1968-02-26

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
27053-439£

[Stage Direction]
queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 26, 1968

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 23, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister:
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. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this motion in my introductory remarks on Friday and pointed out, as had previous opposition speakers, that this is not an ordinary matter. The question which came before the house on Friday is a major matter, because the whole economic and financial program of the government was at stake on the vote in question. I also said in my introductory remarks that not only has the opposition for some time been pointing out that the government has been under serious attack as far as its economic and financial program is concerned but-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Could we have order, please?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -that this certainly has been the position of the governor of the Bank of Canada. I quoted in support of my argument The Economist of September 30. I now come to grips with the problem itself. We say this is a major and vital matter in respect of which the government was defeated. What is our position? I think it would be well to repeat our leader's position in this regard, our party's position and the position of the official opposition.
This is our position. We agree, of course, that the government could choose to consider a defeat on a minor matter as not involving a question of confidence. That is not the question. The question is, can the government choose to ignore a major defeat on a vital matter of policy? We say that according to constitutional practice this government has no
right to place business or a motion before the house. We have not altered this stand in any respect. That is the stand we take; that is the stand of our leader; that is the stand of our party, and it is the stand I take this afternoon.
I am going to quote some authorities in this respect, and hope to be able to effectively answer the arguments of the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister consider the vote on Monday evening would have been any different if he had been in the House of Commons and had said "This is a vote of confidence"? Do mere words make the situation different? If the bill itself goes to a major and vital part of the economic and financial program of the Liberal government, does it make any difference whether it is called a vote of confidence, or is it in fact a vote of confidence when it affects the major financial policy of this government? Do mere words make the situation any different?
Would the leader of the Creditistes have voted for the tax increase if the Prime Minister had been here and had stood in his place and told us just before the vote on Monday that it was a vote of confidence? I suggest that the leader of the Creditistes would have voted against the tax increase on Monday night because he was against it; he was against the economic and financial program of this government.
Let us just see what the Prime Minister had to say in this regard. Let us examine the authorities about which we have heard so much not only from the Prime Minister but from other Liberals. The Prime Minister quoted Professor Jennings as follows:
What the government will treat as a matter of sufficient importance to demand resignation or dissolution is, primarily, a question for the government.
If it is always a matter for the government as to whether a question is vital or major, the government-and this they have done-could perpetuate their right to govern this country forever. That is the point involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
6972	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Surely the Prime Minister does not take that position. I repeat the words quoted by the Prime Minister as authority:
What the government will treat as a matter of sufficient importance to demand resignation or dissolution is, primarily, a question for the government.
I say that where it is a matter of vital and major importance, surely it is not open to the government to use that kind of discretion which amounts to an illegality. I quote an example in this respect. If a person obtained title to an article as the result of fraud, and that fraud was known by the person from whom he got the article, surely he could never transfer that title to anyone and make it a good title. That is what this government have tried to do. They were defeated on a matter of major and vital importance and now they say "It is up to us. It is within our parliamentary discretion and our legal discretion to interpret this as a matter in respect of which we do not have to dissolve parliament and go to the Governor General". If that is their position, then our parliamentary system has been changed to a republican system of government in Canada without the Canadian constitution having been amended, and that is the position in which the government finds itself this afternoon.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I wish to answer effectively another quotation put forward by the Prime Minister, which reads:
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.
Here I shall use the same argument I used with regard to the first quotation from Jennings. Surely if this government take such a position then they have changed our parliamentary system to the republican system or, still worse, the Prime Minister has taken upon himself the divine right of ruling as the king of Canada, and I have already referred to him as King Pearson I of Canada. That is the final conclusion one must reach in refuting the Prime Minister's argument when he quotes from the authorities to which he referred.
It has been said in the house, by the Liberal members and by the press that there are no authorities to prove the contrary. I say the authorities are certainly very clear. Let me quote from page 237 of Dawson's book "The Government of Canada". We have already heard the wishy-washy quotations from that

DEBATES	February 26. 1968
book according to which the government can interpret the rules the way it likes and use its own discretion to perpetuate its right to govern Canada. Let us see what Dawson says. The quotation reads as follows:
The cabinet must therefore introduce and sponsor all measures to spend or to raise money: and as any proposed amendment which would endeavour to diminish a tax or an expenditure contrary to the cabinet's wishes would now be treated as a vote of lack of confidence,...
In other words Dawson says, just as did the leader of our party, that when it is a matter of vital and major importance, and still more so when it is a matter pertaining to the economic and financial program of the Liberal party, the vote becomes a matter of confidence in the government. If we accept the position taken by Dawson we must come to the conclusion that the government is now operating illegally in this parliament, and that it has ceased to be the legal government of Canada.
I realize it is a weakness to quote from the authorities, but the same weakness was shown by the Prime Minister when he implied in the house and across the country that his government has jurisdiction to decide on constitutional matters. He has set himself up as the supreme court of Canada by interpreting the law in favour of the government, in a way which would give them the right to govern this country forever.
I should now like to quote the following statement from page 228 of Dawson's "The Government of Canada":
Hence the great corollary of cabinet government: That the defeat of a government measure will normally bring about the defeat of the government itself.
The author goes on to give one exception, then he continues:
If the house should decide to reject a government bill or to amend it in a way unacceptable to the cabinet then Her Majesty's government will consider that it is relieved of the duty of carrying on any longer the government.
This government has been relieved of its duty; it has been fired. As I said, and I wish to repeat it, according to the principle quoted by the Prime Minister and contrary to what MacGregor Dawson says that the functioning of the government should be based on its constitutional right to govern, a government could perpetuate its right to govern indefinitely, and that is what this government has done. They have established a republican system of government in this country.
February 26. 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6973
I say with the greatest respect that this is the most important principle which parliament in my lifetime will ever be called upon to debate, the principle of the right to govern. The government has changed the parliamentary system under which we operate in this country to a republican system of government regardless of our constitution, and numerous references have been made by government supporters to constitutional matters. I say that this is as effective a destruction of parliament as if the parliament were dissolved by the Prime Minister never to be recalled. If you destroy our system you destroy parliament as effectively as if you burned down this place, or as if you bolted and barred the door. This is the situation when the government will not accept its constitutional responsibility as laid down by our leader in his opening remarks in this debate.
Now, when we are talking about constitutional matters, they are subject to interpretation. What is the economic situation? Why is this a vital and major matter? Why do the government choose to ignore it? Why do they have to impose a 5 per cent surtax on the people of this country? What was the reason? Was this something they would normally do in the course of events, or was it the result of their economic and financial policies? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government's economic and financial policies led this country into a position where the government had to impose this tax. This is the most spending government we have ever had. They have become not only the greatest spenders but the greatest taxers.
In order to add weight to my argument let us look for a few moments at the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons which we recently received, dated March 31, 1967. Let us see what has gone on under this government. Let the government point to any department in which expenses have been trimmed. I say it was a major and vital matter upon which this government was defeated, and according to the constitution they should now resign as the government of Canada. Let me list some of the departmental expenditures which have increased. The expenditures of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation went up 18 per cent; Defence Production went up 34 per cent; Dominion Bureau of Statistics went up 71 per cent; Energy and Mines was up only 4.6 per cent; External Affairs went up 51 per cent. I could go on and indicate the percentages by which every department's expenditures have risen.
Motion Respecting House Vote The expenditures of the department of the Secretary of State went up by 147 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We find that the expenditures of the Solicitor General's branch have risen 17 per cent. Surely these facts as set out by the Auditor General confirm that this is the most spending government we have had. They give lip service to the principle of trimming costs. This tax bill which was defeated was a part of the economic and financial policies of this government as set out by the Minister of Finance. I do not believe the government can deny that in any way.
What does this all lead us to? The Prime Minister made a speech with regard to the role of the opposition on January 27, 1959, when he addressed a luncheon meeting of the Canadian Club at Ottawa. At that time he quoted with approval the former leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). This is what the hon. member for Prince Albert said, and this is exactly the point I intend to make. I shall try to conclude my argument on this note:
Autocracy, tyranny, dictatorship, are shadows that ever stand in the wings of even the freest of parliaments.
What he is really saying is that autocracy is always evident; tyranny is always evident, and dictatorship is always evident. It is up to the members of parliament to make certain we keep this the freest of parliaments and carry out our constitutional duty.
In the absence of a strong opposition, a cabinet with a commanding position in the house could and would rule without regard to individual and minority rights.
This is exactly what the government has done. The Prime Minister quoted this speech with approval. Surely the government is acting very autocratically. There is no question about this. They are not now carrying out their constitutional duty. They have set themselves up as something of a dictatorship. There is nothing to say they will not do the same thing tomorrow. In fact one of the worst aspects of what they have done, if they ever get away with this suggestion from the Mar-tin-Caouette axis, has been the establishment of a precedent in this house which may be followed in the future and which may lead to tyranny, autocracy and dictatorship, even if this government does not follow these practices in the future.
6974	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote [DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
If this is to be the funeral of the Canadian parliamentary system, I am so glad I belong to a party which refuses to be an honorary pallbearer at that funeral, or a rewarded pallbearer like the Creditistes at parliament's funeral. They have formed the Martin-Caouette axis; the Prime Minister admitted this much over the week end. Although the Secretary of State for External Affairs was silent on this, the Prime Minister smoked him out and told us the facts.
I am happy to have taken part in this debate to register my voice against the march of autocracy, tyranny and dictatorship, which are no longer lingering shadows over this parliament but firmly recognizable now in Canada as a part of our institution. What a dangerous precedent this government are trying to establish, Mr. Speaker.
Before I leave this constitutional question I just want to say a few words about what the Minister of Finance, who is absent from his seat, has said in the debate. He spoke with two voices, or used two different phrases that are both characteristic of the government. The minister said that Canada should not carry on without this $400 million, that it was a major matter. At the same time he tried to go along with the suggestion of the government, and even though I know he is opposed to that suggestion he has not resigned. The minister talked about the danger of discussing the dollar and the economy, and the international implications of this.
In the early stages of my remarks I quoted from The Economist and put on record the view of that publication regarding the financial crisis brought on by the government, and its international repercussions. While the Prime Minister is worrying about the financial situation of the country and how his own actions might affect Canada internationally, I would remind him of what was said in an article in the The Albertan on May 22, 1962. This newspaper is a little worn now but I am glad I saved it. This is what this publication had to say in connection with the problems the Conservatives were having with the dollar:
Pearson fears big price rise result of devaluation.
The Conservative government's "panic devaluation" of the Canadian dollar will force up the cost of living to record all-time highs and impose a heavy financial burden-
-and so on. Did the right hon. gentleman worry at that time when he was leader of the opposition? Did the present Minister of Finance or Minister of Transport worry? No,

DEBATES	February 26, 1968


Mr. Speaker;: they travelled across the country not caring whether they would run Canada into blue ruin either internationally or domestically. Their conduct is illustrated by this article to which I have just referred.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these same hon. gentlemen are coming in with those soft voices they have and telling us that we must discuss the economic situation. We must follow their program, even though we are facing a financial crisis, to stem any run on the dollar. They did not care about a run on the dollar in 1962. They were irresponsible then, Mr. Speaker, and as far as their constitutional duties are concerned they are being irresponsible now.
I believe the Globe and Mail expressed the majority editorial opinion in its editorial in the February 22, 1968 issue. The article declared that the government were breaking rules for power, that they were breaking rules to get a dictatorship, that they were breaking rules so we can now have a republican system instead of a parliamentary system. Another editorial in their February 21, 1968 issue is headed "Defeat is defeat". I suggest the government are not measuring up to their responsibility. They have been defeated but are trying through television and radio broadcasts to drag across the trail red herrings so as to turn us away from the main subject.
Their constitutional duty today, Mr. Speaker, is to resign. The Prime Minister should go to the Governor General and discuss in this situation who should form the government. That is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, one that he and the government refuse to take. The Liberals rule by divine right in every regard.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Creditiste party, who voted against the tax bill as well as against the Liberals' economic and financial program, having been, as we have, critical of both, will measure up to their responsibility as members of parliament and at the proper time, when the vote is called, vote with the opposition.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, as our leader said last Friday, we hoped the debate might end that day. On behalf of our party I now express the hope that the debate will end today. Accordingly we are prepared to limit our participation.
One point I think was noted by everyone last week. The debate on the issue before parliament was primarily carried on outside this chamber over radio and television. I think the Toronto conference on the Canadian constitution, the recent federal-provincial
February 26, 1968	COMMONS
conference and our experience last week show the value of speaking directly to the people instead of speaking only to each other in this chamber. I express the hope that as a result of last week's experience arrangements will now definitely be made to admit television cameras into the chamber, instead of having members rushing to the television cameras outside. It seems to me it is time we adjusted ourselves to this new information medium and made the necessary arrangements.
One point which struck me most forcefully all through last week is that we have further evidence of the credibility gap which some political leaders create in the public mind about politics and politicians. The Prime Minister had some cogent and simple, human reasons for refusing to accept last Monday night's decision. Though those reasons cannot influence my vote, I had sympathy for the right hon. gentleman. His reasons were understandable and they were obvious. The Prime Minister could not resign and ask one of his colleagues to lead the government because a number of them are candidates for the succession, and it would have been difficult for him to make a choice.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: He could pick a man who is not a candidate.


David Lewis: The right hon. gentleman did not want to dissolve parliament and enter upon an election campaign, and I understand that. Having announced his retirement, it was impossible for him to contemplate leading his party in another election campaign. From his point of view, from his party's point of view and, he might have added, from the country's point of view it would be more desirable for his successor to announce the election and lead the party in the campaign.
These were simple, human reasons that the Prime Minister had, and I think they were the real reasons for his refusal to accept Monday night's decision. Then why not state that? Why not be frank with parliament and the Canadian people? Why resort to distortions and false accusations about plots and trickery?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I was saddened to see an admirably decent human being like our Prime Minister, who at times can be disarmingly frank, accept the political ethics of some of his colleagues who think a shovelful of sand in the eyes is better and more useful than a 27053-440
DEBATES	6975
Motion Respecting House Vote barrel of honest facts. I think this kind of approach to political discussion and debate has undermined the credibility of parliament and politicians in this country.
I emphasize, in a speech which will not be too long, that as our leader said last Friday our vote on the previous Monday was not only a vote against the unfair increase in taxes on wage and salary earners but also a vote of non-confidence in the economic and fiscal policies of this government. We believe the government's economic policies are doing harm to Canada now, and that they threaten to be ruinous in the next year or so. We shall vote against this motion because we have no more confidence in the economic policies of this government today than we had a week ago.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
We fought the budget and the economic policies behind it from the first moment, as hon. members know. I happened to be the first speaker in that debate on behalf of our party and I indicated, as did others who followed me, that we believed the mini-budget to be unnecessary, to be undesirable, to be based on wrong policies and wrong objectives, and that in particular the 5 per cent surcharge on individual taxes was ill conceived and bound to increase the inequity of a tax system which the Carter commission had already found to be inequitable.
In his lamentably and pathetically weak defence last Friday the Minister of Finance almost admitted that he really did not know quite what he was doing. We heard him say at one moment that this country had never known such prosperity as we had enjoyed in the last few years and were experiencing even now, while in the next he told us that the economy and the financial system of the country were in such jeopardy that we could not even afford to hold an election at this time without upsetting the apple cart.
He said in the course of his pathetically weak defence last Friday that the government did not intend to use the money collected through extra taxes on individuals for the purpose my leader had indicated. Despite what he said the fact remains that the proposed bill would have collected $185 million from the pockets of individual taxpayers, and would have immediately paid back two thirds of it to corporations by returning the refundable tax, $105 million in the first year and $139 million the next. We thought it was unfair, undesirable and anti-social to take money from the pockets of the ordinary wage

February 26, 1968
Motion Respecting House Vote and salary earners in order to return it to the large corporations by way of repayment of their refundable tax.
I said on December 6 last that the minibudget was unfair. I said its main objective, like that of the bill which we defeated last Monday, was to increase unemployment and slow down the rate of growth in this country. The minister has said so himself in almost as many words. We do not believe this is the right policy for Canada to follow. Even before the tax bill was defeated a week ago the economy reflected the results of the policies of this government and of this minister in a levelling off of investment and an increase in unemployment. Every indicator today shows that next year investment will probably be below the level of 1967, and that unemployment across Canada will increase even further.
Let me remind hon. members that the economic council has indicated on more than one occasion that the work force in Canada is now increasing substantially every year, and that we need to be concerned not only about jobs for the present work force but about providing jobs for an addition to that force at the rate of 3 per cent or 4 per cent each year. Slowing down the rate of growth will necessarily lead to a failure to provide sufficient jobs and to an increase in unemployment.
The Minister of Finance said my leader was promoting policies which were themselves inflationary in order to deal with an inflationary situation. I say to the Minister of Finance, who is not present today, that he is talking balderdash. The fact is that we are living in an economic environment where there is no guarantee whatever that the old-fashioned ways of dealing with such a situation-lowering the rate of growth and increasing unemployment-would have any effect whatever on prices. As a matter of fact we are living in an era in which an increase in the interest rate occurs simultaneously with an increase in the supply of money. This happened over a long period in 1967 and it is unheard of according to normal, orthodox economic textbooks. I venture to say that exactly the same thing is in store for us in the area of unemployment and high prices. We are no longer in a free market, and we have not been for years. We are no longer in a situation where a reduction in aggregate demand, a reduction in the rate of growth, a loosening of the slack in the economy, will automatically produce an effect upon the price structure.

