunity to change anything in this book, has to say. I have the last installment, 1967, and when you turn to page 86 line 6, you find this is what the government says is the proper procedure in this country of ours in 1968:
When the cabinet (the government) suffers defeat on a government bill or a vote of censure or on a motion of want of confidence in the Commons, the existing government must either resign or request a dissolution from the Governor General.
That is what this government says should be its course of conduct after the defeat of a government bill. There is no mention of a money bill; but money bills are the most important bills that come before this parliament. Having said that, and having specified exactly what the right procedure should be, this government refuses to call an election and refuses to resign. This government demands the right to stay in office, to cling to power. This Liberal party loves to cling to power. They know quite well, as a result of the last two Gallup polls, that if an election were held the country would indicate it had lost confidence in them. They would no longer be the government.
In contrast to the attitude the Liberal party adopts when in power, I should like to outline their attitude when in opposition. The Liberal party is in power today and will not resign, as its own publication indicates it must. I should like you to turn back some ten

February 23, 1968
Motion Respecting House Vote years, to January 20, 1958, when this Liberal party was in opposition. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had just been elected as leader of the opposition, and had moved his first motion of non-confidence in this house. That motion is set out in the right-hand column of page 3520 of Hansard for 1957-58. The present Prime Minister outlined a number of reasons he felt the Conservative government should not hold office, and then he finished up with this classic phrase:
His Excellency's advisers should, in the opinion of this house, submit their resignation forthwith.
The government had not been defeated in the house on any measure. We had won every vote that had come before the house during the eight or nine months in which we had been in office; yet this Liberal party leader demanded that, without even a vote going against us, without even going to the people, the government should submit its resignation. This made the then leader of the opposition the laughing stock of the country and of the House of Commons, when he had the stupidity to put forward a motion of that kind. He did, and the party was behind it.
This was the attitude they adopted at that time. Today, when they have been defeated on a money bill on which a vote was called by a Liberal Deputy Speaker, a vote which was agreed to by a Liberal Minister of Finance, a vote which was called by a Liberal Acting Prime Minister, we are accused of trickery. It is claimed that this is not a vote of lack of confidence that we have won, but that it is some kind of trickery, some kind of buffoonery, and they refuse to give up the office to which they so desperately cling. They know that it will not be long before the people throw them out.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is about time we made it very clear we were serious in what we did on Monday night. I want to reiterate briefly why it is we voted against that money bill. First of all, Mr. Speaker, we felt that this was a completely unjustified measure. This was the imposition of an additional 5 per cent tax on the backs of the people to pay for the overspending indulged in by the government. Just to give the house an idea how the government has overspent, Mr. Speaker, during the first four years it was in office the government increased expenditure by no less than $3 billion. This represents an increase each and every year of 12J per cent.

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Last year, Mr. Speaker, the government told us that they were retrenching, that economies were going to be made. They had been advising everyone in the country to pull in their horns and to practise economies. The government said they would give the lead and show how this should be done. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you would have expected that, with all this talk going on last year and all this free advice given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), he and the government would have been economizing. You would have thought that they would be cutting down.
I should like to put on the record what in fact transpired. The only figures available to me so far are for the first nine months of 1967, and they show increased expenditures during that period over the previous year. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures show an increase in the first nine months of 1967 over the first nine months of 1966 of no less than $1 billion. This is an increase, not of 12>- per cent a year, which was the rate of increase for the first four years of the government's occupation of office: That increase was not good enough. These figures represent an increase of no less than 15 per cent. That is the kind of economy that this government has been indulging in, Mr. Speaker.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Finance told us very gaily last fall that we could expect all kinds of economies, not only in the next budget but also a great many cut-backs in the present year's expenditures. We pressed them about this and discovered that they made no cut-backs whatever in the present year's spending.
What is the position in the next fiscal year, Mr. Speaker? The government are making a great to-do about spending, they claim, only 4J per cent more than this year. If you add the main expenditures and the supplementary estimates together and compare the two years, Mr. Speaker, you will find that this coming year the government is planning to spend 8 per cent more than they have spent during the present year. That is the actual figure-8 per cent more.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Surely the hon. member, who was once a member of the privy council, realizes-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 23, 1968


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to pose to my hon. friend, who I know is always so willing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister can ask a question only if the hon. member who has the floor will allow one.


