1968-03-13

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of special committee on procedure-Mr. MacEachen.
Second report of standing committee on health and welfare-Mr. Harley.
Twelfth report of standing committee on transport and communications-Mr. Lessard.
[Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I should like to table the English and French texts of a number of agreements recently entered into by the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Caouette: 1.	Does the government intend to consider with the provinces the possibility of setting up a constitutional court?
2.	During the last three years, did the government receive from the provinces or other bodies reports, memoranda or other documents requesting the setting up of such a court and, if so, from whom?
3.	Is the federal research team on constitutional problems studying this matter?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: 1.	As a result of the recent constitutional
conference, this possibility will be considered during the continuing constitutional discussions with the provinces.
2.	No.
3.	The establishment of a constitutional court is being studied at the present time.


LEGISLATION REVISION COMMISSION
Mr. Caouefle: 1.	What steps were taken by the Canadian Legislation Revision Commission to improve the French version of Statutes?
2.	When will the Revised Statutes of Canada be published and available to all Canadians?
3.	In the Legislation Section, are the bills drafted jointly by French-speaking and English-speaking lawyers and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Among the seven English-speaking lawyers of of the Legislation Section, how many are bilingual?
5.	Among the four French-speaking lawyers of the Legislation Section, how many are bilingual?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: 1.	Particular attention is being paid to the French text of the statutes in order to improve the expression of that text wherever corrections can be made within the limits of the powers of the Commission under Section 5 of 1964-65, c. 48.
2.	It was intended that the Revised Statutes would be available in the Fall of 1968. This may not now be achieved because of the continuation of the 1967 Session of Parliament into the year 1968.
3.	Until recently almost all Bills drafted in the Legislation Section were drafted in the first instance in English and then translated into French by translators carrying out the functions prescribed by the Translation Bureau Act (R.S. 1952, c. 270, s. 3). Civil Law lawyers were consulted in respect of civil law matters when they arose. Since the inception of the revision of the Statutes which began in 1965, the addition of experienced French-speaking civil law lawyers to the staff of the Legislation Section has made it possible to initiate working arrangements under which Bills prepared as described above are reviewed by such French-speaking civil law lawyers to ensure as far as possible
7576

March 13, 1968
Questions
that each of the two language versions of a Bill accurately expresses the substance of the other, and so that the implications of the proposed legislation in terms of its application to the common law and civil law may be fully appreciated and assessed. Plans are now being worked out that will formalize these arrangements and extend them to all Bills that are drafted in the Legislation Section. The ultimate objective is the implementation, as soon as possible, of a system of dual-language drafting involving the preparation of draft Bills in English and French as part of a single process.
4.	The seven English-speaking common law lawyers of the Legislation Section (who belong to the Bars of Ontario (2), Alberta (1), Saskatchewan (2), Manitoba (1) and Nova Scotia (1)), are not bilingual.
5.	The four French-speaking civil law lawyers of the Legislation Section (all of whom are members of the Quebec Bar) are bilingual.


EXHIBITION OF CANADIAN ART IN EUROPE
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Has an exhibition of Canadian painting and sculpture been sent to Europe?
2.	If so, in what cities has the exhibition thereof been held or proposed to be held, and during what period in each city?
3.	How many (a) paintings (b) sculptures (c) other artistic productions are represented?
4.	How many artists are represented?
5.	Were arrangements made to transport and pay the expenses of Canadian art critics to the exhibition in Paris, France?
6.	If so (a) by what department or agency of government (b) what are the names of such critics (c) what media do they represent (d) what was the total cost of the trip for such critics and any accompanying officials (e) what, in detail, was the purpose of the trip of such critics (f) was the trip approved (i) before or after the budget speech of the Minister of Finance on November 30, 1967 (ii) before or after the commencement of examination by the Treasury Board of possible retrenchment in expenditures?
7.	Did any Minister of the Crown attend in Paris in connection with the exhibition there?
8.	If so (a) what Minister (b) how long was he absent from Canada (c) was he accompanied by any staff and, if so, by whom (d) what were the total expenses of such Minister's trip and of his staff, if any?
9.	(a) What officials, if any, of (i) the Department of External Affairs (ii) the National Gallery

of Canada, have made trips to any of the cities revealed in the answer to Part 2 in respect of the planning or the actual conduct of the exhibition
(b)	what further trips of officials of the Department or Gallery are contemplated (c) what is the total cost to date of such trips (d) what is the total estimated cost of contemplated trips?
10.	What is the grand total amount that this exhibition is expected to cost?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: 1. Yes.
2.	Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris, January 12 to February 17, 1968; Musee Cantonal des Beaux-Arts, Lausanne, July 11 to August 31, 1968; Palais des Beaux-Arts, Brussels, September 19 to October 19, 1968; Galleria Nazionale di Arte Moderna, Rome, May 16 to June 15, 1968.
3.	(a) 63; (b) 13; (c) Nil.
4.	19.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) The National Gallery of Canada for the Department of External Affairs; (b) Mr. Ralph Hicklin, Toronto Telegram, Toronto; Mr. Laurent Lamy, Le Devoir, Montreal; Mrs. Joan Lowndes, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver; Mrs. Andree Paradis, Vie des Arts, Montreal; Mr. Yves Robillard, La Presse, Montreal; Mr. Richard Simmins, Arts Canada, Toronto;
(c)	See (b) above; (d) $3,643; (e) This initiative was developed within the framework of exchanges of persons which are provided for under the Franco-Canadian cultural agreement; its purpose was to enable Canadian art critics to meet their French counterparts on the occasion of the first major exhibition of Canadian paintings abroad; (f) (i) After; (ii) After.
7.	Yes.
8.	(a) The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; (b) six days; (c) his executive assistant; (d) $1,725.
9.	(a)	(i) None; (ii) the commissioner
general for the exhibition, and the deputy director of the National Gallery; (b) the commissioner general for the exhibition is expected to visit the cities which will be toured by the exhibition, in order to supervise preparations and to be in attendance along with the director of the National Gallery or her representative on the opening day; (c) $3,853.71; (d) $5,550.
10.	Authorized budget, $88,700.
March 13, 1368


BUTTER RESERVES
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What amount of butter did the government have in warehouses on January 1, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	Are the reserves of butter in stock adequate to meet the consumer demand during the present season and, if not, how much must be imported?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	January 1, 1966, 60,049,316 lbs.; January 1, 1967, 40,726,829 lbs.; January 1, 1968, 43,549,848 lbs.
2.	Present indications are that stocks will be sufficient.


I.L.O. CONVENTIONS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In connection with the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, what Conventions of the International Labour Organization dealing with social and economic rights has Canada ratified?
2.	Were these Conventions ratified by Canada, which are now part of the legal structure of Canada, included in the documents prepared by the Government of Canada for discussion at the Federal-Provincial Conference and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: 1. Canada has ratified the following I.L.O. conventions dealing with social and economic rights: *No. 1, Hours of Work (Industry), 1919 (First Session), March 21, 1935; No. 7, Minimum Age (Sea) 1920, (Second Session), March 31, 1926; No. 8, Unemployment Indemnity, 1920 (Second Session), March 31, 1926; No. 14, Weekly Rest (Industry), 1921 (Third Session), March 21, 1935; No. 15, Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers), 1921 (Third Session), March 31, 1926; No. 16, Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea), 1921 (Third Session), March 31, 1926; No. 22, Seamen's Articles of Agreement, 1926 (Ninth Session), June 30, 1938; *No. 26, Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery, 1928 (Eleventh Session), April 25, 1935; No. 27, Marking of Weight (Packages Transported by Vessels), 1929 (Twelfth Session), June 30, 1938; No. 32, Protection Against Accidents (Dockers) Revised, 1932 (Sixteenth Session), April 6, 1946; No. 45, Employment of Women on Underground Work in Mines of All Kinds, 1935 (Nineteenth Session), Sept. 16, 1966; No. 58, Minimum Age for Employment at Sea, 1936 (Twenty-Second Session), Sept. 10, 1951; No. 63, Statistics of Wages and Hours 27053-4775
Questions
of Work, 1938 (Twenty-Fourth Session), April 6, 1946; No. 68, Food and Catering (Ships' Crews), 1946 (Twenty-Eighth Session), March 19, 1951; No. 69, Certification of Ships' Cooks, 1946 (Twenty-Eighth Session), March 19, 1951; No. 73, Medical Examination (Seafarers), 1946 (Twenty-Eighth Session), March 19, 1951; No. 74, Certification of Able Seamen, 1946 (Twenty-Eighth Session), March 19, 1951; No. 88, Employment Service, 1948 (Thirty-First Session), August 24, 1950; No. 105, Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957 (Fortieth Session), July 14, 1959; No. 108, Seafarers' National Identity Documents (Forty-First Session), May 31, 1967; No. Ill, Discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, 1958, (Forty-Second Session), Nov. 26, 1964; No. 122, Employment Policy, 1964 (Forty-Eighth Session), Sept. 16, 1966.
* The implementing Federal Statutes concerning ratification of these conventions were declared ultra vires by the Privy Council, 1937.
2. The texts of these conventions were not included in the documents prepared by the government of Canada for discussion at the recent federal-provincial conference since they were not a specific item on the agenda, although they fall within the general field of human rights. The texts of a number of major United Nations conventions on human rights were included in the document "A Canadian Charter of Human Rights", for illustrative purposes. It should be noted that many of the ILO conventions, upon ratification by Canada, require implementation through either federal, or by both federal and provincial legislation.