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Prices are no longer as flexible as they used to be. Wage costs are no longer as flexible as they used to be. The wage pattern now is that its trend continues beyond the downturn in the business cycle, and the pattern of the price structure does the same because it no longer reflects prices on a free market. This must be so, since in all the most important areas of the economy prices are effectively controlled by the oligopolies which control industry.
For these reasons what the minister has proposed in his economic and financial policy is the worst of both worlds, increases in the cost of living simultaneously with an increase in unemployment. This is the kind of policy he proposes, the kind of policy against which we voted last Monday.
The minister says we do not make suggestions to him. We have made them, but he will not accept them because his government is ridden with shibboleths with regard to the workings of the economy, introducing in the sixties concepts which are no longer relevant. The hon. gentleman talks as though we were living in pre-Keynesian days before the second world war, as though we were not in the hands of monopolies or oligopolies, and as though there were some freedom in the market place for anything other than services.
I say we should control the inflationary spiral not by the destruction of prosperity in Canada, as this government proposes, but by the establishment of a prices review board to make sure that no producer gets unconscionable profits out of the present situation. If its powers are insufficient I suggest the federal government has the duty of calling a conference with provincial governments to determine where jurisdiction over price control lies, and to discuss with them the possibility of imposing selective price controls in order to restrain inflationary pressures. As we indicated in the debate on the budget, inflationary pressures are not the result of a demand pull; they are the result of what the economists call a cost push situation.
It is only by direct means of regulating and controlling the oligopolies which administer prices that you can do anything about inflationary prices. To deal with unemployment we need the stimulation of the economy and not contraction. We need a decline in unemployment and not an increase. I remind the house that every time we slow down the economy, every time we pursue policies that increase unemployment what we do, as I said
February 28, 1968	COMMONS
on December 6, is increase the disparities in this country. The provinces east of the Ottawa river, to use the phrase uttered by the premier of Newfoundland during the federal-provincial conference on the constitution, will suffer unemployment to a higher degree and to a greater proportionate extent than the provinces west of the Ottawa river. Not only do you do harm to the economy across the country, but you do particular harm to the five provinces east of the Ottawa river which can least tolerate or least accept it.
I say, Mr. Speaker-and this is why we voted against the bill last Monday and why we will vote against the motion today-that the economic and financial policies of the government will inevitably result in a continued increase in the already high cost of living, in a drop in the rate of growth in Canada, in continually increasing unemployment, with the social frustration and the loss of revenues to this government and to other governments that this will bring.
On Friday the Minister of Finance accused the leader of my party of self assurance, and may I say having made that statement in a not very assured way he then proceeded not only with self assurance but with limitless arrogance to say to this house "You may have defeated the bill I presented to you last Monday night, but I give you warning now you will have, not of course the same bill but a similar bill, as soon as I can get it ready." He talks about self assurance. He has the nerve to accuse someone else of knowing exactly where he is going while even a decision of parliament does not chasten him and does not make him change his policies.
I have no doubt that within ten days this house will be presented with another measure which in some form will place an increased tax upon the individual taxpayers of this country; and we shall fight it with all the strength at our command, as we fought the last one no matter-what is the word that was used by a very highly placed and respected gentleman in this house?-no matter what trickery may be used to get around the decision of a week ago. Any attempt to increase taxes on individuals in Canada at this time is in our view contrary to the interests of the country, contrary to the interests of the people, and we shall fight against it with all the strength we have.
We opposed Bill C-193, as I have said, and we oppose this motion of confidence in the government. We have not changed our minds. We believe we were right then and that we 27053-4401
DEBATES	6977
Motion Respecting House Vote will be right now, because it is our conviction that the government's economic and financial policies are ruinous for Canada, for Canada's future, and are a threat to the new adherents to our labour force through unemployment. We believe that the manpower retraining program is bound to be inadequate, as it has already proved to be inadequate. The larger the unemployment problem becomes the less will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration be able to do to retrain people. These economic and financial policies threaten the future of the young people of Canada. Therefore we opposed the bill a week ago and we will vote against this motion, I hope today.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I will try today to use the simplest and most familiar words so that the journalists, first of all, and the population in general will understand clearly how we see the present motion.
I would not like to keep the house too long by indulging in digressions as some other speakers did before me. For hours we have been hearing quotations dating back 40, 50, 100 years and even more to prove that the procedure followed was not in accordance with the thinking of the fathers of confederation or the British tradition, while the members of the government did all they could to prove the contrary.
The traditionalists should be told that many things have changed since those memorable days and that our great-great-grandparents would find it very difficult to recognize the practice today even if the laws they enacted were recognized.
What are they hoping to prove, through all these repetitious speeches which finally get on our nerves, to the people who want action on the part of their representatives? Do they want to prove that the government has no right to act as it just did? That is their opinion? Very well, we respect it even if we do not always understand their personal reasons. I think that to describe their state of mind better, I would need a truth detector in order to know for sure what took place in their mind in the evening of February 19 or what they are now turning over in their mind.
But what can I do, Mr. Speaker. We have simultaneous translation here but no detector. Let us hope that that will come some day.
Mr. Speaker, these people should bear in mind that we also have our reasons to vote for or against the present measure and that,
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote in our opinion, our reasons are much better than theirs, for they go beyond partisanship or tradition.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In fact, while they delight in an old myth from the stone age and persist in defending an obsolete piece of legislation, or still, what is undeniable, while they are deliberately playing politics at the expense of taxpayers, we are pushing on our fight to enforce our principles which will bring to the Canadian people salvation through the liberation of their representatives.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have well established principles on the judicial and social level. Ever since we came to this house, we have always urged the various governments to listen to us, and promised our support to the first willing to co-operate with us-regardless of party lines which matter little to us-because we are more than ever convinced today that partisanship has prevented our governments and the entire population from progressing towards more humane legislation.
I do not hesitate to say today, to the public at large, that if the Diefenbaker government had not isolated itself in its ivory tower in 1963 and refused everything to the Ralliement Creditiste in the definite hope of starving us to death, it would still be in power today. We had clearly defined our conditions to the government at the time, repeating that should they not be complied with, it would be defeated. We were asking very little: just the start of legislation. But from the top of his fortress, the great and inflexible dictator, the great leader refused; and so, the end came.
And again today they dare speak of dictatorship. Have the people fully understood the implications of this clash? I doubt it, for too many people still wear a political blindfold. Thank God, this is slowly disappearing!
Many will say: Yes, but your feathers are ruffled. We admit it was a difficult fight, even unequal, although we dared everything, since the two old parties brought to bear the full weight of their memberships, at the service of English and American high finance, using as an incendiary torch all the the most modem means of publicity such as newspapers, radio and television, etc., always at the service of capital holders, and spreading discouragement and discord.
We lost some gallant soldiers and strong fighters for the cause of the people. But they can be proud today, for their many sacrifices will not have been in vain. The old parties

have forgotten that the armour of the Creditistes is in their hearts and that it does not come from the Royal Canadian Mint or from the pen of those who control our lives through money and credit.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the forthcoming vote-on which some members of the opposition have been heaping ridicule, which, incidentally, is a coward's last weapon-will be of capital importance for us and for all the members of the Ralliement Creditiste who are fighting for the right cause. It will set the seal upon our first great victory over traditional rules which all past and present parliamentarians have accepted and which they cannot accept any longer.


Mr. Graffiey:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me-


Mr. Gauthier:: We have been storming parliament hill for six years-


William Heward Grafftey: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a simple question?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to finish my speech, I will then organize a forum, as I am accustomed to do in my parish meetings, throughout my riding.
We have been storming parliament hill for six years, hoping to win the free vote in the house, that is, the right-and this is very important-to defeat a piece of legislation without thereby defeating the government elected by the majority of the people and plunging the whole country into an election every year or every six months.
We are asking for something that is quite logical, and I think that the most concrete example we can find is at the level of our municipal and school institutions. Would a municipality, for example, be allowed to call a new election every time one of the resolutions of the mayor or the deputy mayor is defeated in council? Never, one would say. This is a utopian notion; why should we practise this illogical notion at the federal level?
The main arguments of the two old parties were "British tradition" and the unchangeable and apparently untouchable "rules of the house".
Well, Mr. Speaker, after that vote, we will be entering into a new era, since those two main arguments will no longer be accepted in this house, since finally due to the force of circumstances or a comprehensive democracy within our group, a government will have
February 26, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6979
met our views by accepting one of our dearest principles, that is the possibility of voting against an important government bill without necessarily having to hold an election.
And all this will necessarily lead to a parliamentary reform establishing a fixed period for a government, to remain in power as in the case of municipalities and school boards or, for those who see big, let us say as in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, as can be noted by restricting the time of a parliament to a specific number of years, it would be impossible, as alleged by certain Conservative speakers, for a government to maintain itself in power for years and years.
It is again one of their tricks to try and make the people believe that it is impossible to set a limit. By that method, each member would be absolutely free to vote as he pleases. We Creditistes have the deep conviction that we are here not to vote for or against a man, for or against a minister, for or against a government, but for or against a legislation depending on whether or not it is to the advantage or disadvantage of the people that we represent.
That is our only reason for being here. Then, the various parties simply become cooperators for those who accept, and instruments for those who are reticent. Therefore, it will be seen that we are way above the level of the old partisan politics whose myth still remains among many.
By so doing, those who will take off their blinkers to read the resolution will find that each and every word is important. This is the text of the resolution and I quote:
That this house does not regard its vote of February 19 in connection with the third reading of Bill C-193, which had carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
In short, the resolution, in its present form asks the house not to regard its vote on February 19 as a non-confidence vote in the government.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The word confidence does not even appear in that motion.
That makes one wonder why Her Majesty's opposition keeps talking about confidence and non-confidence. The resolution introduced in the house is not even a motion of confidence. It states simply that parliament does not consider that the vote of February 19 was a vote of non-confidence.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the house quite frankly that when I voted last
Motion Respecting House Vote Monday night, I was thinking of only one thing: defeat the bill increasing personal income tax by 5 per cent, nothing more. That is all I wanted. I voted to defeat the bill and I am happy about that.
That bill was very important and we wanted to reject it, so much so that even if the minister had risen at that precise moment-I do not remember what member of the opposition made that assumption a moment ago- and, in the hope of frightening us, had said: I regard this vote as a vote of confidence, well, Mr. Speaker, because of our principles and our convictions, we would have voted against that legislation all the same. I will even go further. If the government had not introduced the present resolution in its present form, that is if they had asked us to give them our confidence without withdrawing the bill which was rejected last Monday, we would have to vote against the government.
Furthermore, it is precisely in that vein that our leader, replied to the journalists who asked him how he would vote on a motion of confidence. At the time, the question involved was not a matter of confidence. He said: Against the government. That is precisely what I said previously, he was right, because at that time we could not foresee that the government would accept our requirements. But the journalists could not make head or tail of it, as they did not even suspect that there must be some diplomatic play between the parties. Some of them did so through ignorance, which reminds me of an anecdote.
Two lads were sent to the line of fire without having been given even elementary instructions. All they had in mind was to kill the enemy. All they heard was the voice of their general shouting: Fire, kill!
To their astonishment, after the cease-fire, they saw that same general cross the fines to parley with the enemy authorities. They thought, out of ignorance, that he was crazy, that he was contradicting himself, that he was ridiculous, a turncoat and had made an about-face. Is this not an exact description of certain newspapermen?
Others are prompted by personal or partisan interest. They are well aware of the misrepresentations they spread among the general public, and this is much more serious.
I saw in the papers large head-lines reading:	"Caouette supports the government;
Caouette saves the government." If those people had been sincere, do you not think they would have written instead: Caouette saves
6980	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote taxpayers $450 million in expenditures. The Conservatives may laugh all they want but, fortunately, we are the ones with the balance of power, not them.


Mr. Valade:: This is blackmail.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: It is not blackmail, it is the truth. The real blackmail is what you read in the papers. I do not want to attack all newpa-permen, for it is heartening to know that there are still a few honest newpapermen left.
I would ask them to try and urge their colleagues to put an end to these abominations.
Say what you will, it is still up to the government to decide whether or not an election shall be called. The opposition can shout itself hoarse, those are the facts. The government, having flatly admitted the defeat of Bill No. C-193, and having declared it would not be introduced again, has said it did not consider this vote as a vote of non-confidence. That is its business, Mr. Speaker. In my view, it is the same as if the minister had risen before the vote and said, I give notice to the house that, even if this vote is negative, I shall not deem it to be a vote of confidence.
Mr. Speaker, of course there is a question of British traditions involved. This is precisely what we want to get rid of. Now we have just set a precedent. We have succeeded. All right! We have opened a door which will enable us to take a second step: provide in the standing orders of the house that, in the future, every member will be entitled to cast a free vote, according to his own conscience, since his vote will not be considered any longer as capable of defeating his own government. At last we have done away with the yoke of political parties, forced for so many years upon members of the old parties by finance barons who were paying for elections, with the result that Grits and Tories had to pass legislation which favoured them, whilst the working class was constantly called upon to foot the bill.
I do not want to blame any member of the two old parties, because I understand them sufficiently to feel really sorry for them. So, let them be assured that we shall resort to all possible means to promote legislative measures which will allow all the hon. members to get out of that party dictatorship where they cannot be fully themselves. Once again, we warn the house that the group which will act the fastest in that direction will get the support of the Canadian people, who will be the first to benefit therefrom.

DEBATES	February 26, 1968
I realize that it is difficult for several hon. members to sever the umbilical cord which hold them yet to their fathers' myths since painless childbirth does not yet exist. Therefore, let them show a little resignation, a little more courage, a lot of responsibility, a boundless social spirit and especially, let them keep on working in order to reach the goal.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word with regard to the rumour to the effect that a general election will be called tomorrow. I answer: No, Mr. Speaker, fully conscious of all the responsibilities involved, because the government is bound to act, and for two major reasons.
The house can be assured that if it is our duty to get some action on the part of the government, we shall work day and night, because time is getting short, and there are two main reasons for this.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In the first place, because we will wind up the business of this session in about a month, according to what we have been told. We will not have too much time and we will have to use our remaining hours to complete our office work.
In the second place, because to begin with I must look after the interests of Roberval constituency in which 6 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. To cope with this crisis, our municipal councillors have used every possible means and have sacrificed everything to carry out various winter works. But after more than two or three weeks of superhuman work, twelve municipalities of my constituency have not yet finally adopted their projects. Needless to say that all this requires the attention and the essential presence of the minister concerned. Can one imagine the extent of the disaster if tomorrow the minister had to close his office to launch an election? This means that, less than ever, is it time to abandon the battlefield, to desert our most sacred duty in order to play at elections.
There are, in my constituency, other urgent problems for which we must find a solution within a few days, and I am very much determined to continue my work in spite of all those senseless jokers.
Once the business of the house is completed, in a month or so, the way will be clear for election amateurs, if we are to force such expenses upon the people and if the people
February 26, 1968

want it. I am but the servant of my constituency here, so I shall readily comply with the will of the majority.
Speaking of jokers, Mr. Speaker, does anyone sincerely believe that the Conservative party wants an election? Would it not be rather that they want to get some headlines in all newspapers and be on television? Those who listened to their spokesmen and leader last night, must have felt the chill of death when the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) claimed that he did not want to defeat the government, that he did not want to trigger off an election before the Liberal party had its convention on April 5. I have heard that with my own ears, Mr. Speaker, and I commend the Leader of the Opposition on his outspokenness. But after such a declaration, which newspapermen surely know about, what kind of about-face will they perform, these people who interpret everything according to politics or the amount of money they receive? The leader of the offical opposition does not have to worry: they have not yet started to throw their poisoned darts at him. He will be safe so long as he remains on the side of big business.
After all that, I find it very difficult to understand all this commotion on the part of the Conservatives. Indeed, while their leader appeals for peace, they try to shout their war cries, or so-called war cries. Would this be another smokescreen, its only aim to delay the business of the house?
In our opinion, all serious-thinking people realize once again that the Ralliement des Creditistes must play its role as vigilant mediator in order to prevent futile squabbles which will necessarily be paid for by the people. I will be told that that is a great responsibility. It is the price of holding the balance of power. We realize that each judgment we pronounce influences our future. That is why all our members must feel completely free to act and vote as they wish.
Indeed, it is not enough to preach; one must set an example, and the house can rest assured that, within our party, the vote will be 100 per cent free. Some days we wish we had the wisdom of Solomon, but we are only human and all we have is our desire to work for the good of our constituencies and of the whole country.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of regret that on a question as important as this one the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is not in the house. It is even more a
Motion Respecting House Vote matter of regret that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), whose responsibility is at stake here, is not in the house, and it is even more a matter of regret that the minister directly responsible, some would say, as the custodian of our constitution and our constitutional procedures, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), deems it more advisable to appear on television, as he did about half an hour ago in the lobby, than to confront the house with the defence of the government's position. As a matter of fact, it is rather remarkable, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, that in a debate of such seriousness only five cabinet ministers should be in the house. This is an indication of the supreme indifference and arrogance with which members of the cabinet treat this house.
No matter how long and how loud the members of the Creditiste party talk they cannot get away from the fact that they are doing a disservice to their leader who purported to be speaking for their party and are dissociating themselves from the proper position which they took last Monday night. There is no getting away from the positive position which the leader of that party took last Wednesday, and I should like to quote him from page 6905 of Hansard of February 21. After the Prime Minister's intention to put forward the motion now before us was announced the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said:
If we believe that, in a democracy, parliament is the real sovereign of the country, we may say, in the present circumstances, that the government has been defeated by a parliamentary majority and that it should resign.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
He did not leave it there. On the same page, we find this statement:
I see no other way out for the government than to go to the people and ask for their opinion on the way in which the business of the country is to be dealt with.
Again, on the same occasion and on the same page we find these words:
Under the circumstances, there is but one way out, and that is to go to the people.
Now, where is this situation resolved? When the Creator made these people on my left I think He threw away the jellymould. These circumstances recall the situation in 1963. These people have no more virtue now. In fact, it took about the same amount of time in 1963 because over the dinner hour they changed their minds. The deputy leader
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote oi the party at that time, then the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, issued a publication entitled "Dans Le Meme Sac". I believe that is the situation today; they are in the same bag. No doubt the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), who I understand will be speaking very shortly, is in the same bag as well.
Ever since the government's defeat last Monday night the Prime Minister and his followers have been whining and whimpering on national television in this country. They have been whimpering about the undesirability of an election at a time when the economy of Canada is in serious trouble. They have been trying to leave the impression that the opposition was irresponsible in acting as they did in the house on Monday night. Does he remember his own conduct in 1962 and 1963? I shall have some quotations for him in that regard in a few moments, because I intend to quote him as a constitutional expert.
I wonder whether hon. members opposite recall the publication, just a little over four years ago, of the "Diefenbucks"? I wonder whether they recall travelling from one end of the country to the other trying to undermine the economy with one purpose in mind, to clutch at power? Does the Prime Minister remember those occasions? Do the members of his party recall hearing those things? What kind of deceit is this he is endeavouring to impose on the country now? These are not my words, they are the words of the Prime Minister, as I will show in a moment.
The truth is that the financial crisis about which they are complaining now is their own doing. It has nothing to do with the opposition. It was as gradual as it was inevitable under the policies of the present government. It resulted from, to paraphrase words of the Prime Minister in 1962, continued deficits, inadequate economic growth, some bad budgetary proposals and the destructive effect of high interest rates, high cost of living, high taxes, inadequate housing, high unemployment and, by no means lastly, the unprecedented bungling and ineptitude of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad to hear hon. members opposite applaud, especially the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). I am happy to see him in his seat, in which place he was not last Monday.