Mr, Hees:: Mr. Speaker, as I expect to use my time I will be glad to answer the hon. and charming lady's question later.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps over lunch, then?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of ever asking the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) to lunch, or anything else.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down. Order.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Don't you know you should sit down when the Speaker rises from the chair?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister should know that she should resume her seat when the Speaker has the floor. Would the minister kindly indicate for what purpose she wants the floor at this time?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I rise on a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman has demonstrated that there is only a certain kind of woman that he knows would have lunch with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I remember during the last election campaign, when I had the pleasure of running against another charming lady who was a member of this house, she made the same kind of remark; and in reply I will make the same kind of comment about the Secretary of State as I made about the other lady. Every time I was asked what I thought of my opponent, I said-and I say it of the Secretary of State-"She is a very nice lady".
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board claimed great credit for the so-called cuts that they were going to make in next year's budget, and we have seen those expenditures listed in the papers we have already received. But all they have done, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what every minister of
Motion Respecting House Vote finance has done, when every year the various departments come before him to have their estimates examined. The estimates are inflated to include every item that every department would want to put forward. Naturally the minister then cuts them down to size.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what has been done this year. There has been no reduction whatever in expenditure over and above the reductions that are made in any normal year. If I may give an example, the position is the same as that of a man who goes home in the evening and whose wife says to him: "Jim, I've great news for you. I'm going to save us $500 next year." The man says: "Well, that's a wonderful thing. This is great news and I'll take you out to dinner to celebrate". Then the man asks his wife how she is going to save the $500 and she replies: "I decided to go out and buy a fur coat and then changed my mind. Therefore I save you $500. However, I must tell you that I am going to increase our expenditure by 8 per cent during the coming year, so you must think I am a very good housekeeper". That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this government has done, and that is all it has done.
This overspending, Mr. Speaker, this refusal to cut your coat according to your cloth, has resulted in massive deficits. It is the reason that as taxpayers we are being called upon to increase our payments to the government by an extra 5 per cent. The original measure was defeated. The proposed measure, when it is introduced in some other form, is going to be fought tooth and nail by the opposition. We are going to give it exactly the same treatment that the other measure received last Monday night, because we believe that this sort of tax increase is completely unjustified.
The second reason we oppose the measure is because it is inflationary. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that the only way we can provide jobs in this country for our people and increase our standard of living is by being able to sell our products in Canada and abroad and meet competition. If costs go up our chances of selling our goods are reduced very materially. Nobody is going to buy something just because it is made by Canadians. It must be attractive and be reasonably priced.
What this tax increase will do, Mr. Speaker, is raise the cost of the goods that we buy and sell. We all know very well that organized labour will simply add the extra 5 per

February 23, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote cent tax increase to the increase they were going to ask for anyway. Their demands, as we know, are always granted by management, and this will make it that much more difficult to sell our products in the export and home markets.
Third, Mr. Speaker, we object to this 5 per cent tax increase because once again it increases the already very high cost of living in this country.
Our main reason for opposing the measure is because we have no confidence in the government, in view of what they are doing to the economy of the country. On many occasions during the past two years we have made speeches and asked questions about what the government is doing. We produced figures that are given to us by the government's own statistical agency, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Let us see exactly what this government is doing and you will see why some members in this house have no confidence in the government and why the people in the country, according to the Gallup polls, are losing confidence increasingly every day. Let us look at the cost of living. Today it costs exactly $1.05 to buy what could be bought one year ago for $1. That is the extent of the inflation that has gone on in this country for the past 12 months. In the past four years the cost of living has gone up by 14 per cent. Could anyone have confidence in a government that permits such a thing to take place? My answer is, no, you cannot have confidence.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Unemployment has reached its highest point in four years, having gone up to 6.1 per cent of the labour force. On various occasions I asked the Prime Minister what new policies he would introduce to combat unemployment, and he simply laughed the matter off, as did the Minister of Finance and as did all those other ministers who were asked that question. We bring this situation to their attention, only to be given the same smirking answer. They duck the question; obviously they are not interested. The only people who are interested in the unemployed seem to be the members on this side of the house and the unemployed themselves, who are very interested indeed.
Take the question of productivity: A country can only stay competitive if it can keep its costs level with those of its competitors. Great Britain had to devalue its currency a short time ago simply because that country's productivity was not increasing at the rate

that its main competitors were increasing their productivity. Competitors' products sold more cheaply not only in the export markets but in Great Britain itself, and Great Britain was forced to devalue her currency.
Exactly the same thing will take place in this country within two years, at the very outside, if this government does not do a great deal more to combat decreasing productivity. Let us see just how much it is decreasing. In the 20 years between 1945 and 1965 our productivity increased each year by an average of 3.4 per cent. This kept us level with the increased productivity of our main competitors. But in 1966 our productivity increased only by 2 per cent, and in the first nine months of this year, as compared with the first nine months of last year-and these are the latest figures that are available-our productivity increased only by four-tenths of one per cent. Our rate of increase in productivity is steadily going down. That means that our chances of selling our goods against competition, both in Canada and in the export markets, are decreasing every day. I pointed this out to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Industry. I have asked them what they are going to do to increase productivity. I have suggested taxation incentives to encourage industries to buy new machinery, new plant and new production systems that will make it possible for them to increase productivity in the way that our main competitors are increasing theirs.
When I mention these matters to the Minister of Finance, he just laughs. He says that what we are doing is satisfactory, that it is good enough, that our policies will give us increased productivity. He started saying that nearly two years ago, and ever since he started giving me those kind of answers, our productivity has gone down, and down, and down.
Let us look at what this government refuses to do to increase our productivity. One way to increase productivity is by training manpower, by giving our people greater skills, by training them to adapt to the new technologies. There is no place in today's world for a person who is mentally or physically unskilled. People must have the new skills. We knew that, and so the Conservative government in 1961 and 1962 established the manpower training program. In conjunction with the provinces, we enabled to be built no less than 224 new training schools. We enlarged 130 others and we provided an additional training facility for 140,000 young men and women every year.
February 23. 1968