AREA DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Albert):
Since the inception of the Area Development Program under the Department of Industry, what has been for the designated areas, by province (a) number of applications (b) number of new jobs (c) capital investment (d) total federal payments, expressing each of the preceding as a unit of the labour force in each province, e.g., in New Brunswick 25 new jobs for 1,000 members of the labour force, and so on?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: The following statistics relate to all active

March 13, 1968
Questions
applications which have been approved, or inception of the area development program are under review, in the period since the and December 31, 1967:
A.	Parts to question
(expressed in absolute terms)
	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)
		Number		
		of direct		Estimated value
new job	Total of	of ADA grants andNumber of	oppor-	direct capital	income taxProvince	applications	tunities	investment	abatements$ '000	$ '000Newfoundland	37	3,912	220,772	26,684Prince Edward Island	24	767	7,216	1,710Nova Scotia	105	6,674	243,338	39,437New Brunswick	77	4,955	204,404	38,303Quebec	207	10,538	480,887	90,369Ontario	239	18,164	435,922	126,539Manitoba	52	1,325	50,525	12,430Saskatchewan	34	1,071	67,603	7,245Alberta	17	714	84,249	14,104British Columbia	53	1,744	49,674	13,117Undecided	2	93	1,805	472Canada	847	49,957	1,846,395	370,410*
^Includes estimated values of income tax abatements and grants of $170,995,000 and $199,415,000 respectively. Actual values of income tax abatements will not be known until after the tax free periods have expired. Payments of grants as of December 31, 1967 totalled $8,347,531.
B. Parts to	question		SEARCHES IN CANADA BY POLICE OFFICERS FROM ABROAD
(relative to each 1,000 members of the 1966


Mr. Caoueile: estimated labour force by province)			1. Is there an agreement between the Govern-
	(a)	(b)	ment of Canada and the Government of Britain
	Total of Number direct capital		allowing British police officers to conduct searches in Canada (a) with warrant (b) without warrant? 2. Is there such an agreement with the Govern-
of direct	investment	ment of the Republic of France concerning eithernew job	in ADA	(a) or (b) above?Province	oppor- tunities	supported projects	[Translation]Newfoundland	26	$ 1,554	Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs): In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. (a) andPrince Edward Island	21	200	(b) No.Nova Scotia	26	981	2. No.New Brunswick	24	1,001	Quebec	4	227	Ontario	6	158	[English]Manitoba	3	140	REQUIREMENT FOR SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERSSaskatchewan	3	197	Alberta	1	149	
Question No. 1,025-Mr. Thompson:
British Columbia	2	70	SupplementaryUndecided	N/A	N/A	1. Is it compulsory for every adult Canadian toCanada	6	247	apply for a Social Insurance number?

March 13, 1968



2.	What is the penalty for those who do not apply for a Social Insurance number?
3.	How many known cases are there of people who are required to have a Social Insurance number who have not applied or who refuse to apply for a number?
4.	(a) Are there citizens who are being penalized for not having a Social Insurance number (b) what is the amount of the penalty (c) how many Canadians are being prosecuted in the Courts for not possessing a Social Insurance number or for refusing to apply?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. No.
2.	The failure to apply for a social insurance number as required under the Canada Pension Plan could result in the loss of benefits under that act. Individuals who are taxable for 1967 or subsequent taxation years and who fail to apply for a social insurance number, as required under the Income Tax Act, are liable to the penalties provided in subsection 3 of section 55 of that act.
3.	There are fewer than one hundred thousand people who file income tax returns who have not yet supplied information with regard to their social insurance numbers. The number of those who have refused to apply for a social insurance number is not available but there have been very few such cases.
4. (a) There have been no penalties assessed under the Income Tax Act but under the Canada Pension Plan there is a potential loss of pension rights for contributors who fail to supply social insurance numbers. (b) See question 2 above, (c) None.


FISHING OPERATIONS, LITTLE HARBOUR, N.S.
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	What is the number of men actively engaged in fishing at Little Harbour, Halifax County?
2.	How many boats are being operated from there?
3.	What is the extent of the annual total catch in pounds and dollars?
4.	Has the government received requests for the enlargement of the wharf facility there and, if so, what plans have been made?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Fisheries and Public Works as follows: 1. 19.
2.	17.
3.	The catch in 1966 was 583,000 lbs. valued to fishermen at $39,363.
4.	Yes, but no plans have been made for the enlargement of the wharf facility at this time.
Motions for Papers


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I inquired one week ago today about the answer to starred question No. 545, which is dated October 24. I should like to have the question answered, and I did not hear the parliamentary secretary say that he intended to answer it today.


Mr. Starr:: He did not say he would.


George Harris Hees: Could the parliamentary secretary advise me about the question now?


Mr. Bechard:: It was not answered today, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. E. J. Benson (President of the Treasury Board):: I wish to assure the hon. member that I have the answer to the question. It came to my attention and to my office this morning, and it will be answered the next time we have questions.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 46 is acceptable to the government.
Notice of motion No. 56 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and the consent of the relevant government authorities.
Would Your Honour be kind enough to call notice of motion No. 42?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

GREAT SLAVE LAKE RAILWAY CLAIMS Motion No. 42-Mr. Schreyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged between any federal department or Crown corporation and Mr. McDonald, lawyer, of the City of Regina, relative to the claims against the C.N.R. made by any one of the construction firms engaged in the construction of the Great Slave Lake Railway.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Caouefte:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a return showing whether the
[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
opinion of the Supreme Court concerning underwater rights has been published in French and, if not, for what reason; whether consideration has been given to the possibility of publishing in both official languages the judgments of the Supreme Court Concerning the problem of the sharing of the legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments and, if not, for what reason; and how many judgments of the Supreme Court were given in English only, in French only, and in both languages, during the last five years.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56-Mr. Barnett:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister and/or the the Minister of Public Works and the Government of British Columbia since June 3, 1964, on the subject-matter of the alteration or extension of Trans-Canada Highway agreements on the items referred to in the letter of May 26, 1964, from the Premier of British Columbia to the Prime Minister.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I think, the Prime Minister told me that he hoped soon to answer my question about the government's plans having to do with off-shore oil policy and what direction that policy will take following the Supreme Court decision. Since the session may adjourn soon, and since my right hon. friend may not have extensive plans for the future, I wonder if he could assure the house that he will make a statement about this matter soon, perhaps before the house adjourns or recesses.