Mr. Choquelie:: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the hon. member for Yukon during the whole year 1966.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member were here more often he would see me.
The Prime Minister speaks of trickery. The opposition used some kind of dirty trick in defeating the government on a major, indeed, vital piece of tax legislation we say. Again I should like to quote words the Prime Minister used in 1962:
Could anything be more fantastic, but fantastic or not you will be hearing this farcical explanation soon and often in the House of Commons in accents of quivering indignation.
This is the Prime Minister speaking, Mr. Speaker. Was is an opposition trick, I ask you, that kept 48 members on the government side away last Monday? Was it an opposition trick that the vote was called at all on Monday night? Was it an opposition trick that they were defeated on not one but two occasions on Monday night? Was it an opposition trick that brought the country to the point where the government decided to impose additional taxes on those least able to bear them? Was it an opposition trick that this tax measure was introduced in this chamber last November? Was it an opposition trick to lure the Prime Minister to Jamaica while this vote was being taken? Was it an opposition trick to induce the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) away from the house last Monday when this vote was taken? They were out on the hustings. They were galavanting around the country on a leadership campaign instead of attending to the business of the house.


Mr. Greene:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Yukon is very used to distorting facts. I must state-


Mr. Starr:: You mean you were here?


John James Greene: -that I was not out west on leadership business. I was in Manitoba at the annual meeting of the Manitoba Dairy Association. Contrary to what the hon. member for Bow River said, I was very well used and graciously received. In fact, I was made an honorary citizen of the city of Winnipeg by his worship the mayor.


Erik Nielsen: As usual, the Minister of Agriculture has not risen on a question of privilege at all.
February 26, 1968


Mr. Stafford:: How would you know?


Erik Nielsen: Obviously, from the actions of the government, there are no experts on that side of the house.
I was asking whether it was an opposition trick, Mr. Speaker, that the government insisted on proceeding with this measure on Monday night. I was asking whether it was an opposition trick or whether it was by connivance of the opposition that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) insisted on the vote and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) insisted on the vote or that we tricked the government whip into assuring the Minister of Finance he had sufficient members in the house. Really, the Prime Minister must believe the Canadian people are incredibly stupid to swallow that kind of nonsense.
At the same time the government accuses us of connivance and trickery they say the vote was a mistake; it was a miscalculation. It was a snap vote or it was a fluke. These are the same people who are levelling these accusations at us today.


Auguste Choquette: You were not supposed to be there last Monday. You have been absent for a year.


Erik Nielsen: What arrogance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Have we reached the stage of dictatorship where in the future only the government will determine when a vote will be a want of confidence vote? This is what that great constitutional authority, the Prime Minister, had to say in 1962:
Responsible government, which was not gained in Canada without bloodshed, is the foundation of our independence and our democracy in this country. What do we mean by responsible government? We mean that the Queen's ministers are responsible to the elected house of parliament. They have the right to remain in office only so long as they have the confidence and support of a majority of the elected representatives of the people.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This government lost that support and that confidence last Monday night. I quote the Prime Minister again:
In a parliament where no political party has a clear majority, this confidence and support cannot, of course, be taken for granted by the government... No government, however, has the right to remain in office unless it can command the support of a majority in the House of Commons.
Those are the Prime Minister's words, Mr. Speaker. He has now "pulled a Caouette". This arrogant government, this government
Motion Respecting House Vote that believes that the Liberal party rules by divine right, which is no change from the usual situation, now attempts to carry on government as though Monday night never happened at all. Because the Prime Minister is such an impeccable source, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote him again. He said:
This is indefensible and unconstitutional behaviour on the part of one who talks so much about the rights of parliament and the sacredness of our parliamentary institutions.
It is all the more shocking, sir, because we are currently involved in vital constitutional considerations. Questions of great importance are being discussed. Yet we are confronted with the spectacle of a Prime Minister who has lost his mandate from the people and from parliament but is blithely insisting on continuing as though nothing has happened. In the same speech the Prime Minister had this to say:
I insist that nothing should be done in this parliament.. .until the question of confidence has been settled in the proper constitutional way. Unless that question is settled first, the right of parliament to control the executive will have ceased to mean anything.
All of those quotations, Mr. Speaker, are from a speech made by the Prime Minister at a testimonial dinner honouring Toronto and district Liberal members of parliament at the Royal York hotel in Toronto on September 18, 1962. What greater authority can I quote than that.
As to this sudden shift by the leader of the Creditistes, the action now taken by that party has, as one colleague has suggested to me, totally "discreditisted" that party. All I can say is that I compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs on his most amazing powers of diplomacy. So great are those powers, sir, that in my view we should send him at once to Viet Nam.
We have been criticized very mildly for not quoting some precedents. I have some and I commend them to the consideration of the house. The first one I want to lay before the house is "Law of the Constitution" by a highly respected writer, A. V. Dicey. In his ninth edition, pages 418 and 419, the writer explains that our constitutional precepts are divided into statutory precepts and precepts of custom, usage or practice of the commons. At page 420 of his work the following statement appears:
A ministry which is outvoted in the House of Commons is in many cases bound to retire from office. A cabinet, when outvoted on any vital question, may appeal once to the country by means
6S84
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
of a dissolution. If an appeal to the electors goes against the ministry they are bound to retire from office, and have no right to dissolve parliament a second time.
And at page 430:
The conventions of the constitution now consist of customs which (whatever their historical origin) are at the present day maintained for the sake of ensuring the supremacy of the House of Commons, and ultimately, through the elective House of Commons, of the nation. Our modern code of constitutional morality secures, though in a roundabout way, what is called abroad the "sovereignty of the people."
That is why these customs have to be honoured, Mr. Speaker. That is why these customs need not be regarded, indeed should not be regarded, as a matter of mere rules which can be trampled at will by a government intent upon maintaining office at any price.
What are the constitutional ethics that are required of a ministry that is defeated on a measure such as that which was before the house last Monday night? Let us look at the legal and constitutional position for a moment. Is the conduct of the cabinet in retaining office in this instance constitutionally immoral? This is a point that has been raised by the leader of this party as well as by the leader of the New Democratic party.
Dicey believes that the true rule of the constitution is not that a ministry cannot keep office but that the ministry ought not to remain in office unless they can, by an appeal to the country, obtain the election of a house which will support the government, a support that was not forthcoming Monday night. At page 451 of Dicey's book there is the following paragraph:
The conventions of the constitution are not laws, but, in so far as they really possess binding force, derive their sanction from the fact that whoever breaks them must finally break the law and incur the penalties of a lawbreaker.
I shall have something to say about the illegality of the tax in a moment. At page 455 Dicey continues:
Why is it, to take definite instances of this uncertainty and changeableness, that no one can define with absolute precision the circumstances under which a Prime Minister ought to retire from office? Why is it that no one can fix the exact point at which resistance of the House of Lords to the will of the House of Commons becomes unconstitutional?
Then Dicey gives some examples of when a ministry should properly and constitutionally retire from office. I quote from page 456:
Thus the rule that a ministry who have lost the confidence of the King...the undignified persistency

from office is plain enough, and any permanent neglect of the spirit of this rule would be absolutely inconsistent with parliamentary government, and would finally involve the minister who broke the rule in acts of undoubted illegality... There are, however, a hundred signs of parliamentary disapproval which, according to circumstances, either may or may not be a sufficient notice that a minister ought to give up office. The essential thing is that the ministry should obey the house as representing the nation. But the question whether the House of Commons has or has not indirectly intimated its will that a cabinet should give up office is not a matter as to which any definite principle can be laid down.
The difficulty which now exists, in settling the point at which a premier and his colleagues are bound to hold that they have lost the confidence of the house, is exactly analogous to the difficulty which often perplexed statesmen of the last century, of determining the point at which a minister was bound to hold he had lost the then essential confidence of the King ... the undignified persistency with which later cabinets have occasionally clung to office in the face of intimations that the House desired a change of government.
Nothing could have been clearer last Monday night than that the opposition in this house was united in demanding the resignation of the government.
The Prime Minister is charging the opposition with being irresponsible, and I have dealt with that. The opposition has been "irresponsible" by marshalling and parading all of the blunders of which this government has been guilty over the years. In this regard I should like to quote what Dicey has to say. I read from page 599:
One may add that the whole current of modern constitutional custom involves the admission that the final decision of every grave political question now belongs, not to the House of Commons, but to the electors as the representatives of the nation.
"Cabinet Government" by Jennings, second edition, was one authority cited by the Prime Minister. In discussing the role of the supporter Jennings says at page 441:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Above all, a supporter of the government is very unlikely to take any step-
Or to refrain from taking any step, such as being absent.
-which will defeat the government. For, if it is defeated on a major issue, it will resign or dissolve parliament.
At page 446 we find this statement:
The house possesses the instruments necessary to determine the fate of governments. If it fails to approve the government's policy the government must resign or dissolve parliament.
February 26, 1968

What could be more positive than statements like these from a respected and noted writer? He goes on to say:
-the house can...make the levying of income tax and surtax unlawful by failing to pass the finance bill.
I continue quoting from page 450:
A government will not give way on a major question of policy.
No one can contest that the measure which was brought forward last Monday night was not a matter of major government policy. On page 457 Jennings says this, and I am about to read the quotation that the Prime Minister read in part but did not finish:
It must not be thought, however, that a single defeat necessarily demands either resignation or dissolution. Such a result follows only where the defeat implies loss of confidence.
Our case is that the defeat of the bill on Monday night implied loss of confidence because that bill was the very core of the government budget. Citing Mr. Ramsay MacDonald of England in 1924, Jennings says on page 459:
The Labour government will go out if it is defeated upon substantial issues, issues of principle, issues which really matter... If the house on matters non-essential, matters of mere opinion, matters that do not strike at the root of the proposals that we make, and do not destroy fundamentally the general intentions of the government in introducing legislation-if the house wish to vary our propositions, the house must take the responsibility for that variation-then a division on such amendments and questions as those will not be regarded as a vote of no confidence.
We have the matter in the negative as well. I have been unable to find an example of a government which, having been defeated on its budget, has failed to resign.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is quite right.


Erik Nielsen: I shall be only a moment or two, sir. At page 461 Jennings says:
Four factors really determine the attitude of a government to a parliamentary defeat.
He lists these factors and goes on to say:
The fourth is the importance of the proposal or matter on which it was defeated. A defeat on an important part of the budget, as in 1852 and 1885, is obviously too important to be passed over.
The last precedent I wish to cite is from "The Government of Canada" by Professor Robert MacGregor Dawson, professor of political economy at the University of Toronto. The position which he reinforces is to be found in an article in The Canadian Journal
Motion Respecting House Vote of Economics and Political Science for August, 1946. He says in part:
The cabinet must therefore introduce and sponsor all measures to spend or to raise money; and as any proposed amendment which would endeavour to diminish a tax or an expenditure contrary to the cabinet's wishes would be treated as a vote of lack of confidence, its control over finance is not likely to be seriously threatened.
So we have it from this acknowledged constitutional expert that a vote like last Monday night's vote can be treated, by implication, as a vote of non-confidence. He fortifies that position by saying on page 265:
Thus if a cabinet is defeated on any of its measures or on a vote of censure by the house, one of two consequences must ensue: either the cabinet must be changed so that the commons can obtain an executive which will give it the leadership it desires, or the commons can obtain an executive which will give it the leadership it desires, or the commons must itself be changed to provide the cabinet with the support to which it is entitled if it is to remain in office. One of two courses of action are thus available following a cabinet's defeat : the resignation of the cabinet, or the dissolution of the house; the one gives the house a new cabinet, the other gives the cabinet a new house.
That is the constitutional position, sir, and this government is flying in the teeth of that position. We have a government whose major policy is to cling to office. The Prime Minister on Friday gave us the spectacle of a man clinging to office like a drunken man clinging to a sinking spar. All the others were clinging with him. Their major financial policy was defeated, rejected and repudiated by parliament last Monday night but they are prepared to swallow that. They will swallow anything as long as they can stay in office.


Michael Starr: It turns one's stomach.


Erik Nielsen: Our stomachs and the stomachs of the people of this nation are not that strong. One can understand the government's desperate desire to stay on. They have made such a mess of things. They are terrified of what a new government would uncover. A cursory reading of the Auditor General's report reveals the existence of skeletons in the government's closets, skeletons of such dimensions that their existence must be a waking nightmare to hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches.
This government is living on borrowed time and all that we on this side can do is close its eyes. It has forfeited the right to occupy the treasury benches. It is a bankrupt government, politically and economically. It is a government which will go to any lengths
G98E	COMMONS DEBATES	February 26, 1968
Motion Respecting House Vote to stay in power because so bad is its situation that it must go to those lengths. For the first time this government's budget has been rejected.
I ask hon. members to reflect coolly and sensibly on what the Prime Minister said on national television and in this house and what the Minister of Finance said. They said that the defeat was a fluke and that "somehow we have got to raise $475 million." That was the statement we heard on television last night. This government's fiscal policy was rejected last Monday night and now the government has the utter gall to inform the Canadian public and this chamber that though the income tax measure was rejected the government will try to go ahead and somehow accomplish the objectives it had in view originally.
When the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) was minister of finance his budget of 1963 was rejected by business, by parliament and then by his colleagues. His colleagues were the last to know. That reminds me of a television commercial-"even his best friends would not tell him." Nevertheless, though the budget was repudiated the minister, as will be recalled, was retained. Thus, at the outset of its term in office this government demonstrated its ability to make constitutional history. If this sort of thing happened at Westminster the minister concerned would be out immediately. And so it should be here, by all yardsticks. So it should be with the present Minister of Finance. His policy has been rejected and repudiated in no uncertain fashion and there is only one course open for him under proper constitutional practice.
The former minister of finance was cast out by the Privy Council largely because of his unyielding opposition to the Rockefellers and the Mercantile Bank. His successor was more amenable. The government once again is attempting to make constitutional history. The very foundation of its budgetary policy, the 5 per cent surcharge, was rejected but still the government insists on clinging to office.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And on collecting the tax.


Erik Nielsen: And on collecting the tax. I now wish to say something about the illegality of that tax. At page 447 of his work Dicey says:
Then, again, though most of the taxes would still come into the exchequer, large portions of the revenues would cease to be legally due and could not be legally collected-

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This is the consequence of the defeat of a tax measure.
-whilst every official who acted as collector would expose himself to actions or prosecutions. The part, moreover, of the revenue which came in could not be legally applied to the purposes of the government. If the ministery laid hold of the revenue they would find it difficult to avoid breaches of definite laws which would compel them to appear before the courts.
Dicey goes on at length to explain the illegality of a proposed tax after the defeat of such a measure. I maintain that this tax has been illegal since the beginning of the year and if the government attempts to use it for any of its purposes such an act will be an illegal act and every official who aids and abets in the improper application of that revenue is also legally responsible.
When one thinks of a government in the position in which the present government finds itself, one is irresistably reminded of that species of the animal kingdom which clings to one position, upside down. I think it is called a three-toed sloth. It is an animal which, like this government, prefers to be in an upside down position and whose every instinct, again like this government, is to cling to the end of the limb. This is the Pearson government. They cling, they continue to cling, and they produce nothing. Now, however, they will somehow be obliged to produce something like $475 million to carry out their riotous and extravagant spending proclivities.
Leaving aside the constitutional question for the moment, for there is no way, I suppose, of forcing an obnoxious tenant to vacate after the lease has run out, I firmly believe that parliament reached its finest hour the other night when it told this high-spending government it would not agree to force on Canadians a totally unnecessary 5 per cent increase in taxation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) put the position of this party clearly and succinctly. I might say there are many contrasts between the leader of this party and the Prime Minister. The speech which my hon. friend opposite delivered last Friday was factual, honest and truthful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: When the house took the action it did on Monday night it was speaking as an institution representative of the people. It had a right to take the action it did. It spoke on behalf of all Canadians. It said to the government: This is the end of the road.
February 26, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	6987
To attempt now to undo by indirect means what the government dare not do directly is the height of irresponsibility.
They talk about trickery. What about this motion? If it is not trickery, what is trickery? Here is a motion which casts a slur upon parliament, a motion which reflects upon a vote of this house, tries to limit its effects, get the government off the hook and introduces a new definition of the word "confidence" as used constitutionally. Both directly and indirectly the motion reflects on parliament's actions.
Let it not be forgotten that these arguments could have been raised as points of order last Friday morning. We did not wish to impede the progress of the business of the house. We on this side took, almost unanimously, the responsible stand that we wished to get the matter settled, and get it settled we will. Nevertheless, the facts have to be made known. The Prime Minister said last night in the course of a national television broadcast that "the black headline of today is on page 37 next week." That is what he hopes. He hopes the Canadian people will continue to be bamboozled by those who irresponsibly disregard the constitutional position.
We now have a government which is telling parliament what to think, attempting to define what is and what is not a vote of confidence. The house voted that it did not have confidence in the government's policy. Now the government brings in a motion which in effect says: Oh, yes, you did. Those who are prepared to accept this advice are writing a final chapter to the authority of parliament and to parliamentary control of the executive by the people of this country. That is the position in which they find themselves, and it is a totally untenable one constitutionally.
The question is now before the jury, and while the jury may reject it because one or two of them have been influenced, there is always the court of appeal. The people of this country will decide whether this shabby and shoddy tactic by a discredited government which has lost the confidence of this house will be sufficient to get it back in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have heard some of the best legal arguments both for and against this motion, arguments as good as could be put forward by any competent Philadelphia lawyer. And I dare say further arguments could be
Motion Respecting House Vote advanced, one way or the other. But what it all boils down to is this. There is no doubt that so far as that vote was concerned the government was defeated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Steven Otto: That is so according to the constitutional traditions, customs and usages at present. I wish to point out, however, that from time to time many motions and resolutions have been put forward by private members indicating a desire to institute reforms in this connection and provide for a better definition of "confidence" and "non-confidence" in parliamentary terms.
I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) grasped the situation quite correctly when he indicated that despite the customs and usages of the past the people of Canada today were not in a mood to accept another election.


An hon. Member:: After the event.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Change the rules in the middle of the game.