What has this government been doing, Mr. Speaker. That program continued quite successfully until last April 30, and then the Minister of Manpower and Immigration brought in a brand new program with brand new rules. The proof of the pudding is in the eating so let us look at the results of this training program. When the minister changed the program to bring in the new rules, in Ontario there were 19,500 people who were enrolled in the training program and learning new skills to make them better able to do a job and to increase their productivity. Seven months later, after the minister had brought in his new program, you would think that the enrolment numbers would have increased by 50 per cent, or something like that. Instead we find that there was a decrease of 43 per cent in enrolment. It was down to 11,200 persons, and it is going down every day.
Enrolment is decreasing because the program is impractical. This minister does not know what he is talking about and neither do his officials. They will not listen to the Ontario authorities; they will not listen to the people who had a good program going. So the one program that can increase this country's productivity is going down the drain. That is why we have no confidence in this government; that is why we voted non-confidence the other day.
Take a look at manufacturing production, something on which we rely to a major extent to give the people of this country employment. In the 20 years between 1945 and 1965 manufacturing production increased in this country at an average of 5 per cent per year. According to the figures we have for last year, the increase last year over the year before had dropped from the average of 5 per cent a year to 1.1 per cent a year. That was one fifth of the average increase for the previous 20-year period. And what is being done by this great Department of Industry, which is spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year to do a job which was done for a fraction of that sum previously? Back in the days when the party to which I belong formed the government, we had the department of defence production, and the industry section in the Department of Trade and Commerce. We had productive industries then. Now this government has set up this fantastically expensive Department of Industry, and manufacturing production has dropped. The increase has dropped to one fifth of what it was.
Motion Respecting House Vote
We have no confidence in this government because they are mishandling the economy of the country-and this includes the employment of our people and the prosperity of the country-and are taking it downhill at an ever increasing pace.
To sell our goods we must keep our costs low; we must keep our production costs competitive. Let us look at what this government has done to our main costs of production, costs that affect the ability of Canadians to sell goods and provide jobs. First let us look at the cost of money. It is the highest in history. And why is it the highest in history? Because the cost of money is directly influenced by the rate of interest on government bonds. If the people have confidence in the government, the interest rate charged or paid on government bonds is low. If the confidence that the people have in the government is low, then the cost of the money that the government must borrow is high. Today the rate of interest charged on government bonds is the highest in the history of this country. What is the result? The cost of the money that farmers, businessmen, storekeepers and individuals need to produce their goods is the highest that it has ever been, and the rate is going up every day.
Let us look at labour costs, since these are an integral part of our costs of production. Everybody would like to see people who work for a living get a very good increase every year. The more they can get, the happier we would be. But again, whenever we price ourselves out of the market by raising our costs, our goods are not sold and there are no repeat orders. Workers are no longer employed in the factories to make more goods, and unemployment develops. So by paying higher increases in wages each year than our competitors, we are simply denying jobs to our people. It is as simple as that.
[DOT] (5:10	p.m.)
What happened last year? Due to the fiscal, economic and other policies of this government the cost of labour in Canada increased by 8.7 per cent as compared with 4.4 per cent in the United States. It is not possible to double the increase in one of our prime costs without losing sales or jobs. Why did this happen? It happened because of something this government did 18 months ago when it intervened in three labour disputes-the longshoremen's strike in Montreal, the threatened C.B.C. strike and the threatened strike on the St. Lawrence seaway. In each case they saw to it that a 30 per cent wage increase was
6962	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote awarded. Well, everybody would like to get a 30 per cent wage increase every year; but you cannot do it and remain competitive.
This began the fashion. Workers said that if the government insisted on 30 per cent wage increases they would take no less.
Another thing the government did was to make an illegal strike legal, by dealing with a union in circumstances of an illegal or wildcat strike. They dealt with the Montreal dock-workers who were out on an illegal strike. Were the dockworkers penalized? No; they were given a 30 per cent wage increase. This undermines the position of any labour leader who is conscientious and tries to do an honest job. If he goes to his union and recommends workers to seek a reasonable increase in wages or tells them not to go out on an illegal strike because they have a contract which requires them to stay on the job until a certain date, his members say to him: Don't talk that way to us; if you cannot take us out on a wildcat and get a 30 per cent wage increase, we will get the fellow who did the job in Montreal. Any honest labour leader finds his position undermined, and this is one of the reasons labour costs have gone so high today.
Finally, on July 1 we shall face one of the most severe economic threats this country has ever faced, due to the wholesale dumping of cheap foreign goods which will start in the most unprecedented volume any of us have ever seen. What is dumping? Dumping is carried out because in the big producing countries they have massive runs and cannot afford to start up again, even if a product has been well received. However, lest retailers should demand more than had been expected the manufacturers overrun to the extent of 5 or 10 per cent and then, at the end of the season, if there is no demand for these goods, they look for a market in which they can dump them.
So far, we have been protected in Canada by provisions known as fair market value legislation, which we refined while in office. This makes it necessary for an exporter to show that the goods he is sending into this country are offered at the same market value as they possessed in his own country. This government threw all that protection out the window when it signed the agreement in Geneva. The new agreement will allow people to send goods to this country in any quantity, unless it can be proved that damage is done to our whole industry as a result. This has to be determined before a board in Ottawa, and anyone with experience knows it would take
[Mr. HeesJ
DEBATES	February 23. 1968
months before such a board would reach a decision on whether an industry was injured or not. Meanwhile whole industries, whole sections of the country would be obliterated. This is what will happen starting on July 1.
I could go on and on but time does not allow. I think I have given the house an idea why practical men in this country have no confidence in this government, one composed of men who have no knowledge of business affairs and who, what's more, don't give a damn about business affairs; all they want is to stay in government. They want to hang on to power because they love power, they love to govern, they think they govern by divine right. The measure upon which they were defeated was a money bill involving taxation and there is nothing more important in our national life than the determination of the taxes the people shall pay. In their own Canada Year Book hon. members opposite say that when the government is defeated on a money bill it has no alternative but to resign.
Are they resigning? No, they are hanging on because they are desperately seeking to hold on to power as long as they can, knowing that the last two Gallup polls say they are deader than the dodo. When the people of Canada learn what they have been doing to the economy of this country, what they have been doing to parliamentary rights and procedures and for the protection of individuals against tyrants and dictators such as themselves, the electorate will look after them in a very effective manner-and very, very soon, I hope.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said repeatedly for some time that the person who wanted to destroy the country and harm parliament was the member for Lapointe. Well, after hearing what the Liberals said about the Conservatives, and what the Conservatives and the New Democrats said about the Liberals, I am led to believe that I am the only member who does not wish to destroy parliament. It is rather the two old-line parties who intend to destroy it by the charges they have been hurling at each other-to the effect that their role is not to destroy parliament-and all kinds of charges that have never been levelled against me. Since the Tories and the Grits, the Conservatives and the Liberals, want to destroy parliament, I shall therefore leave it to them to do so.
As for me, I adopted right from the start a very well defined and clear attitude on the
February 23, 1968