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I hope to do that by the end of the week, Mr. Speaker. There have been some developments in the last 48 hours which I should like to include in my answer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
OFFER TO FACILITATE PASSAGE OF BILL C-190 On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will consider proceeding with Bill C-190, to amend [Mr. Caouette.l
the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act, before the recess. Members of this party are prepared to forgo any debate in committee of the whole and third reading, the bill already having had second reading. We think it is important for steps to be taken to lower the high price of drugs, and we are prepared to facilitate passage of the bill if the government is prepared to bring it before the house before the recess.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we could dispose of the bill now before the house, and the estimates and supply, I should hope, perhaps, that we could deal with my hon. friend's bill by arrangement so that debate could be kept to a minimum in accordance with my hon. friend's intentions, in order to have the matter dealt with before we adjourn.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister consider bringing down the bill before interim supply, so we could dispose of it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is important to get supply through first.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could the minister tell us whether his department considers offering, under its manpower retraining program, special courses to numerous architects out of employment at the present time because of the crisis affecting the building industry?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, retraining courses offered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration are not meant for professionals.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of
March 13. 1968

Manpower and Immigration. Has a special team been created under special circumstances in order to arrange for some if not all of the 5,000 Asians in Kenya to come to Canada? Has the minister's department such a plan at the present time?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. An agent of the Department of Immigration went to Kenya to help the Canadian high commissioner at Nairobi. A team of civil servants is probably already on its way to Kenya to study the applications.
We are now studying the situation. I know there is an increase in the number of applications, but I cannot say how many people will come.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has this team been instructed to include in any conclusion it arrives at the consideration that in Canada from 6 per cent to 7 per cent of the work force is unemployed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question is argumentative.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not mean it to be argumentative. Perhaps I sounded argumentative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I shall try to rephrase it. In view of the fact that there is serious unemployment in this country, has the team been instructed to pay special regard to this circumstance?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, our selection criteria automatically take these facts into account.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Have instructions been given to the team to pay regard to the special circumstances involving unemployment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe our system is flexible enough to take into account the present circumstances, in Kenya as well as in Canada, and I doubt that it should be necessary to issue special instructions.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED INCREASE IN IMPORTS AS COMPARED TO EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that imports into Canada during the month of January, the latest month for which figures are available, increased at nearly twice the rate of exports from this country, is the government planning to take steps in the immediate future to make sure that this alarming trend does not continue?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: My own main responsibility is for exports, and we had a good month in January with exports up considerably as compared with January a year ago. It is true imports were higher last January than they were in January of 1967, but it would be a mistake to judge our trading pattern on the performance in a single month, particularly the first month in the year.


George Harris Hees: Is it not true that imports increased by 8 per cent and exports by only 5 per cent as compared with a year ago, and is this not a significant figure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question may not sound argumentative, but it is.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he be prepared to satisfy the eagerness of the Minister of Agriculture to share responsibility for declining sales of grain?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, they are not declining.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the government making any special arrangements for the employment of university students this summer? I ask this question in view of the cutbacks announced affecting opportunities normally available in federal government employment and elsewhere. If nothing is done

March 13, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry there is likely to be a large excess of students on the labour market seeking unsuccessfully to provide themselves with funds to continue their education.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have a special section which deals with students. We shall try to find as many jobs as possible, but with regard to exchanges with foreign students, especially European students, we take into account the fact that there will be fewer jobs next year in Canada, so as to favour Canadian students.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was wondering whether the government intends to make any special arrangements this year in addition to those normally made, because of the likelihood of increased unemployment and the lack of labour opportunities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is simply repeating the question he asked originally.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: desire to direct a question, a most important one, to the Minister of National Defence.
Because of the technical training problems involved, and since under present procedures all orders are conveyed in English by the naval squadron leader, commodore or admiral, will the minister reconsider his proposed separation of a specific navy ship from normal operation and procedure with the designation that all on board must have French as their mother language?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member place his question on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the fact that this new procedure is in the mind of the minister, is it not of urgency?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister can, of course, reply in writing to the hon. member's written question.



WINNING OF TROPHY BY CABOT SQUADRON NO. 562, AIR CADETS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is he aware that Cabot squadron No. 562, Royal Canadian Air Cadets, with its commanding officer, Squadron Leader T. R. Young, of North Sydney, has been named the outstanding air cadet squadron in Canada during centennial year? May I also ask the minister, will he be in a position to attend the testimonial dinner and presentation of the dominion trophy, to be held on March 23-and may I add that this minister would be most welcome?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question may be allowed as a special case.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the 562 Cabot squadron has won a number of honours in the past, and I know it richly deserves the honour it won this year. I would like the hon. gentleman to be kind enough to transmit my own congratulations to the squadron. Unfortunately I will not be available for the particular occasion on March 23, but I will make sure that somebody from headquarters who does appreciate the work of air cadets will be present.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's announcement last week of arrangements with the United States to prevent U.S. investment funds passing through Canada to other countries, may I ask whether the government has decided to set up any special machinery to carry out this pledge?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: The machinery for this purpose is under examination now.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What Canadian initiatives are planned, in co-operation with other countries, which might have the effect of preventing further deterioration in international financial mechanisms which now seem to be at the mercy of speculators?
March 13, 1963


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, both the governor of the Bank of Canada and I have been in touch with other central banks and with other financial authorities throughout the world. We are very concerned about the present situation, and are trying to take measures that would be useful. Indeed, some of the measures that were taken last week have a relationship to the international monetary system, and we are prepared to consider other initiatives, if any are open to us, that would be useful.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question with regard to question No. 727 on the order paper. In view of the fact that this question has been on the order paper since November 21 last, and in view of the fact that the information requested is clearly and immediately available to the federal government, may I ask the hon. lady if it is the intention of the government deliberately to withhold the information requested in this question?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes queries in that direction are not answered as rapidly as one could wish. I will ask whether that might be what is wrong, or whether there is some other reason.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in reference to the Atlantic Development Board. Now that one of his fellow contenders has joined those of us who have advocated the movement of A.D.B. headquarters from Ottawa to a maritime location, can he advise whether consideration is being given to this desirable development?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that item is not under active consideration, but it will be considered in the light of my hon. friend's representations.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



HEATING OIL AND GASOLINE-STATEMENT ON PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance can he now give us a report on the inquiry into the increases in the prices of gasoline and heating oil, a report which he has been promising to give for some considerable time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My officials have looked into the recent increases that have occurred in the prices of gasoline, oil and heating fuel. I understand that the explanation given by the industry is that the increases were made necessary by rising costs, chiefly salaries, wages and supplies.
However, before a judgment can be made on issues such as this more information is required about a number of related factors. It is not sufficient to know only the extent to which costs have risen. Increased productivity, for example, might enable an industry to absorb cost increases and thereby avoid the need for higher prices. Other relevant considerations include the levels of profitability and capacity at which industry is operating, its ability to attract capital, and the degree of domestic and foreign competition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the additional information now being given by the minister should preferably be given at the time of motions.


David Lewis: As a supplementary question, do I understand from the minister's reply as far as it went, or as far as it got, that the only information his department has sought in all these weeks is information given to it by the companies concerned, or have the officials of his department made any independent inquiry into some of the matters he mentioned?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker; my department has gone further than that. It is because of the relations which exist in respect of the price of gasoline that the Prime Minister has announced his plans for an agency for reviewing such things. It would be my hope that this type of price rise would be exactly the sort of matter that would be inquired into by the board.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the agency about which the Prime Minister spoke
7584

March 13. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry yesterday is not likely to be established for some time, would the minister undertake to make a statement on motions on this inquiry in respect of increased prices for supplies which are important to all consumers in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the hon. gentleman did not think very much of the establishment of the board proposed by the Prime Minister. I am happy to see that he is changing his mind. This is the kind of situation that requires a thorough review and not just a superficial examination.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General. Is he aware that Justice Alfred Watt, of British Columbia, denies to a certain Suzanne Poulin, who does not speak English, the right to defend herself in her mother tongue? If so, what action does he intend to take?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the facts as alleged by the hon. member but I will consult with the Minister of Justice.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from the Minister of Trade and Commerce about that minister's responsibilities and, if so, what was the reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt about the question as asked. I find it difficult to ascertain the purport or import of the question.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister how he can accept the resignation of one minister and not that of another.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is easy.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his announcement of the proposal to set up a board to review prices and costs, is it the intention of the government when this board is set up to cut back extensively on the expenditures that have now been incurred by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to cut back expenditures on every possible occasion, and in that connection to resist demands from the other side for hundreds of millions of dollars of extra expenditures.