Steven Otto: I do not pay much attention to the argument that failure to pass the finance bill or something like it would mean fiscal ruin for the country. It is not a relevant argument. Nor does it matter whether the vote was contrived by trickery. In my opinion the Prime Minister very accurately grasped the mood of the people of Canada and I believe he made the proper decision. However, again I am taking the Prime Minister at his word when he said he was going to place a vote of confidence in his administration before the house. Then he continued by saying he felt the Canadian people wanted the government to continue in office, hold a convention to pick a new leader, have a new government, and then it would be up to the new prime minister to pick an election date.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If that is the motion then I say there are two parts to it. The first question is whether the present administration up to this moment deserves a vote of confidence, and the second question is whether a future government will deserve a vote of confidence. Those are two entirely separate questions.
Dealing with the first question of whether or not this administration deserves a vote of confidence, specifically my vote of confidence, I wish to point out that despite what may have been said I am not immune to party discipline and if I thought for a moment that
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote this government was as close as it should be to the Liberal party and Liberal party policy, my answer would have been yes. I do not deny that this government has introduced many good measures, but I put it to the treasury benches that the Liberal party is synonymous with reform. They mean one and exactly the same thing. Liberalism is reform. The question then is whether this has been a reform government. As I say, some of the measures that the government put forward were very good. But with respect to some measures in the Liberal policy platform that were put forward the kindest thing that could be said about them was that they were improperly put forward, badly administered, and the results were not what they should have been. As one example I mention the
10,000	scholarships which were part of the Liberal platform in the 1962 election campaign. That was a very simple program. That program could have been easily introduced but instead we got into a mixture of banking, scholarships and university subsidies. This has resulted in very bad administration of both the scholarship plan and the banking plan, so that today very few people can really take advantage of the program and some of those who do abuse it. As a result we have allowed university students to graduate with a $5,000 debt which, with another $5,000 debt by way of a dowry for their brides, makes a total of $10,000 they have to pay to the banks at a time when their earnings are not the highest. Thus it is no wonder that United States companies find it possible to entice them to jobs with higher salaries in the United States. This is an example of a good idea lacking that bit of professionalism that would have made it workable.
The Canada Pension Plan is a good plan. It was agreed to by all. Nevertheless among the older people of this nation it is creating two classes, those who come under the plan and those who do not. They are about equal in numbers. Some are going to get an accelerated pension but others will not because they were too old to qualify when the plan started. I say it would not have been too difficult to devise a plan that would have covered everyone.
Then there is the medicare plan, another policy of the Liberal party, but for some reason those Liberals who so strongly supported the medicare plan are now against it. Daily I receive letters from well known Liberals, people who originally supported this plan and who are now wondering whether it is really a good thing.


I know where the Liberal party stands on foreign ownership. The Liberal party has never been in doubt. The Liberal party is greatly concerned about the fact that some 67 per cent of our industrial destiny is in the hands of people who are not Canadians. It is also concerned about the more than a billion dollars worth of equity, profits and dividends leaving this country. It is concerned because this money could be devoted to new capital investment. But what are we going to do with the proposed Canada development corporation? What has happened to it? It is not enough, so far as Liberals are concerned, merely to re-establish the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), who first proposed the Canada development corporation, as a member of the cabinet.
Labour relations have always been one of the main features of Liberalism. Most members of the Liberal party are concerned that now should be the time to introduce great reforms that would put an end to work stoppages merely because of labour disputes. Some time ago the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke in Montreal and said that labour relations were a matter of great concern. He said that surely the government should tackle this problem to see if some solution could be reached by which production would continue so that our gross national product would increase and we could afford all the social measures that we have introduced. Imagine my surprise when I read reports to the effect that when one of the present ministers indicated he fully supported the principle of fiscal responsibility the government looked with great awe upon his statement and told him, "Now, be careful; you have said something that is not quite in keeping with our Liberal policy." Yet fiscal responsibility has always been part of the Liberal party platform.
With respect to financial reforms I do not say that all the recommendations of the Carter commission should be adopted but I do say that a great many Liberals feel it is time for reforms to the whole tax structure. But what have we done?
Housing is a classic example. It has always been one of the main features of Liberalism that the party sincerely believed every Canadian should be entitled to purchase a home of his own. I need not go further and tell you what has happened to our housing policy, if we have a housing policy. But I question whether it was really a Liberal minister who said in public that Canadians have to get accustomed to the idea of living in apartment
February 26, 1968
houses and that they will never be able to own their own homes. I cannot imagine that this is Liberalism. Therefore, I have very grave doubt whether this government truly represents the Liberal party of which I am a member.
I am not saying that all these reforms could have been undertaken immediately, but over a period of five years we have had lots of time to tackle the problems. I know that all Liberals are anxious to bring about reform and in fact have a zeal for it, but it seems we have a government that will accept reform only at gunpoint. I think Liberals want reform in giant strides and not in the mincing steps that this government seems to take.
Let me put the whole matter of reform or lack of reform in miniature. Back in 1962 I pointed out the problem of our page boys. I am not going to delve into it at length now because all of us are aware of it, but it is a fact that we have 17 page boys, each of whom is a drop-out from school. They do not attend school. Our party says that education is the most important thing. Yet nothing or almost nothing has been done about this problem except for the Speaker's constant urging on it. In short, the government has not seen fit to tackle this problem and we are still faced with it.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There is a difference between zeal for reform and a keen plan for reform. Were I faced with the problem of voting confidence at the present time in this government on its record I doubt that I could. In the last few months I have been convinced that we have sincere and keen reformers in this party, some of whom are anxious to take over the leadership. We have seen some very good legislation brought forward. In all fairness hon. gentlemen opposite and on this side must admit that some of the measures introduced and to be introduced contain a spirit of reform which one might describe as embodying giant steps. Consequently I must move to the third proposition put forward by the Prime Minister. He suggested we should allow this government to continue until a new leader is elected and a new government appointed. I hope at that time we will have what I would consider a real Liberal government, and I am satisfied that we have good hopes in this regard.
There is one other matter relating to the administration that bothers me. I have in mind the whole question of two Canadas and
Motion Respecting House Vote national unity. We all realize there is a great problem which must be solved and that involved in the answer is bilingualism. Bilingualism could be introduced very effectively and well, but I cannot forgive the government for passing on this problem to a royal commission not so much on the basis of language as on the basis of race. The initial words of the reference to the commission emphasized the two founding races. Any government should have known that this whole problem also involves Canadians who are of neither French nor English origin. These people have had enough of race problems and want no part of this one. The difficulty today is no longer one of bilingualism or bicultural-ism but rather one involving race. I hope the next leader of the Liberal government will face this issue and I hope that the Liberal party will have the courage to say it has had enough of racial division. There is no such thing as unity through division. We have a great challenge to meet today in the nation, and I hope the new Liberal government under the new leader will concentrate on this problem by forgetting about division.
None of the leaders or potential leaders of this party has satisfied me that he is attuned to this problem. For this reason I will reserve my decision and vote for the government on this motion. I believe there is an opportunity for true Liberalism and a true Liberal government, but I still have to be convinced that a future Liberal government will be a true Liberal government. My vote today is not a vote for the same type of administration.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as other members of this party have mentioned, I trust this issue can be resolved today. I wish to rise in explanation of my position before the vote is taken. It is somewhat different from the position taken by my party colleagues. Our party practices democratic principles. Any member has the right to vote according to his conscience provided he explains that his vote is based purely on a personal opinion and does not represent party policy. This has been done by several members of this party on a number of occasions. I well remember that when the former government of Right Hon. John Diefenbaker was defeated there were two of us in this party who voted for the maintenance of that government on the evening it was defeated, in opposition to a caucus decision.
My remarks are not related to party policy or programs but rather to tactics. In my opinion the matter before us has nothing to do

6990	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote with party programming or general policy but involves a question of strategy or generalship in the art of political warfare. That is what we are engaged in at the present time.
No one can condone the mismanagement of the present government. 1 fully realize we cannot blame this government for all the circles of inflation. All the bankers of the North American continent know that this inflationary period is primarily the result of the war in Viet Nam. The United States economy is carrying on in a war-oriented atmosphere without those controls which were available during the two previous wars in which the United States fought. As I see the present situation it is one in which tactics are being used to persuade the Canadian people that the government should be defeated now.
There is a great deal about this situation which concerns me, and I am treating this matter of a strictly non-partisan basis. Strong views are held in respect of both sides of this question. As a member who has had continuous service in this house since 1945 I have considered this question carefully and have come to the firm conviction that an immediate dissolution of parliament would not be in the best interests of this country or the Canadian people. It was with pleasure that I noted in the last few days a partial restoration of the spirit of fair play and the sense of humour which are usual in this house. I suppose it is correct to say that the steam has gone out of this debate, since everyone now knows the government will be sustained.
I have a great deal of respect for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and I was interested to hear him say, "In the name of God, go". I believe he was quoting Cromwell but he did not carry this to its logical conclusion. When Cromwell was telling the government to go he was almost threatening assassination if they did not go. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition did not mean that.
My position is simply this. The first necessity is for the government to deal as soon as possible with important and urgent legislation of direct concern to the people, such as revisions to the National Housing Act and amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase benefits to the unemployed. I have received a number of telephone calls in this regard from union members. Another important matter involves amendments to the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act. A number of consumers are very concerned in this regard and are anxious to see this bill go through because of potential reductions in the

DEBATES	February 26, 1968
price of drugs in this country following the passage of this legislation introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner).
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Many people are very interested in the supplementary estimates which will provide for the payment of a 15 per cent increase in disability pensions from the first of this year.
I have received a good number of telegrams and telephone calls about that matter and I want to tell the house what I told my boys in Kootenay West. I said: "As far as I am concerned, you can depend on me."
Then there are the amendments to the Criminal Code, if it is possible to deal with those before an adjournment. A number of people are concerned about that matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What about Bill
C-186?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think that will disappear this session. A number of people who have talked to me are very concerned about amendments to various sections of the Criminal Code. They are very much in favour of the general spirit and principle of the amendments to the Criminal Code but in a few cases amendments were suggested by rod and gun clubs, wildlife federations and so on. Suggestions have also been made to me in respect of the lotteries section of the Criminal Code. However, in each case these people emphasized their support for the general principle of the amendments to the code.
I believe we must provide time for the Liberal party to select a new leader before an election campaign if we are not to have complete chaos in this country. In my opinion, to run a leadership race and an election campaign at the same time would make a farce of the voters' right to assess the qualities of the new Liberal leader before the people of Canada go to the polls. As a result of telephone calls, telegrams, letters and conversations I have had with a number of people I find that this opinion is held by many Canadians. Not all the people know all the facts but I have had enough information from people I represent, from people in British Columbia and people in other provinces, to indicate that they support this point of view.
For instance, I have had telegrams and telephone calls from organizations such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation which are very concerned about international affairs. I have had telephone calls from ladies interested in
February 26, 1968

the Voice of Women. I have had telephone calls from sections of the New Democratic party who are of the opinion that the Leader of the Opposition should have the opportunity to outline in the house the foreign policy of his party prior to an election. These people are concerned about the war in Viet Nam. They are concerned about the policy his party would pursue in connection with NATO, NORAD and other international affairs. They believe that the Leader of the Opposition should have the opportunity to place on the record of the house the policy of his party in international afEairs.
I have had telephone calls from persons who are very concerned that the bill increasing benefits for the unemployed should pass as soon as possible. I think we are pretty well along with that legislation. I have had telegrams from veterans to the effect that the defeat of the government at this time will mean they will not receive the 15 per cent increase in pensions. Some of them mention that this would be disastrous to many veterans, widows and their children. I assume, naturally, that any government that was elected would restore the 15 per cent increase but these men would have to wait until possibly late this fall, if there were an election in the near future, before they would receive the increase. A great number of veterans are looking forward to receiving the increase on April 1 next, retroactive to January 1 of this year.
I have had conversations with consumer groups who are looking forward to the early passage of the bill aimed at reducing the price of drugs. They are very interested in this matter. I received a telegram from the city of Trail signed by 29 people, a number of them well known Conservatives, some members of the Social Credit party and some members of this party.


An hon. Member:: No Liberals?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did not see the names of any Liberals on the telegram-not that I would know them, anyway. The telegram urges members of parliament to get back to conducting the business of the nation as mature and responsible citizens. I have seen a telegram from Regina which reads as follows:
Disagree with Conservative and N.D.P. position on confidence motion. Is discrediting parliament. Monday night defeat was unfortunate mistake but should not force unwanted undesirable election
Motion Respecting House Vote through procedural technicalities. Be fair. Allow Liberals choose new leader then force election if considered desirable. We are N.D.P.
Clare V. Powell Barrett D. Halderman
In fairness I must say that I received a telegram from one provincial section of my riding urging me not to abstain from voting non-confidence in the Liberals, but when I get home they will understand the reason for my taking this position today. In fact they told me: "We know, anyway, that whatever you do it will be right, Bert."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must say that I have also received a good number of messages and telegrams from the rest of the riding to the contrary.


Mr. Fane:: Did you have a visit from Paul Martin, too?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, Mr. Martin is not in the
habit of visiting my office.


An hon. Member:: How about the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh)?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, the Secretary of State has not been to my office.


Miss LaMarsh:: Lately.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No undue influence at all has
been brought to bear on me. I have nothing to gain from taking this position. I am simply taking an objective point of view with respect to a serious situation that faces the Canadian people. I realize and respect the position taken by the Progressive Conservatives. I respect the opinion of my colleagues. They take their position as a result of firm convictions that the best thing to do is turn this government out immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have brought to the attention of the house some of the facts that have been drawn to my attention by various means of communication. I urge that these facts be given serious consideration. If we were to have an election at this time the Canadian people would be placed in the position where the new leader of the Liberal party would not have had the opportunity to announce his policy and program before the election. In addition, the new leader of the Progressive Conservative party would not have had an opportunity to place the program
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote of his party, particularly with respect to international affairs, on the record of this house. I have received telegrams and messages from Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal on this issue. I urge that when this debate is concluded the leader of the official opposition place his party's policy on the record of this house so that the Canadian people will have an opportunity to discuss it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, after assessing the situation from all angles and in a strictly non-partisan and statesmanlike manner, as a representative of the people not only of Kootenay West but of Canada and not as a delegate but as a person who has to use his own judgment as a result of assessing the facts, I intend to let my conscience guide me when the vote is taken.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, taking the floor this afternoon my first impulsion would be to reply to the injurious, unintelligent and unfair remarks made earlier by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) about the report of the Lau-rendeau-Dunton commission. I even think that it would be taxing the patience of the house to try to talk to deaf people who do not want to hear and to open the eyes of those who do not want to see the facts. I simply suggest that I am one of those who are shocked to see that the hon. member for York East and I might add, the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) insist on remaining in the Liberal party when they should sit with the independents to complete the spectrum of independentists of all the parties and also possibly give me the opportunity to bawl them out to my heart's content from morning till night.
Mr. Speaker, even if I am used to making my remarks in my mother tongue, this afternoon in order to answer the hon. member for York East in a more objective way and to show that, in my province, we are not narrow-minded, I shall make my remarks in English, in the hope that my English-speaking colleagues, who can do the same-and there is a good number of them who can-will have the opportunity to show the same broadmindedness by expressing their faith concerning bilingualism in Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who are inclined to believe that enough has been said in this debate. However, it might also be
[Mr. Herridge.l
appropriate at this time to present a coldblooded and independent appraisal of the situation. If I were a Liberal this afternoon I would be inclined to ask myself whether my face is red after the bungling of last Monday, the loose strategy and the demonstration of overconfidence which the Liberals have shown in thinking that members of this house will always vote with the government because none of them is anxious to vote for an election.
Perhaps I should also ask whether my face is red because I was absent from the house on Monday night, although I must say that I had a good reason, namely, that a minister of the crown was present in my riding on that day and we in that part of the country have a tradition of hospitality. Whenever a V.I.P. comes we try to be there to extend to him our warmest hospitality. Whenever a minister of the crown or a leader of any party in the house honours us by coming to my home town I believe it is my duty to greet him there in the name of my constituents. I do not have to apologize for not being here last Monday because I think my record of attendance can be compared with that of anyone in the house. Had I been in the house on that day I would have voted against the 5 per cent increase in the income tax for reasons which I will explain at some other time.
There is another explanation I should like to give. I notice that several times newspapermen have labelled me as Liberal-Independent or Independent Liberal. I would like to remind them that I ran as a straight Independent. They might be surprised to learn this because I support the Liberal government most of the time. The reason is that this is what my constituents have asked me to do. If the Conservatives were in power I would do the same, assuming of course that they would not blunder as the Liberals have.
I have not been sent here to oppose the government. My constituents realize that we are living in critical days. They feel that now is the time to co-operate. If they had been certain that the Liberals or the Conservatives would win in the last election they would have asked me to stand with the winning party, but since they know this government is a minority government they asked me to try to co-operate with those who have been elected. When unacceptable measures are brought in such as the 5 per cent increase in income tax, my constituents ask me to vote against them. In this case I had good reason to do so.
February 26, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	S993
I am not necessarily a member of the opposition. Let me rather say that I am a member of the co-operation party, and I think I am the only member of this party in this part of the house, even though that may seem like boasting.
I should now like to speak about what happened last Monday night. Some of our colleagues have demonstrated by legal arguments and citations that the vote last Monday was a vote of confidence. Others have tried to prove to us that it was not. Whenever there is a difference of opinion and arguments are presented by men as serious as those whom we have heard in the house, I say that I think the house is master of its own procedure and government supporters are well justified in asking that a vote be taken and a decision made regardless of whether or not the previous vote was one of confidence. I think that precedents are not sufficient to settle the case when there are so many differences of opinion. We should vote on this matter and see whether or not the majority of the house has confidence in the government. I think the Prime Minister is right in asking for the clearcut opinion of the house.
It is my personal belief that the vote last Monday night was a vote against the increase in the income tax. It was a vote in support of what I would call the forgotten man who does not care a hoot about an election now but is desperate about the rise in taxes. A certain diplomat referred to the forgotten man in this way:
The forgotten man (who) Is delving away in patient industry, supporting his family, paying his taxes, casting his votes, supporting the church and school, reading his newspaper and cheering for the politician of his admiration, but he is the only one for whom there is no provision in the great scramble and the big divide. Such is the forgotten man. He works, he votes, generally he prays-but he always pays-yes, above all he pays.
This is the man who needs to be protected under the circumstances. I think that the vote last Monday night was a vote against the increase in taxes. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said in a speech in 1932:
Taxes are paid in the sweat of every man who labours.. .Our workers may never see a tax bill, but they pay. They pay in deductions of wages, in increased costs of what they may buy, or in unemployment throughout the land.
We have reached the point where increases in taxes should be stopped. I think the salaried people of our country are overtaxed and they are not happy to see their legislators vote for an increase, especially in the income tax. Tax money should be found somewhere
Motion Respecting House Vote else, and I will mention later one or two solutions.
When situations of the kind we face here arise in the house there are always some people who talk about scandals, crises and dissent among the parties. This must not be overdone. We live in a democracy, and even if occasionally we may appear to behave childishly this may be democracy at its best. For example, it has been said by numerous members of the press that the Liberals have lost the confidence of the Canadian people and that they are a weak government. It may be true that they are a weak government. We knew that the day after the election which resulted in a minority government. If the Conservatives had been in office they would also have been a weak government because, as we know, a minority government would have made them weak. However, let us say that the Liberals are trying to do their best under the circumstances, and let us say they are well supported by an opposition that is constructive most of the time, even if occasionally they think about the next election too much. I think the Conservatives are doing a decent job under the circumstances. Even if the Liberals made an awful blunder and engaged in a childish bungling of strategy last week, we must realize that this could have happened to anyone else, for such is human nature.
It has also been said that the Conservatives resorted to trickery. I do not believe that. I think the Conservatives have been doing their job. I am one of those who think that the leader of the Conservative party made a very fine statement when he said: "I am a patient man and I can wait for the verdict of the people." When he let us understand that his party would not resort to filibustering I believe he increased his prestige in the eyes of the Canadian people.
Some members have been blamed by the press and by some of our colleagues for what is considered by some to be a change of attitude. I believe an intelligent human being is always entitled to think about his attitude and, in view of new information, change his mind. The French have a saying that only fools do not change their minds. I am not one of those, therefore, who wish to blame the Creditiste members for changing their minds. I believe that rushing into an election on an issue like the 5 per cent increase in taxes would have made their position very good, perhaps better than the position of the Liberals. I believe the Creditiste members have
6gg4	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote thought of the good of the Canadian people. They have assessed all of the circumstances and made up their minds. I do not believe they deserve the condemnation of some of my colleagues and the press.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I am reminded of the fact that the press printed the names of the members who were not present. I believe there were 98 of them. The press has been severe in its criticism of absent members but no mention was made of the reason some of them were absent. A good many of our colleagues were on official business. This should have been stated. Some were in their ridings taking care of the needs of their constituents.
There are a few members, of course, who are often absent from the house, but it is the business of the whips and the leaders of the parties to take care of them. I do not believe there should be a general condemnation of all the members who were not here on Monday night. The other day in this house the leader of the Ralliement de Creditistes said: "I cannot vote against the government because I do not trust the Conservatives any more than I trust the Liberals." Personally, I would put it another way. I trust the two major parties and their leaders equally but I am one of those who feel that rushing into an election now would not be good, even for the Conservatives. What is the use of rushing into an election? We should give the Liberals a chance to get organized and then we can ascertain if there is any chance of having a government with a substantial majority. This is not the time for an election. During the week end I consulted with my constituents, and they belong to all the different parties. They indicated that a party like the Liberal party is entitled to go through a convention and choose its new leader. This is a democratic process and is part of our democratic system.
The international sitution is also very complicated. This is one reason I would not like to be rushed into an election. There are many reasons which justify us in supporting the government. The economy of the country is in a critical situation, and we are not alone in this. Many countries in the world have sick economies. Our economy needs special care at this time. My constituents were also worried about the cost of an election and about the stagnation of business that occurs during an election. They were thinking also of the time this house would lose and of the many things with which we should occupy ourselves. I