meaning of the vote last Monday night. From the start, I said, and I repeat it, that when we voted on Bill No. C-193, we defeated that bill and nothing else. We did not vote on a motion of confidence in the government, but on Bill No. C-193.
Because this bill was intended to increase taxes, we are told that it becomes a vote of confidence or non-confidence. Mr. Speaker, if one consults the standing orders of the house, one realizes that there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the standing orders which stipulates that voting against a bill constitutes a defeat for the government.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) referred to the constitutional right. He said that, constitutionally, after having been defeated on a money bill, the government should resign.
I am now holding the constitution of Canada. I shall send it through a messenger to the one who represents the Leader of the Opposition. I challenge anyone to find in that constitution a section, a line, a paragraph-the member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) is sitting besides the Leader of the Opposition, he can check-that stipulates that the government is overthrown when a bill is defeated.
I am sorry, I sent the French copy. It is a supreme insult.


Mr. Lewis:: It is an accident?


Gilles Grégoire: It is only by accident. It is the copy which I looked at.
I challenge the hon. member for Ontario to find anything in the constitution which says that a government, which is defeated on any bill must resign.
In fact, the provisional reprint of the standing orders of the house dated May 8, 1967-it is all very well to remind us what happened in 1868, 1887, 1920 or 1930, however there is one thing which has priority, and it is the standing orders of the House of Commons-does not specify anything on this subject. However, one standing order relates very closely to the case under consideration at the present time.
Standing order 56, paragraph 4, subparagraph (e), reads:
When a motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair" is susperseded by the adoption of an amendment at any time before the expiry of either the said two days or the time carried forward from a former debate, as the case may be, a like motion may be forthwith made by a minister of the crown.
Which means that if a supply motion is put forward and defeated, the government is not
Motion Respecting House Vote necessarily defeated. It says that a minister may rise forthwith to move a like motion, that is to move once more that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair.
Under that standing order, if it is a financial matter, if the Speaker is requested to leave the chair for the house to meet in committee of the whole and to discuss supply, and if the proposal is not accepted by the whole house, it is superseded by an amendment duly voted on. Then, it is not necessarily a want of confidence vote, but a minister-and it is specified a minister of the crown-may make forthwith a like motion and then, it becomes a matter of confidence.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
That is exactly what happens at the present time and nothing further is provided in our standing orders.
Mr. Speaker, for a much deeper reason, I think that it is intentionally that our standing orders do not provide anything more specific and that there is no mention thereof in the constitution. In fact, if we accept the principle by which, when a government bill is defeated, the government itself is defeated and a new election must take place, all members are forced to let their party's interests come before those of their electors. If, for a Liberal member, the fact that he votes against a bill, means that he votes against his party, then he has to choose between his party or his electors, and an hon. member should not be placed in a position where he would have to put a political party before his electors.
He is elected first by his constituents: if he belongs to a party, it is accidental but that is not the main reason why he was elected. He was elected first of all by his constituents and that case should be used to establish a very clear precedent, namely that each time a bill is introduced by the government, even a member of the party in office, that is, in the circumstances, a Liberal member, can vote against it without that being taken as a vote against the government. In my opinion, we have now striking evidence that the Liberal members, who are in office, can vote against a bill introduced by the government if they feel that it does not please their electors or if it goes against their conscience without running the risk of defeating the government or forcing an election.
Before what happened this week, no member of the party in office could be assured of that, but with the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), all Liberal members now
6964	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote have the assurance that defeating the government on a bill does not mean defeating the government itself, but rejecting the bill only. So, if in 15 days, the government comes back with a bill to increase another tax, and if a Liberal member feels that his constituents are against such an increase in taxes, he may say: My constituents do not want me to vote in favour of the bill, but that does not mean that I vote against my party; that means I vote for my constituents.
If I asked all Liberal members here: Are your constituents approving an increase of the income tax? They would all answer: No.
In the circumstances, it is their duty to vote against this bill.
Since our situation was not yet clear, and since the Liberal members were net sure that it would necessarily mean another election, they put the party above their constituents.
Therefore, we are now creating a precedent which will prevail for a long time, according to which the members commonly known as back-benchers, who are too seldom asked for their opinion and too often stopped from expressing their ideas and convictions, will be able to vote at any time against measures introduced by the government without it meaning that they are beating their own party, a minister, the leader of their party or the government, and without it necessarily leading to an election.
As for the members of the official opposition, the Conservatives who hope one day-I am not sure when-to come to power, the precedent set today will give them the same opportunity to vote against a measure presented by their government if they decide that the measure is a bad one and that it is contrary to the interests of their constituents.
This does not mean that the government is bad. It merely means that the bill introduced by the minister and the government is bad.
I shall give an example. Three or four months ago, the United States President, Mr. Johnson, asked the American Congress to vote a 10 per cent tax increase. Congress refused. Mr. Johnson is still President of the United States. The American congress voted against the 10 per cent tax increase asked by President Johnson. It was not any more serious than that. Mr. Johnson is still President of the United States.
It is the same thing in the present case. Democracy only exists when each and every member can actually vote on every piece of legislation as they see fit, according to their
[Mr. Gregoire.l
DEBATES	February 23, 1968
conscience and the interests of their constituents, rather than according to party lines.
It seems to me that the experience resulting from the precedent in the United States and the one we now have in the house should show us that true democracy is not a matter of supporting the party first, but rather the people we represent. But that was not clear in the minds of hon. members.
I am convinced that before the vote on Monday, 95 per cent of the Liberal members who voted for the bill were convinced that voting against the bill meant voting against the government and that an election would follow. But today it has become an extraordinary power for the Liberal members. They will now be able to vote against any estimate, motion or amendment introduced by the government without it being a vote of non-confidence.
It is as simple as that. You can vote against a measure, a bill, but not necessarily against the government. Hon. members should try to benefit from the lesson, and direct their vote in the future, not towards a minister of the government-he will stay there, a motion of non-confidence is necessary to defeat him -but thinking of their constituents. In 1963, that is what took place. The motion ended by those words: This government no longer has the confidence of the people. That was specific. But defeat a bill, that is not specific. The interests of the people must come before the interests of the party; we can defeat a measure without defeating the government, and we now have the best example of that.
Monday we defeated a finance bill, a bill asking for a tax increase. But this did not indicate a lack of confidence in the government. It simply meant that we objected to a tax increase.
That is how I understood it, Mr. Speaker. When I voted on Monday evening, I did not vote for or against the government. Every time I am asked to vote on a bill, I study it. If I think it is a good one, I vote for it; if it goes against my ideas or principles, I vote against it. I am not concerned whether the government is Tory or Grit. I examine what I am voting against or what I am voting for. On Monday, I voted against Bill No. C-193 which asked for an increase in personal income tax, and that is all I voted against.
A new measure was introduced in the house today. Because there was some doubt, we are asked to show our confidence in the government. The Conservative party said no, we do not have confidence in the government.
February 23, 1968