Michael Starr: In view of the hope the Prime Minister expressed yesterday that this board would help solve the problems of the high costs and difficulties in other areas does the Prime Minister not think it would be wise to cut down expenses by eliminating duplication of work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs appears to have been neglected today. I do not like to see him in that situation under the present circumstances; therefore I should like to ask him whether he is now in a position to answer the question I asked the day before yesterday with regard to the Canadian position in reference to the further safeguards requested by West Germany in connection with the non-proliferation nuclear treaty.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the government of West Germany is not a member of the 18 nation group that has been discussing the non-proliferation treaty. It has indicated, however, that it proposes to support the treaty notwithstanding the fact that the treaty does not fully comply with some of its reservations. It has sent a letter to the Canadian and other governments as a matter of record,
March 13, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry
setting out what it regards as imperfections in possession on a letter, which carries a cancel-the treaty which it hopes might perhaps be lation dated two days ago at Trois Rivieres, considered very shortly when the whole mat- Quebec? This is two days before the stamp ter is referred to the United Nations for was issued to the public. Will the minister consideration.	look into this matter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister was whether Canada was supporting the position that these further safeguards should be written into the treaty.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Canada supports the treaty, and we indicated this intention at the 18 power meeting. We will, however, be prepared to consider improvements in the treaty when the matter is referred very shortly to the United Nations.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister for external affairs tell us whether our government has indicated to West Germany that we support their four points or any modification of those four points?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We have not indicated that we support the four points, Mr. Speaker. We have indicated, however, that some of their points do deserve further consideration.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, because of the fairly imminent adjournment of the house I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would look into the matter of the discussions between the United States and Canada about the Pembina river project, and give a report to the house tomorrow?
Kon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs): Yes.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General regarding a subject I mentioned to him before the house was called to order. It relates to a stamp which was issued today for the first time to the general public. Is the minister aware that there exists at least one of these stamps, which I have in my 27053-4781


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would have hoped the hon. member could have received a reply when he spoke to the minister.


Frank Howard: The minister pretty well indicated that 1 should ask the question in this way because, as I understand it, he would like to put on record his concern in this regard as it may involve theft in his department.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Poslmasier General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for advising me of this unusual situation. I know that my department takes all the necessary precautions to prevent this sort of thing. I shall certainly look into the matter and report to the hon. member.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the government has taken any action to remove misunderstandings existing in several departments of government due to erroneous directives that employees in executive or professional roles are required to resign from employee organizations before collective bargaining begins.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we looked into this question which my hon. friend has raised before, and found that in one department there was an erroneous interpretation of the directive of the Treasury Board. We have been in touch with this and other departments to make sure the directive issued by the Treasury Board is adhered to within the departments.


Richard Albert Bell: Would it not have been simpler for the minister to have replied to the questions which were-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Richard Albert Bell: I placed this question on the order paper three weeks ago.


Edgar John Benson: Action is better than words.

March 13. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry



LEGISLATION TO INCREASE PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is now any hope that before the right hon. gentleman resigns as Prime Minister, the government will place before parliament the matter of an increase in the pensions of retired civil servants, an increase to which these people are surely entitled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must never give up hope.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Is he in a position today to answer the question that I put to him yesterday?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question put to me last Monday by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, I am told that nobody in my department nor in the Board of Grain Commissioners suggested to exporters to use Port Cartier or Baie Comeau facilities instead of Montreal harbour, when arrangements were made for the shipment of grain during the next season.
I am told also that the Canadian Wheat Board has not made such proposals. I wish to point out to the hon. member that the buyers themselves plan the grain shipments. I am pleased to inform the house, Mr. Speaker, that since January 1 of this year, grain exports through Montreal harbour have amounted to 1.4 million bushels.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement and statistics the minister has given in respect of grain export shipments from Montreal, can he tell us what is his forecast for this coming year?


John James Greene: There will surely be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
Can he tell the house if perchance he intends to withdraw his bill on abortion and homosexuality, in view of the fact that a large number of citizens consider that policy antimoral?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that one of every four senior citizens must use a hearing aid, and in view of the fact that the retail mark-ups on these devices run as high as 306 per cent of the wholesale price, will the minister institute an immediate inquiry into the price of hearing aids in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. While I know this is an important matter I feel the question should be placed on the order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Earlier today he indicated that he has in his possession the answer to starred question No. 545, dated October 24. As there is a distinct possibility that this house may adjourn before these questions are called again, would the minister be kind enough to send me the answer he has so I may have it today?
March 13, 1968


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to send my hon. friend a copy of the answer to the question soon, which indicates the tremendous progress this government has made in this direction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Is that the reason this government has carefully hidden these answers for five solid months?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the supplementary question is argumentative.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the reply would also be argumentative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising on a question of privilege?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to say that the government has not hidden-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: The government has not hidden the answer to this question for a period of five months, but it has taken five months to get all the information that was required, because of the great accomplishments of the government in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question was, of course, out of order, and there was no question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege, so this cannot be pursued. The supplementary question was out of order, and I suggest we now go on to something else.
Inquiries of the Ministry ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD



INQUIRY AS TO COMPLETION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his responsibility as reporting to parliament for the Atlantic Development Board. For some months a number of us have been asking when the comprehensive plan for the development of the Atlantic region will be received. Can the minister now give us an indication of when that important report will be tabled?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the planning process is advancing toward completion within the Atlantic Development Board, and the members of the board will very shortly be dealing with various sector reports in order to formulate an over-all plan for the year.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as this report may become available during the adjournment of parliament, will the minister assure hon. members that the report will be circulated for study at that time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to discuss the question with the board itself, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Did the minister examine and approve the tax bill ruled upon Monday in this house?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of departmental administration. I am not sure that I am required to answer it under the rules.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that arises from the minister's answer, it has been the custom in the past to ask questions to see whether the Minister of Justice is carrying out his responsibilities under the bill of rights. I think this minister, like ministers before him, is required to answer the question.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

March 13. 1968
Income Tax Act


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am on the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could rule immediately on the point of order. It is elementary, and I am sure all hon. members agree, that even when questions are in order and an hon. member has the right to ask a question, the rules do not provide that the minister must answer. Even if the answer is not satisfactory to the member who asked for information, he has to accept that answer.


George Harris Hees: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is that the kind of arrogant prime minister you will be if you are chosen?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for the second reading of Bill No. C-208, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, those of us on this side who have some liking for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) have felt very much like commiserating with him during the course of the past few weeks because of the embarrassment and difficulties in which he has found himself. I think many of us on this side feel that he is accident prone and Canada has a star-crossed minister.
Some of my colleagues tell me that from time to time the Minister of Finance has given to the house a brilliant analysis of the state of the economy. I certainly have no reason to question that judgment of my colleagues. However, it seems to me that while the minister may be capable of making brilliant analyses of the state of the economy, the problem is that the conclusions he reaches and the courses of action he maps out often do not follow the analyses arrived at and are quite erroneous.
At the present time, for example, we are told by the minister what is the combination of circumstances and what are the sets of problems that are causing difficulty in our economy. Then, as a follow-up, he presents us with fiscal measures, with a tax bill that in trying to deal with one set of problems in the economy will cause harm in other ways. It will cause harm by bringing about higher levels of unemployment than we have already, and they are already cause for concern. It

will bring about a further slow down in economic growth. When we look at the indices for last year we see that in terms of constant dollars there was last year very little economic growth in Canada.
I realize that because other hon. members have spoken in this debate, at the resolution stage and on the bill that was defeated, much of what I will say will be repetitious; but I do not apologize for that. I happen to have been connected with Jesuit institutions at one time, and one pedagogical rule that the Jesuits like to emphasize-perhaps I could express it in Latin-is repetitio matur studiurum est, which means that repetition is the mother of learning.
In the case of this government and the Minister of Finance I feel there is no need to apologize for repetition because it is one way of getting across to the government some of the fundamental, basic rules of economic performance. This government, surely, with all the high-priced help it has at its beck and call, should not have got itself in the position of levying increased taxation at a time when there are already strong indications of a slowdown in economic growth, an increase in unemployment, and so on. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat quite a number of things without the slightest wish to apologize.
We are given to understand by the minister that the purpose of the bill now before us, the bill which the press has been referring to as tax bill mark III, is to combat the fires of inflation that are burning in Canada. I certainly agree that we have serious inflation at the present time. An increase in the cost of living of 4.5 per cent in two successive years is hardly a matter about which to be complacent.
The rate of inflation that exists in this country exceeds that of the United States, despite the fact that the economy of the United States is being overstrained and overreached much more than ours. Our neighbour to the south is fighting a war the cost of which approximates $25 billion or $26 billion a year. It is attempting to implement domestic policies and programs which are every bit as comprehensive as those of the government of Canada. It is maintaining a military presence not just in southeast Asia but on the continent of Europe on a scale proportionately higher than ours.
Despite all this, in the United States they have managed to keep the rate of inflation somewhat lower than that which prevails in Canada. I might add that on top of this they
March 13. 1968