DEBATES	February 26, 1968
believe that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) mentioned this fact a minute ago. I want to congratulate him. He is a good independent, and I am waiting for the day when he will come and sit with us. I am reminded of the remarks made by a midnineteenth century politician, Mr. Macaulay:
Timid and interested politicians think much more about the security of their seats (or their party) than about the security of the country.
My people are convinced also that if we have an election now the result will be a minority government. So what is the use of going through all that expense? Let us wait until the major parties are properly organized and then the independents and other parties will watch the big struggle. We will have a lot of fun. I pray that we are not charged amusement tax for that fun. We have a lot of work to do now so this is not the time for an election. I would remind the house of what Abraham Lincoln said, that you do not swap horses in midstream; you wait until the river is crossed.
I believe the first thing we should do is to amend the procedure of the house so that when there is a confidence vote members will have notice of it. They will know what they are voting for. This should have been done by the Conservatives or the Liberals long ago. We have just lived through a situation through which we should not have had to live. I have a suggestion for the Liberals. Instead of raising taxes on the little people, why not take a second and a third look to see if you cannot cut expenditures, to see if you cannot cut the defence budget by a few hundred million? This is the time to live within our means. This is not the time to spend, spend.
We should realize that taxes are high, as are interest rates. The banks are already charging 7.5 per cent and 9 per cent is being charged on some mortgages. I believe it is high time expenditures were cut before our people go bankrupt. I feel we should postpone an election until later this year. I am one of those who believe we should have an election this year but not at this time. This is a time for action, not for an election. If we called an election we would be acting like irresponsible politicians. Our reputation across this country is not too good. There is no point in closing our eyes to this fact. I believe it is high time we improved our reputation and acted as responsible politicians. If we do not there will
February 26, 1968

be more people writing as Charles Edison did in 1948:
Some people put themselves above politics saying, "Politics is dirty", or "I have no patience with politics." In the name of all that's American (Democratic) how can any good citizen feel superior to politics? We achieved our independence by politics. We freed the slaves by politics. We are taxed by politics. Our business flourishes or withers by politics.
If we have bad reputations as politicians, perhaps it is because we have indulged too much in the sport of childish quarrels. I want to repeat that the leader of the official opposition has acted in a way that will increase their prestige because he refused to let some of his members engage in a filibuster. I believe this was the right thing to do.
I want to say that I will vote for this motion. I do not do so because I believe this government is perfect. However, I do not think another government would be any closer to perfection, so what is the use of changing? As I said, I have consulted my people. I am convinced this is a time for action and not a time for an election. I repeat that we should, without delay, amend our procedure, and we should try to cut expenditures instead of increasing taxes. Then we can go into an election some time toward the end of this year. I hope that after that election all my present colleagues will return.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres?


Mr. Mongrain:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Is not the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres fully aware of the fact that the Conservative party never asked for elections at this time of the year, but for the resignation of the government which proved itself unfit to manage the nation's business? We never spoke of elections. There are certainly other possibilities, and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres will agree on that.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I would like to tell my good friend and colleague for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) that his question is as insidious as certain interventions of his on television the other day and that he is misrepresenting the problem.
It may be that no one said it clearly in the riding of Sainte-Marie, but in certain quarters people have said: It is time for you to go.
Motion Respecting House Vote For instance, one English politician was quoted as saying, "For goodness sake, go". What did that mean?
Mr. Speaker, we must not play on words. All those who can count to 130, 135, know full well that a 90- or 91-member party could not administer the country very long; I can hardly see a coalition government made up of the New Democrats and Ralliement des Cre-ditistes. As for the Independents, I can see neither of the three in that government. It would not be long before that government would be defeated. I am convinced that my friend from Sainte-Marie is far more intelligent than he lets on.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that he is as intelligent as I thought him to be.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate. I must say I am glad I did not have to speak on Friday afternoon. The leader of our party did such a tremendous job that I would have found it very difficult to follow him at that time. Perhaps I am exaggerating when I say it was one of the finest performances I have seen in the house because there was a very bad performance to contrast it with which perhaps made it look better than it really was. The whipping that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) gave the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on Friday had to be seen and heard to be believed. I suppose it is only to be expected that one's job is a little easier when one has a good case. Certainly the Prime Minister had a very tough job trying to put forward what can only be described, even by his friends, as a very bad case presented with his usual mixture of arrogance and evasion.
On coming into the house this afternoon I heard a story connected with the old familiar cry of trickery or that the government was beaten by a fluke. It goes something like this, Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition was unfair in his battle tactics; the Prime Minister knew he was going to have a battle but he did not realize that the Leader of the Opposition was going to use that most suitable of parliamentary weapons, the sword of truth. This was considered unfair tactics because the Prime Minister is a complete stranger to that weapon and therefore felt that he was going into battle unarmed.
I understand the Prime Minister thinks it is only fair that the decision should be based on the best two out of three. Rather than trying
Motion Respecting House Vote to settle the matter all by himself he is waiting until one of his champions in the leadership race takes over the battle. As I understand it this is going to be much delayed, because there seems to be a dearth of members on that side who have any familiarity with the weapon of truth. On occasion we in this house are accustomed to observing people who have a little difficulty in getting close to the truth. Some seem to And the idea repugnant and others just cannot find the idea.
There are times, Mr. Speaker, when some of us have to bend the truth a little. For example, the other day the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), when replying to a question from the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), proved that he sometimes has to bend the truth to remain a gentleman. I wish we could find such an honourable excuse for the Prime Minister.
I thought the most remarkable thing about the speech of the Prime Minister was the way he set out the case for the government by first stating what he said we had alleged our position to be. Since the easiest case to beat down is not the real position of your opponent but the position that you wish he would take, the Prime Minister began by misstating the position of the opposition. Reference to what the Prime Minister said, as found in Hansard, and to what the leader of our party said indicates that there is no basis for the Prime Minister's allegations.
Since the Prime Minister has misstated our position, Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer I ask myself why. When juries all over the world hear cases in court and listen to witnesses they soon find that one of the surest guides to which party is to be believed or to which piece of evidence is to be considered reliable is to determine who it is who uses the truth as much as possible. Whenever somebody makes a misstatement or a misquotation or distorts the facts, then automatically it is assumed that the truth is not going to help their case. In this particular situation the Prime Minister did not put forward the truth when talking about the position we had taken. Neither did he give us the whole truth when he quoted and referred to the authorities and to what the true position is. I think his argument that the vote was a snap vote, a trick and so on was very well dealt with by my leader.
I have been a member of this house for about ten years, and I think I can say that the course of business is pretty well set out.

February 26, 1968
Certainly I see nothing unusual in the manner in which the bill was brought on last week. The bill had been debated in the normal course of events. The government had announced when it would be taken up. The bill was debated on Thursday, February 15, but was not taken up on the Friday by agreement because the minister was going to be away. All members were aware that it would be taken up again on the Monday. Things followed their usual course on the Monday with resistance to the bill always present, stiffening all the time. Finally the formal vote was taken in the evening and the government was defeated.
I believe that the position the Prime Minister set out should be put on the record. I think I should illustrate exactly the sort of tactics used by the Prime Minister so we can examine just how much faith the Prime Minister has in his own arguments. I say this because I hope to show it is sheer presumption on the part of the Prime Minister to ask anybody to support the position of the government. As reported on page 6922 of Hansard for Friday last the Prime Minister said:
They claimed-
He was speaking of the opposition.
-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.
The situation, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. No one made any such allegation. No one with knowledge of parliamentary procedure would argue that those were the only two possibilities. I think this is the nub of the difficulty, and it is where I have trouble understanding the position of those who would support the government in their present course of conduct. The bill in question was taken up in the normal way. It has always been my understanding during my ten years here that a vote on an important money bill is automatically a vote of confidence. Bills which the government lays stress on because they are important to its program are always matters of confidence. From time to time minor bills which are not essential to the government's program are defeated, and such a defeat is not considered a matter of confidence. The importance of bills varies and sometimes it is difficult to know whether a bill is or is not a matter of confidence. Nevertheless, a reliable guide is to look at what has been done with respect to matters of confidence in the past.

February 26, 1968

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We all know that a bill that is important to the government becomes a matter of confidence. That the passing of such a bill implies confidence is understood by the government and opposition alike. That has always been understood in regard to bills such as the one that was defeated last Monday night. That defeat implied lack of confidence. The Prime Minister misstated the position of the government and misrepresented what happened, since he tried to establish an entirely new basis under which our parliament ought to operate.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) said that the country is not ready for an election and that no election ought to be called. The Prime Minister, to give the nub of his argument, said that the outcome of the vote will determine if there shall be an election. I submit that our constitution, as we understand it, says that on the defeat of a government the Governor General may call on someone other than the Prime Minister to form a government if the defeated Prime Minister asks him to do so. If the new government fails to pass the test of its first vote of confidence the Prime Minister may not have the right to call an election, but there is no doubt that he has that right after he has passed his first test. Only the Prime Minister is entitled to advise His Excellency that there shall be an election, or the Prime Minister can advise, and I think His Excellency is bound to follow such advice, that someone else should head that government which has been defeated, or the Prime Minister can recommend that someone else head a government.
There is no doubt that this government has to resign, but for the Prime Minister to suggest that the resignation of his government would mean an automatic election is to distort the truth and to hide the facts. He tried to mislead certain members of the house into a panic vote to support his government. He did not tell them squarely that failure to support his government would not necessarily lead to an election. As I say, the Prime Minister can resign and call an election, or he can resign and recommend to His Excellency that someone else, one of his cabinet ministers or someone he likes, head the government. On that recommendation His Excellency would appoint a Prime Minister who could form a government and ask this house for a vote of confidence. If he got it he could carry on.
Another solution might be for the Prime Minister to prorogue the session. But the
Motion Respecting House Vote Prime Minister has said: "No, we will have a vote of confidence; we will disregard the constitutional rights by which we have been governed and we will disregard what constitutes a vote of confidence. We will do the most violence that has been done to parliament in Canadian constitutional history, and all because I do not wish to resign." We are not being asked to consider this motion so as to avoid an election, as the Prime Minister says; we are doing this because the Prime Minister does not want to resign.
Many members have already demonstrated their concern about having an election. Having considered the grave step and heavy responsibility of fighting an election and having been told that the alternative to supporting the government is an election, some of them feel that they must go along with the government. But the alternative is simpler than that. The Prime Minister has already announced his retirement and his party is arranging for a leadership contest. It is not a case, therefore, of whether the Prime Minister remains in office with his administration but simply whether he goes a little earlier than he had originally anticipated. Looked at in that way the question becomes different.
The hon. member for York East says that he sees some ray of hope in the government's legislative program of the last three or four months and because he sees that ray of hope he thinks we ought not to fight an election. If the hon. member and some of his colleagues fear an election, as I suspect, they ought to remember that other alternatives remain open. The Prime Minister could resign a little earlier and one of his colleagues could take over and form a new administration. He could even start a new session almost at once, introduce his own taxation bill or a similar one and then prorogue. That solution is within the government's reach and it gives us an alternative to an election.
The Prime Minister argues that a vote of confidence is only a vote of confidence when the government says it is. He made the blanket assertion that the government decides when there is to be a vote of confidence. Actually he is saying that the government chooses what issues it deems to be issues of confidence. By asserting that an important money matter is not a matter of confidence he is saying in so many words that questions of confidence shall be chosen at the whim of the government, the consideration being whether the government can win the vote. That is what it amounts to and that is what he reduces it to.
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
By refusing to acknowledge its defeat on an important money bill the government makes it appear as if confidence has nothing to do with the importance of the matter being voted on. It asserts that a vote of confidence shall be taken only when the government considers it can win that vote. Also, the government can decide after the vote has been taken whether it was a vote of confidence.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is the ridiculous extent to which the Prime Minister is asking parliament to go. This is what the Prime Minister is asking his supporters to do to parliament in order to keep him at the reins for just a little longer. The question now is not simply whether we intend to vote confidence in the government or face an election. The present course, if followed, will make a mockery of parliament and responsible government. In effect we shall be saying to the government: You can do what you like when you like and the only test of confidence will be whenever you say that a matter is to be a test of confidence.
If hon. members suggest I am going too far, let them read the Prime Minister's words as they are reported on page 6922 of Hansard in the second paragraph of the right hand column:
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.
What he is saying is that it is not the nature of the bill which puts the issue of confidence into question. The Prime Minister tells us it is the defeat of the government which brings the matter of confidence into question. His suggestion that defeat on an important measures alone brings up the question of confidence is a simple answer to the question: What does the Prime Minister mean by a test which the government alone would apply? There is a method by which it should reach this decision. In the course of this debate a number of quotations have been put on record, some of them by the Prime Minister. I wish to illustrate the extent of the dishonesty, the deceit, which is being practised on this house by the Prime Minister in his desperate bid to hang on to office for another couple of weeks. As reported on page 6924 the Prime Minister quoted Dr. Eugene Forsey:
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.
No one on this side has ever suggested it was so. Farther on the right hon. gentleman quoted the following:
We shall certainly have to get rid of the notion that every defeat in the house means a fresh election.
At the risk of being repetitive but for the sake of emphasis I wish to sum up the situation in the house today as I see it. For years and years every important money measure has been understood to involve a question of confidence. One only had to look at the faces of the ministers opposite on Monday last to realize they knew the government had been defeated on a measure which brought the question of confidence into play. Other major measures are usually regarded as matters of confidence, though there are some which are not. This is the way in which parliament has worked, the way in which we have maintained responsible government.
These are not inconsequential matters. Not only parliament and our system of government depend on our maintaining this practice. The party system as we know it in this country has developed and is sustained because of this tradition. Every party, when campaigning, sets out the major planks in its platform. The ordinary voter has only these promises or intentions to consider when trying to distinguish between one party and another. When making up his mind whether a party should continue to be given a mandate or replaced, the question foremost in his mind is whether or not the objectives which were so stressed during the campaign have been carried out in legislation. I suggest it would be the ruin of the party system as we know it today if an issue upon which the confidence of the people had been won at the hustings were to be regarded later in parliament as one on which the question of confidence did not arise. How could such a system ever work? How could anyone think that the voters would ever tolerate it? Having made an issue the basis of their confidence, what would be their reaction to a government which said: We shall decide what is to be a matter of confidence; we shall sustain ourselves in office no matter what you may have thought when you voted us in and the test in parliament shall be on whatever basis we choose?
February 26, 1968

We are asked to put parliament in this ridiculous situation by a Prime Minister who is about to leave, whose time is limited, but who declines to do the honourable thing and depart a little earlier than he had intended. Apparently he has persuaded his followers to support him in this course of action. I hope that some of them will reconsider. The alternative is simple. The Prime Minister could appoint any one of a number of his cabinet members to be a caretaker prime minister.
I am enough of a politician to understand the reluctance to appoint a minister who is in the running for the party leadership. The Prime Minister might fear that with the reins of power once in that minister's hands he could not be dislodged, and perhaps it would not be the most advisable way for a new prime minister to start off with several cabinet ministers feeling they had been stabbed in the back. But there is nothing wrong with the Prime Minister asking the Governor General to appoint someone who has no ambitions to become prime minister but who would undertake the task in a neutral way for the time being. In fact, sir, the task would not have to be carried out very long. I submit that if the government would use some common sense, if the Prime Minister would be honest with his party and with the house and if the party would become responsible to parliament, with its members doing their duty as members of the house to maintain the house's traditions and the constitution, they would find this house very co-operative.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
A caretaker prime minister would in effect create a new administration, and there is no doubt about a new administration having the right to bring its legislation before us. This ridiculous motion that the house is now considering should be put away, and the new prime minister could bring in such legislation as he wanted. He could prorogue or recess and would be in a wonderful position to ask for supply. I submit that if hon. members opposite, and the Prime Minister especially, are at all honest in their arguments that this is no time for an election, if they really feel that in this troubled financial period there should be a government at the helm able to get the co-operation of parliament, able to put through those measures necessary to bring about stability and confidence in our currency, then the solution is very simple.
Motion Respecting House Vote
I have heard it suggested by some that Dr. Forsey says that once defeated a prime minister does not have the right to go to the Governor General and recommend someone else. Of course that argument is based on the contention that once defeated on a motion of confidence a prime minister does not have that right. That is the argument that is put forward. I say that anyone who is going to use that argument against me is simply saying that this motion must be defeated. If the government is defeated on a motion of confidence the matter is finished and the government must resign if that argument holds true. Actually, however, I do not believe that Dr. Forsey goes that far, and I do not believe there is anything in our constitutional practice to support that argument.
It has always been understood that the one thing a prime minister must have to claim to be prime minister is the backing of the majority of the members of parliament. He is appointed on the basis that he claims to have that backing. He becomes the official adviser on proof that he has won a vote of confidence. From that time on he is the official and only adviser to the Governor General, and if in the case of defeat in the house he is able to advise the Governor General that someone else can form an administration and get the backing of the house, then the Governor General is bound to give that other person a try.
The Prime Minister has suggested that the only alternative to an election is to call upon the Leader of the Opposition. Of course this is something that could be done as well. But I submit that the Governor General would only call upon the Leader of the Opposition at the request or suggestion of the Prime Minister and then the Governor General would ask whether or not his new choice as prime minister thought he could control the majority of votes in the house. All such appointments really are temporary until such time as confidence is voted.
It is nearly six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to repeat once more, and once more only, that the situation here is not as portrayed by the Prime Minister. It is not a case of resignation followed by an election, or appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.
I say that the Prime Minister can resign and ask the Governor General to appoint someone else in his own party to form a government. If he did that then a caretaker government such as I am suggesting would hold office until the Liberal convention is over. Or the Prime Minister could prorogue the session. In