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, and as the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said, whether or not the Grits or the Tories, the Liberals or Conservatives are in power, it is pretty well the same thing. I have seen them in office. I have seen the Conservatives in office, and the Liberals in the opposition. Now, the Liberals are saying exactly the same thing the Conservatives said when they were on this side of the house. And the Conservatives on that side of the house are saying and doing exactly what the Liberals were doing when they were on that side. As far as I am concerned, it is the same thing. Put them all in the same bag and then pull out, two of them, you can not tell which is which. It is the same thing for me.
Then, whether we renew or refuse confidence to the Liberal party, depending on what the Conservative party will do, will we be any better, Mr. Speaker?
[DOT] (5:30 D.m.)
I am proud of that choice, very impartially. I do not intend to destroy parliament or the economy of the country. No. I shall try to reason out my problem; in the first place, there is no difference between the two old line parties. However, I say to myself: still, there is a slight difference. When a political party, as is the case with the Liberal party at present, is cornered, with its hands up in the air, and its pants down, it feels badly, and it is willing to say: No, I shall never do it again.


An hon. Member:: So, let it pull up its pants.


Gilles Grégoire: That's just it, it pulls up its pants and says: I shall not do it again. That is the difference.
But if the Conservative party were to come back to power-suppose there was an election and it should be returned to power with a good majority-it would say: This is the legacy we took over from the Liberals. It would be in no hurry to get a move on, because its position would be secure.
But the Liberals are now cornered whether we like it or not.
There are 129 Liberal members plus one, namely the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) who said he would vote for the Liberals, which gives 130 members. On the other side of the house, there are 130 other members. This gives us even numbers. In addition, there is my vote; the Speaker votes only in the case of a tie.
Motion Respecting House Vote
Now, this is the way I reason it out. I say to myself, one party is no better than the other. Under the present circumstances, the Liberal party is cornered and as it has to struggle a bit more, we may stand a chance of getting it to shake a leg a bit more than the others. The Liberal party knows it is in a difficult position. We do not need elections, and it knows it. It will be defeated and, now, it must be ready to accept a compromise. If not, nothing will work. If it agrees to make concessions, then I am willing to co-operate. Why? Because I tell myself that under the present circumstances, they will try a bit harder than before. They are cornered, they do not want to move. There is no need for elections, they are crying "Uncle", no more no less. So now all is well, they are saying "Uncle".
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact, there are 130 of them. They are saying, "Uncle". I am willing to help. That, in truth, is the present situation.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I have a very clear amendment to move, which does not hold any grudge against anyone, which will harm no one, but which, if passed, will at least force the Liberals to act.
My amendment reads as follows:
I move-
I have found someone to second my amendment, Mr. Speaker. I asked my friend the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) to second my motion. Further after he has seen my amendment I am convinced that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) will also support me, to allow a debate on the amendment since I am alone against 130.
With his British fair play, my friend from York-Humber agreed; all I asked him to do was to support me. He is free to vote against the amendment, Mr. Speaker. All he is doing is to enable me to move my amendment and to discuss it. I am convinced that some other members of this house would have done likewise if I had explained the problem to them. Furthermore, the hon. member for Kootenay-West (Mr. Herridge) who is not here at present, would have also seconded my amendment. I am sure that the hon. member for Villeneuve would have done the same had he known.
So, I propose, seconded by the hon. member for York-Humber:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words following the word "that" and by substituting the following therefor:
gggg	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote
"The house, while recognizing that the rejection of Bill No. C-193 on third reading forbids the government to increase the personal income tax for this year, is nevertheless disposed to renew its confidence in the government provided that it takes immediate steps to restore the economy of the country and to alleviate the serious unemployment problem, in particular by the following means:
The immediate reduction of interest rates for housing construction.


David Réal Caouette: Three quarters of 1 per cent.


Gilles Grégoire: You will approve that.
To continue:
The reinstatement of a 6 per cent ceiling for interest rates charged by banks.


An hon. Member:: That is still too high.


Gilles Grégoire: Third, and I insist on this one:
The guarantee that everything will be done to keep the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay continually open to winter navigation.
Mr. Speaker, there is unemployment in my riding. I also thought of my riding.
The construction, to be undertaken as soon as possible, of a supporting wall from Kiviere-aux-Sables to Jonquiore.
I thought of the hon. member for Vil-leneuve; it is always possible to become allies. His air terminal is known to be unsatisfactory.
The building of an air terminal at Eouyn airport, in the riding of Villeneuve.
Now, 1 also tried to obtain the co-operation of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), and that of the hon. members for Quebec South (Mr. Cantin) and for Levis (Mr. Guay), and of all those residing in or near Quebec city.
Harbour improvement work to be started as soon as possible in Quebec city harbour, as requested by the Quebec city municipal council.
Here is another matter that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration wishes to discuss:
The increase in the number of months of eligibility for the manpower training course, under the Manpower Retraining Act.
Those are very specific requests, Mr. Speaker.
Furthermore, the Government undertakes not to interfere again in the field of educational television which comes under provincial jurisdiction.
This government will also see to it that Bill C-186 is passed during this session.