have been increasing the money supply at a faster rate than was the case in Canada last year. Despite all these things, inflation is burning away very much more dangerously here than there, which makes one ask how this can be possible. I have already made my remonstrances to the Minister of Finance that he should not be proposing to the house a bill which will have the effect of taxing away excess demand. I have already insisted, together with others, that there is no excess demand on goods and services in Canada at the present time. It is not that kind of inflation. This has been reasserted to the minister by members on this side of the house time and time again, but apparently he has not heard. He does not want to hear. Whatever the reason, he proceeds as though there is excess demand and he recommends taxation accordingly. The inflation we have in this country today has really very little to do with demand. Therefore the adding of taxes merely adds to the problem and adds to the cost of goods and services. This will be followed in short order by an increase in prices and a demand for increased wages.
Obviously, members would agree that the inflation we have in this country now is a cost induced inflation and the imposition of a surtax does nothing to cure the disease. There is a second negative effect as well. We will derive from this new tax an effect which is opposite to that which is really needed. The new tax will lower demand, which is not excessive now, and it will increase the amount of unutilized economic resources. It follows therefore, there will be a further increase in unemployment, a further slowing down of economic growth. I know that some members opposite found it amusing yesterday when the hon. member for York-South (Mr. Lewis) made the logical assertion, that the effect of the tax measure before us will be to bring about simultaneously both inflationary pressures and deflationary pressures.
In a sense, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that this is not possible. However, I feel it certainly can be said that the effect of this bill will be paradoxical in that it will increase costs, and in that sense will be inflationary, while at the same time the effect will be to reduce employment and cause a greater under-utilization of our economic resources. In that sense it will be deflationary. The net effect certainly will be undesirable.
As I understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), he advances as an argument for this surtax the assertion that it will enable
Income Tax Act
the government to come close to balancing its budget, and therefore will remove the necessity for the government to go to the bond or money market to obtain funds. This will remove some of the pressures on the money-market. I do not wish to be critical in this respect, because there has been an excessive demand on the money market. This government is not the only cause of it. I do not believe there is any reason for criticism of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for saying, as he did, that the actual increase in expenditures at the federal level has been much less, in percentage, than the rate of increase of expenditures by provinces and municipalities. I agree with the Prime Minister.
There is nothing new in this phenomenon which is very apparent in the United States federal system and, I would suspect, in other federal systems throughout the world. The fact is that provincial governments have been increasing their expenditures rapidly. Perhaps this is the result of greater urbanization or industrialization, the great increase in the birth rate, and so on. All of these things necessitate greater expenditures on education and municipal services. The fact is that provincial governments have been spending more and more money and have been going to the money market more often for larger and larger amounts. This has nothing to do, it would seem, with political ideology, but I certainly do not wish to criticize the Prime Minister for having pointed out these facts to hon. members.
I agree it is too simple to criticize this government's spending which, I must concede, in so far as its rate of increase is concerned has been kept down to a greater extent than that of provincial or local governments. What should be looked at, in my opinion, is the rate of increase in spending in relation to that of the provinces, in relation to that of other industrialized states, in relation to the increase in gross national product and per capita income. All of these indices should be looked at before we attack the federal government for increasing its program of expenditures.
Of course taxes could be lowered. Of course public programs contemplated could be put aside. Of course public programs already implemented could be discontinued. All these things could be done; but if we took this option we should be prepared to admit that the consequences in social terms would be very disturbing. Within a short time private

March 13, 1968
Income Tax Act
opulence and public squalor would become all too evident. We would have inadequate social services, inadequate educational facilities, and eventually all this would wither away our social conscience.
But I do not wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no room for this government to cut costs. I do agree with the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales), who made a fine speech last evening outlining in detail some of the areas this government could explore with a view to cutting costs. Since he did such a good job in that regard, it is really unnecessary for me to do the same thing, as I had in mind to do. Very briefly, I should like to say that being on the public accounts committee with the hon. member it is becoming more and more obvious to us that if this government cared just a little more about administrative efficiency and cost cutting procedures a few million dollars might be saved for the public purse.
I am not sure of the position of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, but I know my personal feeling is that there is nothing wrong with the announced intention of this government of putting a freeze on the recruitment of civil servants. It seems to me that in some departments a certain amount of extravagance has crept in as well as excessive recruitment. Some departments have adopted a sort of jet set attitude as to how to go about things. No doubt this is causing the administrative costs of some departments to rise higher than is really necessary. Probably at some future date, it will be necessary to increase the number of civil servants, but at the moment I agree that it is time for a period of consolidation and tightening up.
I think the hon. member for Wellington South pointed out, and if he did not I recall reading it in the Auditor General's report, that since 1962 there has been an increase in administrative personnel in the order of 40,000 and an increase in administrative costs in the order of $500 million. There are still many recommendations in the Glassco report that have not been implemented. The public accounts committee, working in conjunction with the Auditor General, has pointed out 450 instances in which administrative expenses could be pared. Of these 450 cases which have been resubmitted and resubmitted to the cabinet for action, only one third have been attended to. It is my personal opinion that that particular course of action at this time is a meritorious one.

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It has also come to my attention that the Department of Public Works has become increasingly sloppy in its leasing of office space from private owners. The department has leased space which has then remained unused for months and months. Whole floors of office buildings in Ottawa are left idle, though all the while the rental is being paid. The department is engaging in leasing additional premises, even when other premises that have already been leased for some time remain underused. On top of all this, Mr. Speaker, a $40 million expenditure program in the Ottawa area is planned for this year to construct additional office space.
However, Mr. Speaker, I have digressed and I should like to return to the matter of price stability in our economy. In concluding my remarks in this connection the point I wish to make is simply this, that price stability, given the current set of conditions in our economy, cannot be achieved by fiscal or monetary measures. In fact such measures aggravate that set of conditions.
It seems to me that the steps that must be taken to achieve the goal of price stabilization must relate to the factors that are causing cost and price increases. Once we embark upon this goal we quickly find ourselves in the thicket or jungle of administered pricing, rising interest rates and, worst of all, something that has become chronic during the past 18 months or two years, the phenomenon known as the expectation of further inflation to come.
The inflation we are experiencing now, Mr. Speaker, is feeding on itself, and there is no question in my mind that this is the greatest single cause of the absolutely absurd interest rates existing in Canada today. Presumably those engaged in corporate enterprises and those who frequently deal on the money markets do not have very much faith in the capacity of this government to contain inflation, because they are proceeding to borrow, despite high rates of interest, thereby bringing about a continuing upward pressure on interest rates.
To give some indication how absolutely incomprehensible and absurd the interest rates in this country have become, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to three promissory notes I hold in my hand issued by one of the chartered banks to an individual who is personally known to me. The amount
March 13, 1968

March 13, 1968
Income Tax Act
mutilated and unintelligible form, and they have the gall to say, "We are glad you like it." Talk about conversions. I will not steal the expression the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) used yesterday, but he did speak of one minister's conversion as a parallel to that on the road to Damascus. Here we see the government's conversion with respect to the review board idea. Certainly that conversion ought to be noticed by all.


An hon. Member:: It was a death bed conversion.


Edward Richard Schreyer: terms of actual investment this year, as compared with that of 1966-67.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Unimportant as it may be, it will presumably help restore confidence in the Canadian dollar. Investors and speculators have apparently frightened themselves, and now require some psychological comfort before they will move back in. From the reading I have been able to do it becomes increasingly apparent to me that the phenomenon known as investor confidence is often not connected with practical considerations; there are so many inconsistencies and paradoxes at work in connection with the international movement of capital that one does have cause to wonder, as George Brown did some years ago, what the "gnomes of Zurich" are doing. Listening to the Minister of Finance brought us no enlightenment.
As we know, the United States is itself in balance of payments difficulties. Foreign claims on United States gold far exceed United States gold balances and the situation is deteriorating further. Imports into the United States have been increasing at the rate of 11 per cent per year in the last two years, while exports have been increasing at the rate of 1 per cent. During the period in which this negative balance has been developing, a steady decline of gold stocks has been experienced.
Despite this, Canada has entered into an arrangement with the United States by which they are giving us about $500 million in standby credit. We in turn are pledged to maintain our holdings of United States securities in a form in which they will not constitute a liquid claim on United States reserves. There is nothing wrong about co-operation, it seems to me, as long as co-operation is meaningful. But in this case I get a distinct impression-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I would not attempt to complete all I had hoped to say but I would ask the indulgence of the house for an additional two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Two minutes.