Motion Respecting House Vote fact, he could do a combination of these two things. He could get a caretaker prime minister who could prorogue this session, start another one immediately or whenever he wished, and exactly the same tax bill could be reintroduced in the new session because that bill is only barred from consideration this session. The new administration would have a free hand and would have a much better chance of co-operation. I want to tell the house frankly there will be no co-operation with this government. If we reach a vote on this motion and the government wins, it will be the most hollow vote of confidence parliament has ever seen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: There will be no co-operation because any prime minister who would demand such unswerving loyalty of his backbenchers that they would betray their duty to this house to uphold responsible government in favour of making such a mockery of it in order that the Prime Minister shall not be embarrassed by leaving a little earlier than he intended is going so far and is delivering such an insult to this house and to the nation that I do not think anyone in the house would consider his action favourably. Hon. members should consider the aftermath if this motion carries. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, before supper I had outlined what I thought to be some of the considerations before us on the motion the government asks us to accept. Perhaps in the few minutes left at my disposal I should review those considerations, particularly those in respect of what we will be doing by accepting this motion.
It has been our custom in this house and in the British parliamentary system that all important money bills be considered as confidence motions. This has formed the real basis of control by parliament over the executive. This has been the custom, the usage and the

DEBATES	February 26, 1968
practice of the parliamentary system, and it has never been questioned in this house during the time I have been here, or during the time some of my colleagues have been here, which is much longer.
In the past all major matters, including money matters, have been accepted as matters of confidence, whether so designated or not. Had they not been, under present circumstances our present political party system would be impossible. Parties take their stand on this basis, which makes it possible for voters to decide whether candidates of various parties have performed their campaign promises, and gives them an opportunity to do something about it in the future, if they have not.
On the basis of what the Prime Minister has said, that the defeat last Monday night on this money bill did not bring on a question of confidence, we dare not overlook the significance of his attitude toward what we should do in the future. He did not say the money bill was a matter of confidence-and this has always been recognized-but he did say that the defeat of that bill did not involve any question of confidence. He suggests that the only time there shall be a question of confidence on which the government's life is at stake is when the government says so.
Under these circumstances we would be faced with a situation wherein important matters such as money bills would not be recognized ipso facto as confidence matters. If the importance of a matter is not the criterion as to whether a question of confidence is involved, and if the decision as to whether the government survives or falls relates only to a declaration on the part of the government then according to the Prime Minister, the only way for a government to make sure it will survive a confidence motion is to declare the motion as a confidence motion after it has survived the vote. I suggest the Prime Minister's words, his actions in presenting this motion, and the entire course of the government's conduct up to this tune have indicated exactly what I have suggested.
What is at stake here in this house is whether or not we shall have any realistic control over the executive. We do not need to think back far to remember the days of Hitler and the minor amendments he brought in to make sure the government had the power it needed, with the result that the Reichstag became powerless.
February 26, 1968

By accepting this motion we are setting a precedent. We are accepting the suggestion that the executive has complete control, that we shall not be able even to question that control unless the executive says so, and that the executive will say so only after it has survived a vote of confidence. I have a good many friends on the opposite side of the house who are honourable gentlemen. I hope they will point out the fallacy of my argument, if there is one. While I differ with many of those gentlemen opposite, I cannot believe that, understanding all the implications, they will support this position. The alternative is not an election now, but a decision as to whether the Prime Minister shall be asked to leave a little earlier than intended. I was asked by one of those hon. gentlemen whether we did not intend to allow the Prime Minister to leave with honour and dignity. In reply to the suggestion that by leaving a little sooner he must do so without honour and dignity, I can only ask how anyone, as the leader of a responsible government could leave with honour and dignity after having perpetrated this sort of thing on this house.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the honour of saying a few words about the present situation and especially on the motion before the house.
All members have had the opportunity to express their views on this motion. During my few remarks on this subject, I should like to explain the reasons for political and parliamentary tumbles which point to an economic tumble. Our economy is completely unbalanced and operating to the advantage of powerful interests, because it seems to be under their control. I should like to emphasize the uneasiness within our economy and quote statistics to show where it is heading.
Our economy is heading somewhere. Powerful people control our economy for their own benefit. They make a system of it, a means which satisfies their ambition but at the expense of the great majority of the people. We have no objection to people manipulating the economy to their satisfaction or pleasure because we want them to have some revenue, but on the other hand we do want the people to have their small share of our economy. If there is no way of implementing other reforms than the ones we have now, I feel that it is the responsibility of
27053-441J
Motion Respecting House Vote the government to take the necessary steps to direct our economy towards the people so that they will have the right to live, to walk, and fulfill themselves. The economy does not exist only for some individuals, but it must be directed for the benefit of the nation as a whole, for the benefit of the 20,610,000 Canadian citizens.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the vote of confidence the government is asking for today, some newspapers said that I had decided to abstain from voting while keeping the right to change my mind according to circumstances which change from day to day. I find myself constrained to motivate to the house and for the guidance of my constituents, my abstention from voting. I feel I must adapt myself to the present situation. If the situation is sensible, I will change my mind for the good of the people and if we changed our minds, as we did in the Ralliement Cre-ditiste, it is because the situation has changed, the situation appeared to us under a new aspect and has taken a new turn. In view of that situation, we adapted ourselves according to the facts, the possibilities, and we considered the practical aspect, the logical aspect. We work not only according to the party line but for the people as a whole, for the good of each individual and each Canadian.
It is for those reasons that we changed our position toward that motion.
First of all, I am opposed to any increase in taxes or personal income tax, and that prevented me from voting for the government on the bill asking for a surcharge of 5 per cent on the personal income tax.
Secondly, I am also against a general election being held at this time of year, because of the present situation of our national administration, which absolutely needs to be straightened out before an election is called.
For those two reasons, I shall abstain from voting, unless I am shown by new arguments that it would be in the interest of the people that I act otherwise on this question of confidence in the present government.
If I am against our tax system and any increase in personal income tax, it does not follow that I am against the Liberals in this respect, for I am against the Conservatives for the same reasons, our two old parties having the same positions and the one being as responsible as the other for our forms of taxation, which are truly detrimental to the national economic balance, truly detrimental
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote to the protection of the citizens of this nation of Canada.
That is what I must explain and demonstrate as clearly as possible, not so much in order to blame anybody, but so as to enlighten the hon. members with regard to an economic situation throughout the country which we cannot tolerate any longer and which we must change before it leads us to final disaster.
This situation, therefore, is due to both the Liberals and the Conservatives who have taken turns managing the country for the last hundred years, ever since confederation. A change from one to the other of the two old parties in power does not in itself imply a change in the taxation system. That is why, in the present circumstances, I prefer to see the Liberals continue to administer the country and seek to convince them that they should bring about the necessary changes not in the men in power, but in their attitude towards power. The men should not be changed, but they should be led to recognize their true responsibilities as representatives of the people.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
What is a member of parliament? Why are we here?
For our 20,610,000 citizens, or for the big banks and companies in Canada with their chairmen and directors who are millionaires or multimillionaires? Are we the representatives of the people or the representatives of companies?
Why then so many banks and companies of all kinds make so much profits on an annual production of $62 billion in 1967, while so many persons and families are short of the necessities?
Why does Canada always show deficits each year, even in 1967, when eight banks increased their total assets over $3,200 million? When the companies, in addition to their profits of $5J billion of profits as filed and taxed, are still making more than $15 billion of profits concealed, disguised, accounted for, untaxed and recapitalized in the national economy, while more than 60 per cent of the people are living from day to day, without any comfort or a decent competency and are unable to enjoy the general prosperity of Canada? Why does this go on under our legislative and administrative authority? Can the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) answer my question? Can the right hon.
[Mr. Latulippe.l

Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) tell me why?
On the other hand when it is considered necessary to increase the guaranteed annual income of our old people, $280 million are taken out of the already far too limited purchasing power of the other taxpayers. Why not take them from the $15 billion in recapitalized profits of the large companies? Why drain by 1 per cent, by 5 per cent, through personal income tax increases, the consumption of living and suffering individuals, when anonymous and irresponsible companies can, under our authority and with our authorization, make recapitalized profits of over $15 billion in 1967, even after having paid taxes on declared profits of $5| billion?
I put the following question to the honourable representatives of the whole population of Canada: whose ministers and whose members are we here in this the highest parliamentary institution of Canada?
Do you believe I am talking through my hat, that I am inventing estimated figures, that I dreamed this last night? Look for the information. Here is a list of figures that any member can have from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, figures you all know or, at least, should know, as representatives of all Canadian citizens.
To show you that I am not concerned with the Liberals more than the Conservatives, I shall give you statistics for the last five years of the Conservative administration, and the last five years of the Liberal administration. For ten years our government has accumulated deficits when 60 per cent of our people lack the necessities of life. On the other hand, let us consider how companies have administered their businesses, that is our business and that of their shareholders, chairmen and directors, always with our permission, our co-operation, our more or less conscious or knowledgeable complicity.
Mr. Speaker, I now quote the following statistics:
In 1957, companies declared $3,056 million of taxable income as compared to $7,335 million untaxed. In 1958, under the Conservative administration-declared and taxed profits reached $3,075 million while untaxed profits amounted to $6,975 million. In 1959, taxed profits reach the sum of $3,504 million, and untaxed profits were $6,894 million. Still under the Conservative administration, in 1960, declared and taxed profits amounted to $3,338 million and untaxed profits to $6,692
February 26, 1968	COMMONS
million. Under the Conservative administration, in 1961, there were $3,427 million of declared profits as compared to $6,635 million of undeclared profits. In 1962, there were $3,819 million of declared profits and $6,960 million of undeclared profits. Under the Liberal administration in 1963, declared and taxed profits reached $4,188 million, and undeclared and untaxed capitalization profits reached $7,591 million. In 1964, declared and taxed profits amounted to $4,819 million and undeclared and untaxed profits reached $9,103 million. In 1965, there were $5,199 million of declared and taxed profits as compared to $10,651 million of undeclared and untaxed profits. In 1966, declared and taxed profits reached the sum of $5,187 million and undeclared and untaxed profits $12,214 million. In 1967, declared and taxed profits were about $5,500, million as compared to $15 billion of undeclared and untaxed capitalization.
If we add up the whole thing we arrive at a total, for the past ten years, of $45,112 million of declared and taxed profits and $96,050 million of undeclared and untaxed capitalized profits.
This is, Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make. There have always been twice as many hidden as declared profits, always twice as many untaxed as taxed profits, twice as many capitalized profits as taxed profits, twice as many centralized profits as distributed profits. Since 1957, companies have accumulated $96 billion of untaxed profits capitalized on the production realized by all the people, which represents nearly $5,000 per citizen and $25,000 per family of five, which is considered as the average family in Canada.
Because our governments did not tax proportionally the large incomes, they had to borrow from them and tax those with small incomes to pay interests to those who have large incomes. Those are the results of an unfair tax exemption.
That is what we must see, knew, consider and correct within the shortest possible time, even within the framework of the present constitution. That is the first administrative and legislative priority which we must tackle immediately if we really believe that we are the worthy representatives of the Canadian people who gave us their confidence and who elected us so that we may render them justice in the Canadian parliament.
In 1934, Mr. Speaker, Canada was going through a period of economic crisis which was felt all over the world, following the crash of the stock exchange and the stocks
DEBATES	7003
Motion Respecting House Vote of the companies in New York and in the whole world.
Having made a thorough study of our Canadian economic system, with the help of Canadian, American and European economic experts, our government at the time founded the Bank of Canada. Ten years later, in 1944, the Canadian government, on the basis of experience acquired through the first ten years of existence of the Bank of Canada, revised the act governing the Bank of Canada in its relations with the chartered banks of the country. In 1954, the government made another revision. It made a few administrative reforms and let the system go along as best it could for another decade. In 1964, a royal commission on banking and finance presented the voluminous Porter report after a long and thorough study conducted with the help of renowned Canadian and foreign economic and financial advisers. It was only in 1967, three years later, that our government at long last introduced a new act on the Bank of Canada and our eight chartered banks with some
6,000	branch offices across Canada and in foreign countries.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In addition, in 1967, our government received from the Carter commission another notorious report on our entire taxation system. This was a very thorough study of about 2,600 pages, which cost the taxpayers approximately $3,600,000.
During 1963-64, in order to stress the importance of good management and good advisers at the top level of our economy, the government decided to set up the Economic Council of Canada which is constantly ready to help the Canadian government either by making suggestions, undertaking research on specified aspects of our economic picture, releasing technical information which can be useful to the management of large Canadian financial, industrial and commercial institutions or directing the Canadian economy to meet the needs of the Canadian consumers.
In spite of all that, of all those precautions, of numerous royal, decennial or annual, daily or permanent inquiries, in spite of those numerous and very well paid advisers, ably assisted by an army of researchers, technicians, technocrats, and secretaries, our Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) keeps telling us that Canada is experiencing an incredible financial crisis, that our national economic equilibrium is very poor that we are faced with inflation and that the people must by all
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote means tighten their belts and stop living beyond their means and even stop working, because our earning power is superior to our production capacity, which causes inflation.
In order to force the people to spend less, they must be taxed more and especially at the source, before they even receive the salary they have earned legitimately by their regular work, in the regular production of material, intellectual or spiritual goods and services produced by all the economic activities of the whole population, for the whole population, that is, for our 20,610,000 Canadian citizens.
These facts, Mr. Speaker, have been checked and can be checked by each one of us, for ourselves first of all, for our own families and also for each one of our voters: employers, employees and dependents.
Although you may find this picture black and discouraging, you will undoubtedly recognize that it depicts the present sad reality.
Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not the time nor the place to elaborate a whole course in political economy, but these few remarks show that our Canadian banks and large companies are very prosperous, while more than 60 per cent of our people cannot enjoy our production, and lack the necessary purchasing power to enjoy the decent living Canadian citizens should afford.
Now, let us see the forecasts for 1968. This is what the president of the Montreal stock exchange tells us: "The national production will reach $68 billion, consumption $40 billion and capitalization $28 billion in 1968". This statement was made by Mr. Neapole, president of the stock exchange and former director of the Royal Bank of Canada. Forty per cent for capital, on 100 per cent production.
If the hon. Minister of Finance has yet to learn where to go for taxes, under his present taxation system, we tell him once and for all that we shall continue to use all available means to prevent him from taxing the gaining power or the purchasing power of workers, farmers, wage earners and other individual in Canada.
The Bank of Canada, the eight chartered banks, the 800 most important companies listed on the stock market, these are important institutions in our Canadian economy; but what is still more important in Canada, is the people, and those organizations are there only to give administrative services.

They are only instruments, means of production and administration. We must not therefore sacrifice to them the best of our production.
So, Mr. Speaker, if one should wonder where I got this information, let him consult the brochure entitled Monthly Review, in which Mr. Neapole quoted the facts I have just mentioned. Capital, like work, is only a means of production, and production itself must be regulated by consumption. Why sacrifice so large a part of production to capital, even before having met the basic needs of consumption?
Capital should be taxed at least on the same basis as work is taxed. Corporations should be taxed on the same basis as individuals. That is the general conclusion of the report of the Carter royal commission on taxation. Why not take it into consideration from here on? Why postpone to a later date the fundamental conclusions of those experts on our modes of taxation?
We empower banks to create $3,200 million in money required for production; we empower companies to set up a capitalization of $15 billion required for production, but for goodness sake, let us not go so far as exempting them from taxes, as allowing them to recapitalize $28 million out of a yearly output of $68 billion, that is, more than 40 per cent, when in 1944, only 10 per cent was set aside for capitalization, or $1,200 million out of a $12 billion production.
In 1968, we shall earmark 40 per cent for capitalization and only 60 per cent for consumption.
Therefore, a statement on our national economy brings out its most obvious deficiencies. Since the end of the last war mostly, the amount of capital sought from banks and companies has increased to such an extent that it was necessary to sacrifice the happiness and welfare of the Canadian people who contribute to the prosperity of our banks and companies, under the direction of our governments elected by the people.
Mr. Speaker, the banks create money, the companies create capital and the governments tax the individuals to allow for even more profits and prosperity for those banks and companies which have no life, which do not exist in reality, which are only tools of production and administration of material, intellectual and spiritual goods and services for the benefit of the 20,610,000 citizens who make up our nation in 1968.
February 26, 1068

In 1967, that is during the year just ended, the total assets of banks increased by $3,200 million, the capital of companies after taxes increased by over $15 billion and the governments keep on taxing the personal income as well as already insufficient purchasing power.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Banks, companies, governments themselves, in short all institutions or corporations are merely instruments of production or administration at the service of the people. Now, the people are sacrificed to the benefit of banks, companies, governments and big corporations. Is that clear enough?
I will even go further, Mr. Speaker. Those are the facts, the situation. That is the position of our government-the first institution of Canada-the one responsible for our monetary, economic and political system.
A government, with 265 members, elected by the people, by the 20 million Canadian citizens who all have the right to live according to our productivity. So we, in this parliament, are responsible for the adjustment which has to be brought about in our economy.
To state the facts does not mean to accuse, to blame or even to judge the government. But facts are self-explanatory and help us to understand the causes of a parliamentary crisis which still seems to be quite superficial and incidental, but which is an indication of the virulent basic weakness at the core of our administration, our government legislation here in Canadian parliament.
Results for 1967: before the people short of the necessities of life or normal comfort, our banks are increasing their assets by $3,200 million, our companies are collecting capital of over $15 billion and the government wants to reduce the purchasing power of the individuals to increase still more the profits and capital of banks and big business.
With the co-operation, the protection and the more or less conscious connivance of the ministers and members elected by the people, for the people, our banks and companies are prospering, they increase their capital, they get richer by the billions yearly, while governments incur deficits, get into debt, compromise, tax the little man in order to pay a higher and higher interest on borrowed capital, on big capital formed, to start with, through unjust tax exemptions.
Motion Respecting House Vote
Things being as clear to me as they are, it is not a question of finding out where the disease is, it is a matter of curing it at its roots. First, we must increase the purchasing power of the people where it is lacking. There is an abundant production, but it is not being distributed according to the needs of the people, precisely because the people lack purchasing power.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I interrupt the hon. member at this stage to ask him if he is convinced that what he says is related to the motion under study.