DEBATES	February 23, 1968
With that, I made enemies of my friends of the New Democratic Party.
This government will also see to it that the Quebec government, be handed back its authority over all measures of social welfare with tax compensation, according to the requests made by the Quebec government.
I thought of mentioning the monarchy, -which would have pleased the hon. member of Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquete)-but I changed my mind.
If the government agrees to all those measures, this house will renew its confidence in it.


The Speaker:: The hon. member knows that his motion must be seconded. He indicated that the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) was prepared to do so, but inasmuch as I cannot see anything in the motion which refers to the York-Humber constituency, I assume that the hon. member will decline to support the motion of the hon. member for Lapointe.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Cowan:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I continue speaking on my amendment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be so kind as to wait for the decision of the Chair as to whether or not his amendment is in order. I believe the hon. member himself must have had some doubts when drafting the amendment; perhaps he could indicate to what degree he believes this motion is in order.


Gilles Grégoire: I do not believe at all I should have to explain it, since you have read it to the house. You said: "The hon. member for Lapointe, seconded by the hon. member for York-Humber, moves.. Shall I dispense"? So it is before the house and you cannot reverse your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the motion has to be read before the house so as to give the hon. members the opportunity to help the Chair decide whether the motion is in order or not. If any arguments are to be raised on that point, I shall hear them and shall be able to give my ruling afterwards.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances I believe the motion speaks for itself and should be accepted.
February 23, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6967


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For obvious reasons the motion is clearly out of order. It is as much out of order, as frivolous and as vexatious as the government motion appearing on the order paper and which is now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I had invited the hon. member for Lapointe to indicate whether he had any arguments to make on the point of procedure.