Edward Richard Schreyer: As I was about to say, in so far as the arrangements announced a few
Income Tax Act
days ago represent attempts at co-operation, they are laudable and should be supported. But to the extent they represent co-operation between two countries both of which are in extreme balance of payment difficulties, it seems to me the arrangement is not really meaningful.
One thing has come out of it. It has tied the Canadian dollar more closely than ever to the situation in the United States; it has tied the Canadian dollar more closely than ever to United States payments difficulties. Moreover it is my view that the set of problems which the United States faces in connection with its balance of payments situation is a chronic one which is likely to exist for a number of years, certainly as long as the war in Viet Nam lasts and as long as it maintains a powerful military presence in so many parts of the world.
The very fact that there has been a massive outflow of Canadian funds into United States equity stocks in the last four months is in itself some reason for the minister to feel despondent. I do not wish to begin now to make a case for exchange controls, but it is certainly a denial of common sense to be pleading on the one hand that the United States should not turn off the tap of investment and on the other hand to allow with apparent equanimity so large an outflow of Canadian investment funds into United States equity stock.
In conclusion, let me say we cannot support this tax bill because we are not convinced the minister has proved his case in relation to international monetary problems. In the second place, we cannot support the proposals for higher taxes because the present tax is based on a foundation which is inequitable, and to support any surtax calculated on such a base would be to compound inequity.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It had not been my intention to participate in the debate on second reading of this bill, because I did have some things to say on the resolution stage and I propose to say something further during the committee stage. But in view of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Pearson) wide ranging view of financial and economic policy yesterday it seemed to me that if he thought it appropriate to take up the time of the house in that way it would be quite appropriate for me to make a reply at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

March 13. 1968
Income Tax Act


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will resist the great temptation to blister the government, though I doubt whether any leader of the opposition ever had more ammunition to use. I propose to refrain from anything of that sort and to continue what I believe has been a responsible attitude on our part. I must, however, bring to the attention of the house one striking example of the contrast between the sort of thing I have been saying and the sort of thing which was said by hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in opposition, in connection with exchange difficulties.
This struck me as being so apposite that I thought I should bring it to the attention of the house before I go on with my remarks. It is a report of a speech made in Kitchener on June 5, 1962 by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), then leader of the opposition and now Prime Minister of Canada. According to this report he said:
[DOT] (4:00 p.tn.)
There is evidence to suggest other countries may be helping to prop up the Canadian dollar, and if this is so, Canada "can be ashamed," Liberal leader Lester Pearson said last night.
In his most trenchant attack on the government's handling of devaluation, Mr. Pearson said a "mysterious $62 million of aid has come in somehow to help out. It seems to be some sort of temporary loan from foreign central banks to give us a hand."
He also said:
We used to be looked to as a model of good management in our economic and financial affairs.
And now we have to be helped out.
Other governments, of course, have their own good reasons for helping out. They don't want a complete financial collapse here, because it's the sort of thing that spreads.
I wonder what my hon. friends opposite would think if I had been talking that way during the last couple of weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: However, we have no intention of creating any unnecessary difficulties. The present situation of the government and of the country is of course troublesome because of the uncertainties internationally, and also because of something short of complete conviction about the government and its determination to carry out the appropriate policies.
We know that the United States dollar is under pressure because of balance of payments difficulties. We know too that part of the trouble here in Canada is doubts about the adequate determination or the ability of the

government of Canada to contain inflation. Some of us who have been watching the process have been rather interested in seeing the members of the government trying to set themselves up as the saviours of the country from a situation they largely created themselves.
However, I think there is an increasing area of agreement on some points between ourselves and hon. gentlemen opposite. Certainly the extent of the area of disagreement has been substantially reduced. It now seems to be agreed that the performance of Canada with regard to inflation has been bad. This now seems to be agreed on both sides of the house. This is what the Prime Minister said yesterday, as I understood him and he was not expressing any very different opinions from those that have been expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp).
I think it has been agreed, too, that as a result of this the competitive position of the country has been eroded, although there is some difference of opinion as to how serious the erosion has been. Our view on this side of the house is that it is urgent that inflation be controlled, that that is basic to the competitive position of Canadian industry, that to do this the Canadian government must have a budgetary policy that is related to the conditions of the economy, that it has not had this in recent times, and that the government has not yet demonstrated that it is prepared to adopt it.
I take the position that an appropriate budgetary policy, and the other recommendations laid down by the Economic Council of Canada, are not in themselves enough to achieve reasonable price stability and conditions of full employment, and I have been saying this for some time. When I say that the government has not yet shown any determination to adopt a budgetary policy appropriate to the conditions of the economy I simply refer to the decision made with regard to the medicare program, because certainly the reasons the Minister of Finance gave a year ago for deferring that program apply with far greater force today.
In October of last year the Minister of Finance gave some views about containing inflation. I believe these were the real, deeply held views of the minister with regard to the present situation and how it must be dealt with. On that occasion when he spoke to this house he stated most emphatically that if necessary he was quite prepared to create
March 13, 1968

some slack in the economy for a period of a year or two in order to remove the inflationary pressures.
It seems to me there is every indication, from what has happened since then, that in the view of the Minister of Finance and of the government substantial unemployment is necessary at the present time in order to meet the existing problem. To me, as I said then and as I have said since, this is an unacceptable solution.
It is true that in November, during the course of his mini-budget, the Minister of Finance made vague reference to some temporary program for encouraging restraint throughout the economy. It was an obscure reference, and when I questioned him in the house about it a few weeks ago, and asked what progress had been made with regard to the development of that program, he was not able to indicate that there had been any consultations outside the government. In fact I got the very distinct impression that very little indeed had been done with regard to exploring the possibilities of this, and certainly the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, in which he was unable to indicate the terms of reference or give any real description of the agency or the program that was to be followed, confirmed my view that in fact the government had been doing little or nothing on this program or this approach since last fall.
Certainly there had been no consultation. Certainly a good many months have been lost without the benefit of consultation. Now we are in the position where the best the government can say is that it is going to start consultations with the provinces and with other bodies to see what the terms of reference of this agency ought to be. This is as far as the government has taken us on this matter after all these months. Of course what all this does to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I would not know. I get the distinct impression that the government does not know either, because its members certainly avoided answering the question when it was asked earlier this afternoon.
I believe that a policy, a program to encourage restraint is essential. I recognize that there are substantial difficulties involved in any such program, but I say in all sincerity that to date the government has shown a complete failure to be able to maintain anything approaching price stability under conditions even approaching adequate employment.
Income Tax Act
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I recognize, and am quite prepared to admit, that there was a good deal of slack in the economy when the government took over in 1963, although it started to move up after 1961. What I am saying now is that inflation has been out of proportion and excessive under this government ever since the rate of employment in this country reached anything approaching an acceptable figure. I do not say this simply to be abusive but rather to emphasize the point that surely, long since this, the government ought to have realized the need for other policies to at least supplement the policies it was following, and, that the policies it was following must lead either to continued uncontrolled inflation on the one hand, or to an eventual resort to deflation and unemployment on the other hand. Certainly at no time during its existence has this government demonstrated it is capable of maintaining an adequate rate of employment and price stability at the same time.
That is one reason that ever since I came here I have placed some emphasis on the need for a positive policy of restraint, guide lines, or whatever one might wish to call it. One can talk about the difficulty involved in a policy of guide lines. But what is the alternative? I think it has been demonstrated that this is difficult if there is inflation or excessive unemployment. This is not a problem just of this year; it is a problem of the times and a problem with which the government ought long since to have been wrestling. I cannot assess the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday. No one in the house nor in the country can assess it because it is so vague. No one knows what it means. All I can hope is that the government finally means business and is determined to move ahead in the area of encouraging a policy of restraint throughout the Canadian economy.
I think it is extraordinary that no serious move has been made in this direction long before this, because we now learn that the governor of the Bank of Canada has been urging the government for more than a year to adopt some such measure as this. In view of what had been happening, in view of the excessive increase in the cost of living and in view of the price level for not a matter of a year but for two or three years, I suggest there has been grave negligence on the part of the government in not heeding the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada in this respect.
759S