Henry P. Latulippe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think I am doing my best to demonstrate the bad effects of the present system and where it is leading us. That is what has brought about the present economic crisis and the government defeat. The present system is the cause of this crisis, and I was trying to describe the situation and the prevailing uneasiness. Before I resume my seat, I have an amendment to move to the government motion.
It is obvious that we are not merely stating the facts, pointing out the trouble and blaming the government, but that we suggest the remedy, in other words an immediate, efficient, practical and logical solution. Purchasing power must exist in different well known sectors, but it must be provided by taking the money from those who have it and not from those who have not. We must take some purchasing power away from those who have too much and give it to those who do not have enough. It is that simple. That is the solution.
The purchasing power of consumers is even more important than the capital necessary for production. What is the use of production capital if there are no consumers? The whole production would remain on the shelf; there would be no way to pay interest on capital nor to reimburse that capital, and the whole people would have worked without being able to enjoy the goods they need.
Therefore if here, in the Canadian parliament, we want to see our economy run smoothly and profitably once more, all we need to do is to promote a greater purchasing power where it is needed by taking money where there is too much. That is the only way in which we will correct the unemployment situation, eliminate inflation, and reestablish a balance in the economy between production, consumption and capitalization, between individuals, families and companies,
7006	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote between employers, employees and dependents, between capital, work and the vital rights of those without work or capital.
All that can be done here, by ourselves, within the present constitution, by the present ministers and members of parliament, without an election, without new departments, without new institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I heard Conservative members raise questions and protests of all kinds, but they did not bring any solution. That is why we shall not vote for this motion since we do not agree with the Conservative reasoning in this matter. Should the Conservatives assume again the reins of government, they would come back with the same tools, the same arguments, the same means, and that would lead to the same results: failure, the present national lack of balance and the tumbles we saw recently.
Before concluding I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise):
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word "carried", the words "on division" between commas.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I will read the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac. Perhaps hon. members might like to argue the procedural aspects of the proposal. The amendment is as follows:

That the motion he amended by adding immediately after the word "carried", the words "on division" between commas.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member who proposed the amendment whether he has copies in English?


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have none in English; some would have to be printed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I could read the amendment in French again. If hon. members listen to the interpretation in English this might facilitate their forming an opinion on it.

That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word "carried", the words "on division" between commas.
[Mr. Latulippe.l
DEBATES	February 26, 1968


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with respect to the legitimacy of the motion, what the amendment is suggesting is that the right of the house to be polled be done away with. We have had sufficient attempts in the last week to do away with the rights of the House of Commons. This amendment, couched as it is, would deprive the members of this house of the right to be polled and in my submissions is completely out of order.


Michael Starr: If I heard the amendment correctly, Mr. Speaker, the word "approved" was in the motion. However, when I look at the motion itself the word "approved" does not appear at all.


Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, if the whole motion were read, it might clear up the situation. In the French motion, we have the word "approuve", and our amendment derives from the French copy.
Once amended, the motion would read as follows:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19 in connection with third reading of Bill C-193, which had been carried, on division, in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
That might clear up the matter for the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) and other hon. members because in the French version, we have the word "approuve".


William Heward Grafftey: It means that you are embarrassed.


Michael Starr: In view of the confusion about this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I think in order to judge the amendment properly we should have copies in English.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, whether or not we get copies in English, I wonder whether Your Honour would take a look at the amendment as it is before you, in French. As I understand it the purpose of the amendment is to write the words "on division" into that part of the motion that refers to Bill No. C-193 having been carried at all previous stages.


Raymond Langlois: On division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is precisely because the words "on division" have different meanings
February 26, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	7007
Motion Respecting House Vote
that it seems to me the amendment introduces Mr. Lalulippe: Mr. Speaker, I do not know confusion, and consequently lack of sense, whether you have completely rejected the Therefore it is hardly appropriate-	amendment-


Michael Starr: Don't say that about them; they are bedfellows with the Liberals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -in the motion.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
A reference is made to "all previous stages". On second reading the bill carried with a recorded vote. When we use the phrase "on division" we mean, usually, that the vote is not to be recorded. Some clauses in committee were carried with a standing vote; some were carried on division. I think one can challenge the correctness of the words, and since including them would make nonsense of the motion, they should not be accepted.


Mr. Nasserden:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The translation of the French version that we have makes reference to the word "approved" instead of to a phrase such as "carried in all previous stages". There is a difference. Either the French or the English version is wrong. In any event the motion seems to differ as between one language and the other.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the house can cast reflection on any vote that has previously been taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac intended to cast a reflection on the previous vote. His purpose is quite clear to me. He wanted the motion to read: "in all of its stages on division".
The point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is also clear to me, that the amendment, if carried, would make the motion difficult to understand. I might point out that it would also be contrary to the facts, since the bill was carried on first reading by unanimous agreement of the house, or without division.
In view of this, and since there is not sufficient clarity in the words of the motion proposed by the hon. member, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.


Henry P. Latulippe: May I give a few
explanations?


William Heward Grafftey: It was not really serious.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind the hon. member that I asked hon. members to give their opinion as to whether the amendment was in order or not. I ruled that it was not in order and I do not believe it is possible to proceed with the discussion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in your ruling on the amendment and I was interested in the speech which was given to the house. If the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latu-lippe) thinks the country is in such bad shape, why will he vote confidence in this government?
No doubt Canada today is passing through a severe financial crisis, which has been brought on by this government. What happened last Monday? Perhaps already that is dim in the minds of some. I was not here, being one of the 24 members of the transport committee that was in the maritimes. Some members were in the maritimes to help their constituents present briefs to the committee. All the same, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) complains that not enough members were in the house; that is why he feels that the vote on Monday night was not a vote of confidence.
By reading Hansard, anyone can ascertain what happened. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) called for the vote. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) was Acting Prime Minister. He was in the house, directing the affairs of the country to the best of his ability. One can see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) rising to his feet to urge all members to vote. That was the type of leadership we had on what will commonly be called blue Monday-blue Monday for the people of Canada, for democracy, and for the Liberal party. It is strange that a party which has adopted red as its colour should succumb on a blue Monday.
On a second reading the government won with a slim majority of nine votes. On Monday afternoon one clause of the bill carried with the slim majority of three votes. Surely the government had ample notice of opposition. Surely enough votes were taken to warn the government. It cannot now say that Monday night's vote is not to count as a vote of confidence.
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
After the crucial vote on Monday night the government was asked to resign, but they said they wanted to continue on and do business. A motion to adjourn moved by the hon. member for Kamloops carried, 79 to 78. Again the government was defeated. The house had agreed on that Monday night that the government should resign. Yet on Tuesday the Prime Minister came back from a Jamaican trip, no doubt with some choice words to say to his cabinet colleagues, and he was willing to carry on. What he said to his cabinet does not matter; the point is this: Can the government carry on illegally? Has not the Prime Minister a moral obligation to govern this country according to the wishes of its elected representatives? The elected representatives said that the government ought to resign.
You cannot have a replay in important votes. Politics is not hockey. If the recent hockey match between Finland and Canada were replayed I expect that Canada would collect the silver medal, instead of the bronze medal that it did collect. The Prime Minister will come out of this series, and retire from public life with a tarnished brass medal. He has shown poor sportsmanship and he has not accepted his moral obligation of governing properly, the moral obligation he assumed when he donned the mantle of Prime Minister of this country.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce went around western Canada saying that the cabinet is divided and the country is split. He added that we are in a financial crisis, and is reported to have said "I am not going to enter this leadership race." He said he was getting out of it. But he was the Acting Prime Minister on Monday and he allowed his colleagues to go down to defeat deliberately, because he had no confidence in them himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have expressed myself on that matter a number of times and on another occasion I shall cite more fully exactly what he is reported to have said. His remarks are tantamount to saying that he had no confidence in his fellow cabinet ministers, and had no intention to run for leader.
The very essence of democracy is that there shall be no taxation without representation. Yet what does this government do? It does the opposite. Though defeated, it says to all of us that we shall pay illegal taxes. Though the 5 per cent surtax is illegal, we are to

continue paying it, and the Minister of Finance has absolutely no conscience about the matter. He says that the tax is not to be returned to the people. The other day I listened to him making an incredibly poor defence of his position. What did he say? He whined. He took issue with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) for making a political speech. What a terrible thing that was to do at a time of crisis.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
He wanted to take credit for all the good things in Canada but argued that we should not blame the Liberal government for any of the bad things, because the whole world was in bad shape. He told us that Canada today was experiencing a boom. What kind of boom are we in? We find producers getting less for what they grow while prices to the consumer are rising by leaps and bounds. Interest rates are going up. Unemployment is going up. Taxes are going up. Yes, everything is booming now. But the Minister of Finance, in a weak effort to defend the government's position, tells us that it is not his fault; that the whole world is in a bad situation. Mr. Speaker, the economic council pointed out clearly some time ago that even though it was not burdened with the Viet Nam war Canada was in a far worse position financially than the United States. During the last few months we have witnessed a serious run on the dollar, together with soaring interest rates, while on the other hand we have been witnessing tight money and unemployment. It is certainly remarkable to find all these things happening at the same time, and one wonders why.
It is not surprising that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not stand up that night to defend his colleagues, since he has so little confidence in them. How could he defend them? The hon. gentleman laughed at the extract from the Canada Year Book and the comments made in it. The passage referred to in that year book has appeared in the same way for the last 20 years. But there will be a change, now. That part will be changed, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot deny it; he knows this is the first thing he will have to do before the next Canada Year Book is printed.
What did he say about his colleagues? He said the government was split between men of conscience and those who wished to cling to office at all costs. The minister deplored the absence of a balanced budget. Referring to the prime ministership he said he could not
February 26, 1968

imagine anyone wanting to accept the chairmanship of a board which was so divided. So why blame the opposition for defeating the government? The Acting Prime Minister was the responsible minister in the House of Commons that Monday night. This is his opinion, according to Mr. Charles Lynch on January 13:
Regarding the prime ministership, he cannot imagine anyone "accepting the chairmanship of a board that was so divided."
Whose fault is it that the government was defeated on blue Monday? It was the fault of no one. But the man in charge must shoulder the responsibility. According to the Windsor Star of January 13, Mr. Winters said he hoped the next Liberal leader will adopt a sound policy of fiscal integrity. What about the present Liberal leader? Can any member of the House of Commons wonder why we fought to defeat this government? We, too, share the feeling that the present government is not following a sound policy of fiscal integrity. We agree with the Acting Prime Minister.
The hon. gentleman went on to say, according to the same article:
I regret we have never been able to balance the budget. We must get back to the principle of fiscal integrity.
We have not been there for a while, he suggests, but we must get back to it. Can anyone blame the opposition for attempting to defeat the government, when the man in charge aided and abetted hon. members on this side of the house to vote against it on blue Monday? Of course, the hon. gentleman does not speak very highly of the Minister of Finance-and we cannot blame him for that, either. This article goes on:
Mr. Winters said he is confident the federal budget could have been balanced and had he been minister of finance, that would have been his primary goal.
There can be no doubt about it; the hon. gentleman did not have confidence in the Minister of Finance. He found the cabinet divided and he did not want to be chairman of that board. There was only one way out. He sought to save the nation by putting the government out, too; and one cannot hold that against him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What position have we reached, now? I have a clipping here from
Motion Respecting House Vote the Toronto Telegram of February 21, which says, among other things:
The government is now badly split between men of conscience and those who would cling to office by any possible means or device.
We know that the man in charge on Monday, the Acting Prime Minister on that day, is a man of conscience. He does not intend to cling to office. He tells us he intends to resign at the end of March. He may even do so before then.


An hon. Member:: How is he going to vote?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We shall have to wait and see whether the day ever comes when he is given an opportunity to vote. We go on to wonder why he and the opposition got together on that blue Monday. This is how the Edmonton Journal summed up the situation on February 20:
The Liberals have been defeated in the Commons in a vote that must, by any uncontrived definition, constitute a vote of confidence: they must, if conscience and precedent are to guide, resign as the government. This being done there is little doubt that, after politics runs its course and the constitution put to yet another test, the issue will be placed before the people to decide.
This of course is exactly what we want. There is no better guide to democracy than the people themselves. That is the whole essence of the principle for which men have fought and died. It is the whole essence of the nature of democracy as distinct from communism; it is what they are fighting for in Viet Nam. We in Canada should certainly not be ashamed to exercise democracy to the fullest extent.
I call attention to what the Auditor General had to say in his report, not too long ago. Here is a clipping from the Calgary Herald of February 20, an article written by Bruce Phillips, which reads in part:
An unnamed auto firm, says Henderson In his annual report to Parliament, may owe the government as much as $30,000,000 in back customs and taxes.
They let the auto manufacturers off with $30 million, but they have already collected $13 million of illegal taxes from the Canadian people. Are we supposed to vote confidence in a government which allows this to happen when according to the Auditor General, the auditor of the board of directors which the Acting Prime Minister would not wish to join, an unnamed auto firm has been permitted to owe the government as much as $30 million in customs and taxes.
7010	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote [DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
How can we conscientiously do our duty here in this house by allowing them to get away with that, by allowing them to collect $13 million in taxation from the little man in the street before the house passed the tax bill? Now they say they are going to continue to collect the surtax. They say, "We are not going to give it back to you people out in the street. You cannot sue us all at once. We defy the citizens of Canada to sue us all at once. We think we can pressure the opposition to allow us to get the same tax measure through. We let the auto manufacturers get away with $30 million, but we can take $13 million from you because we have the right to take it from you."
What kind of bureaucratic slaves are they making of the Canadian people? If one reads further in the report of the Auditor General he can grasp the full meaning of the kind of budgeting that has been going on. Yet we are supposed to vote confidence in the Minister of Finance. We have watched him bring down budget after budget, and he has been out of step a full six months. He has been most erratic in applying the brakes and feeding the gas in respect to the Canadian economy. The detail of his budgetary work has been tremendously careless.
This is what Mr. Lynch writes about the Auditor General's report in the Calgary Herald of January 20:
It's hard lor a public servant to raise a holler, but you can almost hear Auditor General Max Henderson straining his lungs and screaming in his latest report, tabled in the House of Commons Monday.
He is shrieking at anybody who will listen-be it the government, the members of parliament, the taxpayers, the nation's youth, anybody.
What he's saying is that there's a mess in the nation's biggest business, the federal government. And nobody's doing anything about it. He implies that if there were a similar mess in a private corporation, the stockholders would rise up in revolt against a sloppy management.
That is how Mr. Lynch paraphrases Mr. Henderson's report. He goes on to say that one of the biggest complaints is that the whole matter has not been referred to the public accounts committee, and points out that that committee has not met since last April.


David Lewis: They would not call it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone says they won't call it. How can we conscientiously do our duty for the citizens of Canada when we

DEBATES	February 26, 1968
see the mess that is pointed out by the Auditor General, who does the books for the board of directors over there? Are we to sit here and not vote against them, not do everything in our power to throw them out? Surely as conscientious legislators we must be prepared to throw them out at the very earliest opportunity.
In this democracy of ours are governments to be beyond defeat? Are votes to be taken as a way of keeping a roll call on members of parliament, and nothing else? That is what will happen if this motion is allowed to pass. Are we to have the spectacle of a government defeated in parliament on a major policy matter, its own budgetary resolution, being allowed to cling desperately to power? Surely the country will rise up and demand the resignation of members of the government? Surely if the Minister of Trade and Commerce was conscientious in the press conference when he stated those things about his colleagues, he too would rise up and vote against them at the earliest opportunity?
There is an interesting item in tonight's Ottawa Citizen, headed "$400 Million Loan Sought by Canada." It is a report emanating from Paris, saying that Canada has asked for a $400 million loan from the International Monetary Fund. It quotes the report from a Paris newspaper and adds:
In Washington a spokesman for the fund declined comment on today's report.
Whether this be a loan that Canada is seeking, or a return of funds that it has placed at the disposal of the I.M.F. does not really matter. The fact is that this government has been refused money by the legislature. The representatives of the people have refused it money. Therefore it has no right to raise money in any other way until it goes to the Governor General, the Prime Minister resigns, and someone else is appointed. I would suggest that the conscientious minister over there, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, take charge until the Liberal leadership convention is held, because he is not a candidate for the leadership. He cannot get along with the brand of fiscal integrity that the Minister of Finance has been displaying, and I cannot blame him for that.
If this debate has done nothing else, it should at least have highlighted the frantic desire of the government to hold on to power. It should also have highlighted the terrible financial mess in which Canada finds itself today. As reported, the government today is seeking to borrow $400 million. Of course it
February 26, 1968