The hon. member who is an expert on matters of procedure will recognize that this amendment goes far beyond the very limited scope of the motion now under consideration. It is a substantive motion or proposal which could be discussed only after notice or unanimous consent of the house. For those reasons, I deem the motion out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, convinced that my amendment was in order, I had not finished my remarks. If you had read it in full instead of dispensing with it, I feel that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I gave my ruling on that matter and I did not have to read the motion, because I heard it while the hon. member read it slowly and clearly. That was enough to enable me to reach the ruling I have just made.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Speaker, as there remains a few minutes, may I continue my remarks?
I think that my program would restore confidence in the government. I am of the opinion that they should say something, state clearly what they advocate. But we have heard nothing at all on that subject. They should tell us exactly what they intend to do to justify the confidence of parliament. If they do not do so, I will not be ready to vote for them. If they have intentions, let them say so and we will then form an opinion. But if they say nothing, as did all Liberal members who spoke today-we see that they want to continue as in the past-I am not ready to support the government.
Moreover, if they want to tell us, to specify why they deserve the confidence of parliament, and what they intend to do, instead of telling us: If there are elections, there will be a dollar crisis-which is to frighten us, and I am no longer afraid of that-we will be able to reach a decision. Let them tell us exactly what they intend to do and why we should
Motion Respecting House Vote renew them our confidence. So I ask them this question: Do they intend to restore the economy, to lower unemployment in the country? Do they intend to act, to do something? If they answer yes, I shall support them. However, if they are not ready to tell us why we should put our confidence in them, I am not ready to support them.
That is why, in the end, it is up to the government to tell us what they intend to do, and on that we shall judge whether we should support them, not on what they have done in the past, for that is none too brilliant, none too outstanding. Besides, if we must judge on past record it is not worthwhile changing governments.
If they intend to improve the situation, to take measures to lower unemployment and restore the economy, let them say so, and we shall judge them according to their intentions and not in any blind fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, after listening to this somewhat lengthy debate, I would with your permission read the motion that is before the house once more so as to get the motion before hon. members in such form that the points I intend to make in reference to it will be clear on the record. As has been said by other speakers, this is a very unusual motion. It is a sort of left-handed method of bringing something before the house after the government has been fired. The motion reads as follows:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193, which had carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
First of all, when you analyse and read the motion it seems to me that if the government felt it was on sound ground it would have brought in a simple motion of confidence or no confidence. What the government is trying to do-and if there are any tricks of the trade at all, they are on the other side of the chamber-is to revive a tax which has been voted down by the opposition, in total. That is what the government is trying to do. If they sneak this motion under the wire, they will try to bring back the tax in question.
6968	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote
I think at this stage it would pay to repeat our position, as far as the constitutional question in this situation is concerned. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we take the position that the government was defeated on so vital and fundamental a matter embracing their whole program and fiscal policy that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) now has a constitutional duty to the country. What is that constitutional duty? I suggest that the constitutional duty which he has to the country is the same constitutional duty that my party had on February 5, 1963, at which time the then prime minister, on his government's defeat, asked that the house be adjourned. I think the gentlemanly thing to do at this time would be to follow the same procedure.
[DOT] (5:50	p.m.)
I should like to refer to page 3463 of Hansard of February 5, 1963. However, before doing so I should like to say, after listening to government spokesmen today, that the impression is left that they think the mere terms of the bill or the mere statement that it is a vote of confidence or non-confidence alters the situation. I suggest to you, sir, that words in that regard do not alter the situation. If a bill is of such importance as this one, then the vote on it constitutes a vote of confidence in the government and it does not require a statement to this effect.