March 13, 1968
Income Tax Act
If it took an exchange crisis to bring the government to the point of facing this sort of thing then, well, as I say, it is an ill wind that does not blow somebody some good. It is regretted, however, that so far as I can see the government has not even started to discuss what form this program will take. I do not wish to be unfair to the Minister of Finance. I recognize he has heavy responsibilities; but I should like to say to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, what I feel. I feel that he is really relying on unemployment and a restraint on the growth of the economy to solve his present price problem. It is clear that unemployment is growing. It is clear also that this policy of additional taxation associated with crippling interest rates, scarcity of credit and restraint on the growth of the economy generally will set back for years the efforts to move ahead made in some of the slower growing parts of Canada, like the Atlantic provinces. This policy will set these parts of the country back for years; there is no question about that.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question. I should like to understand his argument and receive some clarification. Does he consider that a reduction in government revenues would add to the amount we would have to borrow and therefore place upward pressure on interest rates.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will come to that in a moment, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the alternative is quite as stark, actually, as the hon. minister seems to suggest. If he feels I have not answered his question when I finish I shall be happy to do so if he will remind me. The Minister of Finance said that taxes tend to be both inflationary and deflationary.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what my hon. friend said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is what I understood my friend the Minister of Finance to say the other day.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was interpreting your
remarks.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister wishes to quote my remarks that is one thing, but I wish he would not interpret them.
Certainly I believe it is agreed that these taxes add to the costs and the upward pressure on costs. They could only be considered

inflationary in that they tend to reduce effective demand. It seems to be pretty well agreed, however, that demand is not excessive now. We do not have an overheated economy. I do not hear anyone arguing that the Canadian economy is overheated. We do have idle resources, particularly human resources. Canada seems to be getting more of these as the months go by. We have a growing number of unemployed. We have falling profit margins and a further reduction in effective demand is likely to add to the difficulties of the country.
I assume that the Minister of Finance is concerned first of all about establishing financial responsibility by balancing his budget and reducing the demands on the capital markets. I assume also that he wishes to reduce inflationary pressures. When we discuss these matters we do so under some difficulty because we have not had a full budgetary presentation; we ought to have. Of course we are involved in a most extraordinary procedure in which these tax measures have been presented to the country and subsequently to the house. My point today is that we are not considering these proposals in the context of a full budgetary presentation, which would inform us at least what the minister's estimates were about growth, what his assumptions were when he computed his tax levels and things of that sort. So, to a considerable extent we are working in the dark. I hope the minister is not completely in the dark also. Certainly we do not have full information when we discuss these things now.
We do know that the current rate of the economic growth of the country is only about half the optimum or indeed the necessary rate of growth which the Economic Council of Canada has prescribed. We do know that if the country were growing at the optimum rate of growth, if this were conceivable under present circumstances, there would be substantial amounts of additional revenue and a great deal more than what the proposed 3 per cent surcharges would produce during the coming year, which is estimated to be $150 million. The difference between my position and that of the Minister of Finance in respect of his bill is about $150 million net. Of course a relatively slight increase in the rate of growth of the country would produce more than this. Apparently it is not possible for the Minister of Finance to contemplate measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the amount of unemployment and secure additional revenue in that way. I presume he does not feel
March 13. 1968



that possible because of what he considers to be inflationary pressures in the country. If that is so, then the justifications for the tax increases are anti-inflationary justifications. This brings us to the minister's conviction that the need is to maintain a slow rate of growth with the resulting increase in unemployment in order to contain inflationary pressures. We are then back to the position he took very firmly last October.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I suggest therefore that the justification for increased taxes is not real in terms of additional revenue as such, because as I indicated the other day this could come from a deferment of the repayment of the refundable portion of the corporation taxes, plus an additional saving of $50 million. It is very difficult for the Minister of Finance to persuade me, or the country, that this is not a quite satisfactory alternative to additional taxes.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is not very satisfactory.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister says it is not very satisfactory. I cannot help but feel therefore that the additional surcharge on taxes is designed not only with revenue in mind but also with the rate of growth of the economy in mind, to act as a deliberate slowdown measure and as the minister's most essential anti-inflationary program. I think this flows from the attitude the minister demonstrated last October when he indicated he was prepared to resort to measures to create some slack in the economy and keep it there for a year or two. I suggest this is involved in the tax measures before us today.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) has described these tax measures as a disincentive. He said this was necessary, although I do not know quite why. If this is necessary because of a lack of confidence in the government to control inflation, then this is perhaps a high price for the Canadian people to pay. High interest rates are due to the rate of inflation and the high bank rate the Bank of Canada saw fit to impose in the circumstances.
One more difference between the Minister of Finance and myself is that I refuse to believe it is necessary to maintain a substantial slack in the economy from time to time to control inflation. I refuse to accept that as a civilized way to proceed. We are going to have, and we certainly have now, a continued inflationary flow with growing unemployment, and I think it is fair to ask how much
Income Tax Act
unemployment we are going to have and for how long.
The other day the Minister of Finance said, if I interpreted him correctly and he will correct me if I am wrong, that my suggestion that there was no need for the imposition of surcharges on taxes, because we could follow the alternative of deferring the repayment of the refundable tax and obtain additional savings, would put too big a restraint on the review board. What sort of board or agency is this going to be, and what sort of effective force is it going to have if it can only work when there is from 4 per cent to 5 per cent unemployment in the country? Surely the purpose of encouraging restraint throughout the economy is to help us maintain something like adequate employment with a reasonable degree of price stability. Do we have to have unemployment to the extent of 4 per cent or 5 per cent before this board can play a helpful role? Is it putting too big a strain on this agency, or whatever it is going to be, to suggest that even with 4 per cent unemployment it needs additional buttressing in the form of additional taxation to contain inflation? It seems to me my hon. friend is indicating once again how little confidence he has in measures such as his government is now proposing.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a very interesting argument and I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. I am not doing so for the purpose of needling, but rather to get the full gist of his argument. Is he suggesting that we should not be budgeting for a balanced budget this year?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think my position is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, but I will be happy to remove any obscurity that might exist in the mind of the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: That would be impossible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, I think I can get this across, if I have not already succeeded.


An hon. Member:: You'd have to hit him over the head.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are not enthusiastic about this, but I have suggested that we would go along with the proposal to step up corporation taxes. We do not believe that the government needs to resort to the surcharges it is proposing because it can find this $150 million in the other ways I have suggested.

March 13, 1968
Income Tax Act


Mitchell William Sharp: This is the point I should like to clarify. The repayment of the refundable tax is not an expenditure measure.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When my hon. friend talks about something in the nature of $150 million -and I do not want to get into the position of Mr. Howe-he is talking about forecasts. I do not think my hon. friend can say with complete confidence that his forecasts are so accurate that even with this surcharge he will come up with a balanced budget, or that without it he will not.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am going to try.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No doubt the minister will try, and I am sure he will try as long as he is there. I want to say in all sincerity that it is not my purpose to make light of the difficulties that exist. I am really trying to discuss this matter in a serious way.
It is my hope that the government is not so discouraged about maintaining something like full employment along with a reasonable degree of price stability that from time to time it feels it has to create a substantial amount of unemployment in order to return to conditions of stability. As I understand it, the purpose of the agency that is being established is to try to reconcile or make it easier to achieve these two goals.
Yesterday the Prime Minister spoke about the increase in provincial expenditures and said that they were growing more rapidly than those of the federal government. There have been large increases in expenditures in the fields of education, health and welfare. This is true right across the country; it is not just true of one provincial government. This is the general situation I think in which provincial governments find themselves. Indeed the Economic Council of Canada has expressed the view that it is economically desirable that the Atlantic provinces should spend more than they have been able to spend, especially on such matters as education, highway improvement and other measures.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
However, I think it is quite correct to say that the provinces today have relatively little flexibility in their financial position. As a result of programs, some sponsored by the federal government, such as the hospital plan, and others, programs designed to equalize educational opportunities throughout the particular province, and so on, the provinces are involved in programs they have adopted