will try to place the blame for this on the fact that the government was defeated on its 5 per cent surtax proposal. But let members of the government blame whomever they like: They have spent the money foolishly. It is the duty of the legislators to tighten the purse strings.
It is interesting to note what a recent convert to the Liberal party had to say in this regard. In 1963 the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) had very strong views on the right of parliament to control the purse strings. As recorded in Hansard of July 15, 1963, at page 2189, the hon. member, in those sanctimonious tones which he is quite capable of using, said:
-in other words if the right to control the purse strings were taken away from members of this house, we would have reached a stage where a most important part of the rights of those elected to parliament would have been removed.
I wonder why he does not speak in this debate-because parliament has taken away the right of taxation from the government. Now the government says that the vote on Monday night last does not count. Members of the government say: We are going to erase that blue Monday, right off the calendar, and we are going to do it all over again. In other words the government has no respect for parliament. The board of directors has no respect for its shareholders. The executive has no respect for the people of Canada, when they speak as members of this house. Of course when speaking of the hon. member for Medicine Hat I must point out that at that time he was a Social Crediter. Since that time he thought he had better get on the bandwagon, and he jumped from the fat into the fire.
Speaking on the same subject, on July 23, 1963, as recorded at page 2538 of Hansard the hon. member for Medicine Hat said:
-why in the name of common sense cannot the Minister of Finance and the federal treasury go directly to the Bank of Canada, which is a publicly owned institution, and get the money there in the first place?
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is about what they are doing today when they are asking for this $400 million loan from the I.M.F. Maybe the hon. member for Medicine Hat is happy on the one hand with that, while defying the principle and power of parliament on the other.
The Canadian people will now have to be taxed to pay off this loan from the I.M.F. raised by this government. What is the position of the Creditiste group, who have made a great deal with this spending government? They are going to have to approve of the
Motion Respecting House Vote taxation to pay the interest on this I.M.F. loan, because they are going to vote confidence in the government. The Creditistes will have to say to their people in Quebec: You have got to pay the taxes the government is asking; you are going to have to pay the interest on this loan from the I.M.F. Surely their constituents will not be particularly happy about that. If they are the same as my constituents, they cannot help but feel that they are already taxed enough, particularly with a government that has been spending so freely, that has an expenditure never before equalled in the history of Canada, that has been spending on goods and services that are not adding to the growth of the gross national product in any way, shape or form.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We refused to allow the 5 per cent surcharge tax increase in addition to the 10 per cent tax increase of a year ago. The Creditiste party think it should support this. That does not really matter because parliament has restricted the government from taxing the people further. It does not make any difference whether they borrow money from the International Monetary Fund, or from the Canadian people by floating a bond issue: The government has not got the right to spend any more money, because the Canadian people have said the government has gone too far. That is exactly what parliament did on Monday night.
We in the Conservative party have been criticized in the press for not wanting to defeat the government. It has been suggested that members of this party have not attended the house because we were afraid to defeat the government. Now that we have defeated the government let us hear the members of the press state quite frankly that we have done the right thing.
It is all well and good for the Minister of Finance to say that we should not have an election now, but he is saying this because he knows he has got Canada into the worst financial crisis it has ever known. We have on the one hand tight money and on the other hand the highest interest rates we have known. We have banks sending out notices to customers saying they now intend to charge 8 per cent interest. Just over a year ago this government took the ceiling off interest rates, which at that time stood at 6 per cent. The government did this, as it said, to allow more money into circulation to drive the interest rates down. Exactly the reverse has happened. I remember that some time ago a former minister of
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote finance, a former member for Eglinton, when bringing down a budget said that a little bit of inflation is like a drug and, once offered to the economy, the economy craves a great deal more. This government made a mistake about two years ago when it almost doubled the money supply. It injected a great deal of this drug, and since then the economy has craved a great deal more. As a result we have witnessed a galloping inflation.
The Minister of Finance tried to put the brakes on last June and again in November, but on both occasions he was six months late. He has failed miserably as Minister of Finance. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows full well that if he had been minister of finance he might well have been more in tune with the economy. I am sure he would have been, because he has been with the economy and knows the ups and downs of business economics. Our Minister of Finance has led a sheltered life, most of it as a civil servant. There is a great difference. I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce would have been in tune with the economic conditions of Canada to a far greater degree. Perhaps then, as has been suggested in a press interview, he could have brought in a balanced budget last year, avoiding the difficulty which has occured this year. Today we are witnessing a run on the dollar, and I suppose the $400 million loan is intended to stem the withdrawal of money from Canada by the United States parents of Canadian companies.
Now that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) has joined the government side of the house he has swallowed the philosophy of that party, but I note that he has not attempted to take part in this debate. Apparently he does not know whether the government should be responsible to the people and to parliament, or whether it should be all superior in the position of a dictatorship. He does not know whether he believes in those righteous principles he advocated when he sat to our far left, or whether he left those principles when he walked across the floor of the house. He must realize that the Liberal government has failed to control the purse strings. If anyone is in doubt about that, I suggest he read the economic council report and tire Auditor General's report. If anyone is still in doubt, he should look at our balance of payments program and our agricultural prices, which are at the lowest point for the last ten years. For the first time in something like ten years Canadian wheat
tMr. Homer (Acadia).]
farmers are operating without an international wheat agreement. Surely someone failed in this regard, and I suggest that "someone" is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because he alone was responsible to see that the agreement was signed so there would not be an interval during which we would be operating without such an agreement.
Today agricultural prices are down and inflation is increasing. Interest rates are increasing and money is becoming tighter. Why should we vote confidence in this government? One of the prominent businessmen of this country, who came back into politics, is aware at the present time of this government's mismanagement. I am sure that he is disgusted and wants to resign so that he may return to the business scene. I am sure he would not be unhappy about the defeat of this government.
With this very dismal picture of the Canadian economy today, I suggest the only solution is to allow the convention to select a new leader, and then call an election. In this way the people of this country can express their views about the financial mess in which the Canadian economy is now bogged down.
Last night on "W5" the Prime Minister said that he was angry with himself, with his party and with the opposition for manufacturing this crisis. The opposition did not manufacture the crisis. The colleagues of the Prime Minister, supported by the wisdom of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, manufactured the crisis. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Turner ) has admitted this. When he heard about it in Toronto he said, "I am no longer running for leadership of the country, or the prime ministership of the country; I am running for leadership of the opposition." How true those words were. He realized that he would no longer have the opportunity of running for leadership and prime minister.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is my time up?


John Napier Turner: I am rising on a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: You have not been recognized.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue with the quotation of the hon. member-
February 26, 1968


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On your own time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It the minister wishes to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Acadia, I am sure he recognizes that would not constitute a question of privilege.


John Napier Turner: I am sure the hon. member would not want to give the house the wrong impression, because I said at that time that if I had the opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: You just lost another 27J votes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is interesting to see how soft-skinned these ministers are. The slightest little prick of the pin will drive them from their seats. A former president of the United States, Mr. Truman, said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I would not advise the minister to get in the kitchen, if he cannot stand the soft touch of a pin, which drives him to his feet. I advise him not to get into the kitchen, because it will become awfully hot there at times. Believe me, it will become so hot that the present Minister of Finance will burn his fingers. Our only hope is that the whole country does not burn up at the same time.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We have seen this government defeated, yet clinging to power. We have seen this government with its purse strings cut, but going to the International Monetary Fund to borrow money. Yet we think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a nation where parliament is supreme. Parliament has taken away the right of this government to spend money, we have denied the government the right to tax the Canadian people any more; yet the government goes out and borrows more money.
We think we have democracy in this country. Many a brave Canadian has fought in two world wars for democracy. They told me when I went to school that this was what the first world war was fought over. I had an uncle who did not come back from that war. The present minister played football with him in Toronto. My uncle might better have served democracy had he stayed at home and taught his team mate the meaning of democracy. Men have fought for a wee bit of freedom and democracy, and yet we in this chamber see the government run slipshod
Motion Respecting House Vote over every rule and every parliamentary principle in the book.
We have cut the purse strings of the government and told them they should not spend money; yet we see in today's Citizen that the government is borrowing money and spending it, just the same. Then the government will come back to the Canadian taxpayers and tax them, because of its borrowings. If one did not have a religious faith he would believe there is no justice at all in Canada. But the day is coming when the people of this country will remember blue Monday, just as they remember black Friday.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member for Compton-Fron-tenac (Mr. Latulippe) that he has already spoken, and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) has already used up the time allotted to him. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis).


Henry P. Latulippe: I would have liked to direct a question to the hon. member.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on a point of order.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; the hon. member for Compton-Fron-tenac just wants to ask a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have already
advised the hon. member for Compton-Fron-tenac that even though he may wish to ask a question of the hon. member for Acadia, that hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac was rising once again to put an amendment, and my interpretation, judging by the amendment the hon. member put before the house a short while ago, was that it involved collusion and was probably out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote


Malcolm MacInnis: I say
this, Mr. Speaker, because collusion between the Liberal party and the Creditistes is the one shame that they will never, ever live down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: In my
opinion this involves just the return of a favour, with this same Liberal gang which saw fit a few short years ago to support the Social Credit party in respect of free money. The developments that have taken place here are, as far as I am concerned, most welcome. The defeat of the government has been brought about, and in bringing about that defeat we have in this house accomplished something that many Canadian people have been looking forward to for the last three years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: In my
opinion the defeat of the government, speaking from a local point of view, has made possible the situation whereby Nova Scotians and other Canadians living in Nova Scotia will get the justice they deserve, and which was denied them not too long ago in the house by this government.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Since the election of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Malcolm MacInnis: I hear an interjection from the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I will get around to saying something else later, but I would call her attention now to the fact that I was informed outside the house that there is no longer a peach crop in the Niagara peninsula, and they have turned to sour grapes. I will have something further to say to the hon. lady later.
In addition to bringing about the defeat of this government which refuses not to recognize the problems faced in Nova Scotia, organized labour throughout this country has brought about the defeat of Bill C-186. Members of the New Democratic party and many Liberals who are opposed to Bill C-186 have now the opportunity of avoiding a vote on that bill by urging the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to take an early retirement and let parliament get on with the business we are here to discuss.
Members on this side of the house have been criticized for not getting together, but when we did finally get together and vote this

government out of office, what did we find? We have a Prime Minister who has been trying to operate from long distance. It is regrettable that he has been called back from the sunny south for the second time this year. The Prime Minister comes back from Jamaica, stands before the Canadian television audience and the House of Commons and speaks of those who bring about the downfall of his government.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The Prime Minister speaks of responsibility; he lectures the Canadian people and this parliament on responsibility. All I ask of him is that he face up to his responsibilities. The Prime Minister was given in 1965 a mandate by the Canadian people that would carry him into 1970. For the last two years he has been running away from that responsibility. He speaks of responsibility; he speaks of a united Liberal party; he speaks of what they would do in opposition even with a minority government.
The Minister of Finance stated in the house the other day that the Canadian dollar was on trial, that the government was on trial and that he as Minister of Finance was on trial. I agree completely with that. I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that today we have ten ministers present out of 28. At times these people who are on trial this afternoon have found, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) said a few moments ago-and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) used this expression-too much heat in the kitchen, especially when the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) were speaking. We find only these few ministers present, out of a cabinet of 28, and their attendance in the house has reached as low as two.
I guess the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) finds too much heat in the kitchen, too. I would like to draw his attention to some predictions he made in 1963. I am not criticizing all the members of this government. I have to give the Secretary of State for External Affairs a pat on the back. He has proved to be quite a prophet, and I commend this statement that he made in 1963: "If we elect a government that does not command a majority, we will spell the disaster of our government". One has to give him full marks for his predictions. He made this statement on March 6, 1963. He might have added "disaster for the Canadian nation". What surprises me is that the famous crystal
February 26, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	7015
ball was passed on to him and not to the Prime Minister. There are many more interesting statements which were made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), and if time permitted I would quote them. However, I should like to emphasize the fact that in bringing about the downfall of this government we have stopped the passage of innocuous legislation, such as Bill No. 186, which the labour people of this country have demanded should not be passed by this house.


Mr. Gregoire:: No, that is wrong.


Malcolm MacInnis: We are
hearing now from a member who holds the balance of power, but let me say that of late he has been upstaged.
What has been happening here since Friday has been a battle to save Pearson's pride, and nothing else. The government is trying to hang on to the Prime Minister, who does not deserve it. He has not shown the responsibility to the Canadian nation he claimed he would discharge, and I say again he has run away continually from this responsibility. What is most important to the people of Canada? Is it parliament, the Liberal party, the Liberal convention, or the Prime Minister? I say to you, sir, that this parliament, as all parliaments in a democracy, should be supreme, and if it does not continue to be supreme it is because of the gang over there; and I use the word "gang" advisedly. I know that at one time this word used in the house in connection with a commission was ruled out of order, but if anyone wishes to challenge the word "gang" or the word "syndicate", let him get up and challenge it. I say that members on the government side are just what I say they are, a gang, or one might even call them "syndicate operators".
We have been asked to vote confidence in the government. I wonder if the Canadian people have really looked at this government and at the individuals who make it up. Not long ago, I asked a question in the house in connection with the local situation at Sydney. What happened then proves that there is absolutely no unity in the Liberal party. The Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) answered me by saying the government would be foolish to make such plans, while at the same time his colleague, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) who was out in western Canada at the time spoke about government plans to phase out the Sydney steel operations. This was a direct contradiction of what the Minister of Industry said.
Motion Respecting House Vote
Then, moving a little further on, we used to see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) sitting next to the Secretary of State (Miss La-Marsh). Something happened there because they are no longer seatmates.


Mr. Laing:: Nothing happened to me.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion Souih):: I am
not sure. I would not say that halitosis had anything to do with it. This government is beginning to realize that halitosis is better than no breath at all.
Then we move further on and come to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). What happened last Monday night was not of his doing. He was prodded into it by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer). I will get to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) in time. The Minister of Transport prodded the Minister of Finance into making the fatal mistake on Monday night. I understand it was the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) who blamed the Minister of Transport for prodding the Minister of Finance; and the Minister of Finance of course blamed everyone else, although it was he who put himself into this vulnerable position. It is very interesting to review the statements made by the Minister of Finance and the press releases on them. When the minister was asked whether anyone was to blame for what happened and whether the Minister of Transport prodded him into it, he did not confirm this. However, the accusation was in the question which was put to the minister, even though he did not confirm that there was any truth in it. So we can accept that the Minister of Finance thinks the Minister of Transport actually prodded him into doing it. The Minister of National Health and Welfare was prodded into voting on the bill. After all, they are all candidates for the same job.


Erik Nielsen: In the meantime there was the Trois-Rivieres incident.


Malcolm MacInnis: I do not
know much about the plane trip back from Trois-Rivieres, but we can recall the developments following the plane trip back from Halifax, when the Prime Minister conveniently did some forgetting, which at that time got him into hot water. There is not too much difference between the two incidents. On that occasion he came very close to getting it in the neck. He has got it in the neck now, and let him take the consequences of it.
February 26, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
Now we come to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Let us consider some of the interesting observations he made while in Halifax. He said then that the time has come when we must have strong leadership. If there is unity in the Liberal party, why was he reflecting on the leadership of the present Prime Minister? Some of these points were already made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner). I repeat again that on occasions when the government was on trial, its members were not here to defend themselves. They are not rising now to refute the charges that are made against them, and there is no doubt that when they speak of this unity, it is only lip service and malarky, which they are passing on to the Canadian people.
In saying that, I do not intend to forget the Minister of Trade and Commerce about whom I have a few interesting observations to make. All this nonsense which the Prime Minister spewed to the television audience over the week end, is nothing but a dishonest approach to the whole matter.
I know that the word "lie" is not permitted in the house and is considered unparliamentary. One is not supposed to say that a member is lying. I do not propose to do so now, but let me say that a precedent has been established when members on the government side have been charged in the house with lying and they did not have the gumption to rise and defend themselves. The Canadian people are faced today with one big lie.
As I was saying, I have some interesting observations to make about the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who I think by this time should consider it proper to rise in the house defend his position. Several quotations have been made from the Canada Year Book, one of which has been repeated several times in relation to the minister's statement concerning fiscal integrity. All I can say is that here again the government is selling something to the Canadian people for $5 a shot, and they cannot back up what they put in writing. Now the integrity of the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been called into question, as has the integrity of the Minister of Finance with regard to the Canadian economy. It is also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that this man who once stated outside the house that he closed more mines in Canada than any other man, also stated that Sydney was not an economic unit and therefore should not receive any assistance from this government. This is the man who went to

India and lent the Indian government $20 million, but refused to lend half of that amount to the people of Nova Scotia to cope with a problem with which he is quite familiar.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It is also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) went before an audience of 20,000 people or more in Cape Breton this summer and said the government was searching desperately for a way to help. When the government of Nova Scotia pointed out the way to help, this government flatly refused to come through. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, although paying lip service to the people of Cape Breton, has not accepted his responsibilities any more than the Prime Minister has. I see the minister over there in his seat. I might say also that when the earlier vote was taken last week I drew to the Chairman's attention the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had slipped in and voted illegally along with a few other Liberals. I would say therefore they stole one vote that day, and lost the other two.
It is regrettable that so many cabinet ministers are absent. I would have liked to give the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Turner) a chance to rise again. However, it seems these ministers only get to their feet when they think they have a question of privilege. They do not have the intestinal fortitude to get up and defend their position. How many ministers or members on that side have defended the position of this government? As a matter of fact, it is rumoured the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) has stated outside the house that he agrees with the position taken by the opposition, and that the Prime Minister should have gone to the Governor General.
As I say, it is regrettable that so many of the ministers who should be defending this government are not present. The other evening when the leader of the New Democratic party was speaking he made some reference to the Minister of Finance. Then he spoke about another minister, and the moment he referred to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) that minister jumped up and ran from the house. He could not stand the heat either. This is the man who is supposed to be operating on a much higher plane, as a constitutional expert. However we have not heard a word from him in this house, he has
February 26, 1968

been spending too much time before the cameras. A week ago every time we looked at television we saw the Minister of Justice rushing forward. However, in the last few days we have had another view of him, and he was running away from the cameras.
The Minister of Justice was running away because, as a constitutional expert, he knows very well that he cannot defend the position of this government. If time permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to quote some of the things this minister has had to say about his present leader. However, time does not permit. If the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs feels he has a question of privilege because he was quoted in the house about his wish to run as opposition leader, then I may tell him this indicates how wrong cabinet ministers can be. They do not know when they have a question of privilege or when they do not. The fact remains that the minister has been quoted in the press to this effect, although he may have made the statement with tongue in cheek. The fact is that this idea has gone through his mind, and this is the destiny he sees for the leader of the Liberal party. It is a destiny which has been earned.
The lip, or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), is not in his seat. He is usually interjecting.


An hon. Member:: Joe, the lip.


Malcolm MacInnis: He
takes exception to any reference made to the fact he is campaigning around the country. This is the same minister who told a television audience in Halifax that at that particular time the most important thing facing the Canadian nation was unity. You can imagine the kind of leadership he will give the country.


John Napier Turner: You have two more minutes.
Motion Respecting House Vote


Malcolm MacInnis: There is always tomorrow, for at least this side of the house. This Minister of Agriculture thinks along the same lines as the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. It is not too long ago that he put his foot in his mouth, and shouted at a member from this side of the house who was persistent in asking a question, that the member was trying to work his way into the cabinet. This answer indicated the Minister of Agriculture also realizes the Liberals are doomed to be in opposition, and there is going to be a cabinet formed by our party. I want to say, in all fairness to my leader, that he made it quite clear to this house he has no wish to be Prime Minister of this country unless he has the support of the Canadian people. It is just this challenge from which the Grits are running.
Outside the house the Prime Minister has said that there was a plot. You know, Mr. Speaker, that every time there is a recorded vote it is the duty of the whips of the various parties to gather together all their members. After making a statement outside the house about a plot, the Prime Minister came into the house and said there was no collusion, but that there had been collusion developed in the last couple of days. He could not face the opposition and make those charges in the house. In the house he said there was no collusion; the whips had done their duty. The Minister of Finance did not make his move until he was advised by his own whip that there were enough members present. Then we have the spectacle of a minister going outside the house and blaming one of his colleagues, the Minister of Transport. I believe he deserves all the blame he gets.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 27, 1968