As I said, the situation last Monday was identical with the situation on February 5, 1963. At that time the main question before the house was that of nuclear weapons. Government supporters, who were then in opposition, voted down the Conservative government of that day. It is true that the motion before the house at that time was worded in such a way that it was only a motion of confidence. The point I want to make is that is a bill before the house is voted upon, regardless of whether it is on second or third reading, and is then defeated, that is the end of it. If it is a vital matter, it is a motion of confidence, and if it is defeated, the government should consider itself defeated just as effectively as if there were a straight motion of confidence before the house. I might point out that last Monday night the acting Prime Minister seemed to be completely lost. What did the prime minister and Conservative leader do on February 5, 1963? He said the following:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall advise His Excellency the Governor General tomorrow.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), the adjournment of the house.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
DEBATES	February 23, 1968
The house was then adjourned and the leader of the Conservative government went to the Governor General and asked for dissolution. If this government gets away with what it wishes to do, I say it will destroy the very institution of parliament; it will destroy representative and responsible government. As my good friend behind me said, the government is setting up a dictatorship. We now have a king reigning in Canada for the first time, king Pearson I. He will not abdicate, nor will he quit when he is fired. He is like a tenant who will not leave when he is ejected.
That is exactly the position of this government. Surely there was an onus on the Prime Minister to go to the Governor General. If he did not wish to dissolve the house and go to the country, he should have asked the Governor General to ask someone else to form a government, someone who would have the confidence of the house and of the country.
As did all hon. members, I listened with interest to the Prime Minister speaking in the house today, and I listened to him on television. He gave us the impression in his appearance on television that he would quote from certain authorities to show that he had the legal and constitutional right to do what he was attempting to do-and which I and my party say his government has no constitutional right to do. Yet he never quoted from any authority. He merely referred to Jennings, who deals with situations when amendments are moved in a speech from the throne or on a budget and there is some question as to whether or not, when the government is defeated, the vote is to be considered a vote of confidence.
Ever since the government took office we have opposed their financial and economic policies. We have opposed the Gordon budget, we have opposed the sales tax, and we have opposed all the economic programs of this government. We have warned them that they would get into the financial debacle they face now.
The government takes great pride in Canada's image overseas. The house will recall that in 1962 and 1963, when the Liberal party which was then in opposition tried to blast the Diefenbaker government, its spokesmen referred to Canada's image abroad. I would like to read now an article in The Economist of September/October 1967. I believe it expresses the view of this party and of the Canadian people as a result of which the government has been fired, and is out. It has been defeated, not only on its tax bill but
February 23, 1968

because the vote on the bill was a vote of confidence, since the bill deals with the whole economic program of the government. The article to which I refer appeared in an independent magazine which is recognized throughout the commonwealth and the United States as an authority on economics. This is what appears at page viii of The Economist lor September/October 1967 and we agree with what is said here with reference to the policies of the Liberal government. It reads as follows:
Mr. Sharp, alas, cannot avoid the responsibility for inadequate fiscal action, the need for which he now seems belatedly to have realized. His budget did not revive last year's expansion, but it did nothing to stem the rise in costs and prices. Worst of all, it pushed interest rates higher, because the public was unwilling to absorb bonds, and generated a further increase in the money supply. There have been few examples of such a violent swing of the levers of economic control. Policies that would have been admirably suited to cope with a state of excessive under-utilisation of resources were continued well after demand was clearly pressing too hard on the limits of supply. This was not the fault of business, which was trying to cope with its own cost squeeze, but the fault of government,-
Why do they not come to grips with the question when every national newspaper in Canada has said to the government in the last few months that it has overspent, and that it
Motion Respecting House Vote has run the country into blue ruin. The article continues:
-but the fault of government, which ought to have been far more sensitive to the signals that the economy was making to it. When the governor of the bank was warning Canada against the impossibility of getting a quart, Ottawa seemed to be going for half a gallon.
This is a half gallon government. When they only had a quart of milk they asked for a gallon.


Erik Nielsen: It is a half pint government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As my friend says, it is a half pint government. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before adjourning, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) made some remark about a half wit. I would say to him that the reception he received from 2,000 ranchers in Calgary proves they know who the half-witted Minister of Agriculture is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock the house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. Monday afternoon.


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