which have a very substantial annual built-in escalation. The present government has added to this problem by proposing quite recently that the provinces go ahead with another substantial program with a large annual built-in escalation.
The main point I wish to emphasize is that it does not help at all to point to the increase across the board in the expenditures of the provinces. The forecast made by the tax structure committee, sponsored by the federal government and the provinces, indicated that on the basis of programs then existing the provincial governments would move into positions of increasing deficit whereas the federal government would move into a position of increasing surplus. The lesson I draw from all this is the need for genuine consultation between the federal government and the provinces with regard to priorities. We have not yet had this. The process of consultation has really been considerably discredited by the federal government through insisting on going ahead with, for example, the medicare program, although eight of the ten provinces said they did not approve of the program and it was not the form of medicare program that they wanted.
Certainly a great and urgent need in Canada today is stability and growth. Surely that is where we must put the emphasis. It is not that economic growth is an end in itself. I think a country like ours has to have in mind higher purposes than this. We must think in terms of the quality of Canadian life. I do not believe in the process of cutting back just for the sake of cutting back. Certainly we want to get rid of waste. Certainly we must consider the position of the taxpayer.
I believe that the government has an active role to play in development, and equalizing opportunity and providing better services to the people. But surely we can agree that all of this has to come from economic growth. Economic growth will make it possible for us to do these things. We must therefore think in terms of an expansion of employment and increasing productivity. As I said, I cannot accept the principle that we need substantial unemployment to be rid of inflation. We are not in the position of having an overheated economy.
There are economic situations in which it is difficult to achieve full employment, but ordinarily this is not the case when the United States economy is growing in strength as it has been doing. Latterly we have not been doing as well as they have. In addition to all this, as I say, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
March 13, 1968

that the government has been putting additional and unnecessary pressures on the provinces.
Therefore in summary I would say that in the existing circumstances we should not adopt policies which have the effect of creating additional unemployment, when there is already more unemployment than we want to see. We must recognize that an adequate rate of growth is essential to a satisfactory solution of our economic problems. We must bear in mind also the effect of these policies on areas of slow growth in the country.
Certainly the government must practise restraint. I suggest that it must consult with the provinces to work out priorities, and not simply dictate policies to the provinces. We should all be trying to work toward positions of greater flexibility so that this and other governments can respond more adequately to the changing conditions of the economy. We need to adopt a budgetary policy related to the needs of the economy, bearing in mind the priorities in the country. Therefore, I hope the government will get really busy with the program of encouraging restraints in our economy. I hope it will take really seriously the views of the Bank of Canada in this respect, and not merely the views that I have been expressing.
I think the failure of the policies of the government with regard to inflation has been long since apparent. I believe it was a grave mistake for the government not to heed the advice of the Bank of Canada far sooner than it did. The minister seemed to feel the need of some such policy last fall; but even now, more than a year after the governor of the Bank of Canada recommended the policy and many months after the Minister of Finance suggested that he was working toward such a policy, the government is unable to describe to the house the terms of reference of the agency. Even now there has been no consultation by the government with those outside the government with regard to how this program is going to work.
So we need a demonstration of restraint. The government has an opportunity to give the country a demonstration of restraint. We have a responsibility in connection with the unemployed and the maintenance of economic growth. Therefore, sir, in my opinion the surcharges are not necessary to meet the current emergency. I think rather that the government should put more emphasis on restraint and should defer the repayment of the refundable portion of tax rather than resort
Income Tax Act
to additional taxation, which will have the effect of imposing a further restraint on the growth of the economy and will tend to further increase unemployment.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the members of the house to oppose the measures put forward by the minister relating to surcharges, on the ground that they are not appropriate to the conditions that exist and they are burdens which are not required to be imposed on the Canadian people at the present time. Also in passing I cannot urge too strongly upon the government its responsibility to proceed seriously and conscientiously with the program of encouraging restraints throughout the economy.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I wish to make some comments on this Bill No. C-208. I presume that inasmuch as it is going to reduce the happiness now rampant in Canada the entire house should be opposed to its acceptance. I know that in the neighbouring country to the south they are engaged in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. I was happy to learn from reading Hansard for Monday, February 19, a day upon which I was not in the house, that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Chretien) had emphasized three times that the people of Canada were happy with the 5 per cent surcharge. As the minister said, they should be happy because conditions in Canada are better than in the United States or Great Britain. If they were happy with the 5 per cent surcharge, then how disappointed they are going to be when they are hit with only 3 per cent.
The matter was drawn to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) as you will find if you have been reading Hansard, and he advocated that if happiness consisted of having a 5 per cent surcharge on your income tax, why not go to 15 per cent or 20 per cent and make the taxpayers of Canada extremely happy? The thought was not advanced any further because of events that occurred on February 19 to which I do not need to refer. However, I have some comments to make on this bill because I regret exceedingly that the cabinet has brought forward Bill No. C-208, primarily because of clause 2.
Yesterday my friend, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), spoke at some considerable length. He handled his part of the debate in a masterful fashion. But I, sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker, began to wonder if

March 13. 1968
Income Tax Act
my friend was not going a little too far. I felt I should examine his statements. He said, as reported at page 7551 of Hansard:
Indeed he

-Mr. Pearson-
-even went so far as to make a statement somewhere in his speech, and I say this with some hesitation about the Prime Minister of this country, which was totally and factually wrong. It was untrue. Somewhere in his speech the right hon. Prime Minister said that our economy is still expanding, although at a slower and more bearable rate. The fact is that our economy is no longer expanding at the present time.
This comment was made by the hon. member for York South, and I looked at him and looked at him. He made the flat statement that it was untrue. I presume we might examine the statement of the Prime Minister in more detail to see just where the truth lies. However, I am one who has always said that actions speak louder than words. If anyone is interested in my stand on the no confidence motion, they can find it set forth clearly in Hansard for Tuesday, February 27, when I publicly stated on the floor of this house that -The only way you could revive that bill is to prorogue this house and bring the bill in in another session. If you want to do that I will vote for the bill in a new house but I certainly will not vote in any way, shape or form for a revival of Bill No. C-193 in the present session no matter who tries to bring it in.
I said, as reported on page 7058 of Hansard:
If there is no statement made that Bill C-193 will be revived in this session of parliament and if no effort is made to circumvent the Speaker's decision, as the cabinet tried to do in the case of the transport bill, I can support the continuation of the cabinet in office.
I voted accordingly, and after having made the remarks, I feel I cannot support bringing this Bill No. C-193 on which the House of Commons had expressed itself on February 19, back into the house in any manner, shape or form. Now, I should like to refer to other statements made on the same day, February 27, by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau). I am one who considers that the position of Minister of Justice is the second most important in the cabinet. I hold the Ministry of Justice in such high regard because of comments on innumerable occasions made by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, who made this remark time after time with regard to Hon. Ernest Lapointe and with regard to Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
	\Z\1S.
The Minister of Justice occupies a position of extreme importance in this country, a position that should never be denigrated in any way by anyone, least of all by the occupant of the position. On February 27, page 7042 of Hansard, you will find a report of the speech by the Minister of Justice with regard to this same matter:
The point I am making now, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not trying...to revive the bill and put it back on the order paper.
Some members of the opposition said, "Try it", and the Minister of Justice said:
Hon. members say "Try it". It is easy to defy us because we say we would not do so.
Then, the minister goes on:
I will even go further, and I will say that it is not only the government's intention not to reintroduce this legislation...
There was an interruption by some hon. members who shouted, "Hear, hear". Then, the Minister of Justice said:
The government recognizes that it is the will of this house not to collect taxes that way.
This refers to the surcharge on income tax of 5 per cent according to Bill No. C-193 and by stepping up the collection of corporation taxes so they would be paid two months closer to the beginning of the fiscal year of the corporation. Those were the two major points of the bill. The Minister of Justice said that the government recognized it was the will of this house not to collect taxes that way.
On the same page, following a question by the hon. member of Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness), we find this from the Minister of Justice:
Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to explain just now is that it is not our intention to bring that bill back.
The minister answered a number of questions and then was asked a question by the hon. member for Lapointe, as reported at page 7044 of Hansard. The hon. member inquired if the government considered that Monday night's vote was final, to which the Minister of Justice replied:
I repeated earlier what the Prime Minister had said previously, namely that the bill had been defeated, that we accepted that decision and would not bring it back before the house.
The Minister of Justice said that the Prime Minister had said the bill had been defeated, and in order to ascertain the exact words the Prime Minister used we need only refer to Hansard for February 23, which I have here.
March 13, 1968

I wish to read the words of the Prime Minister as they appear on page 6921 of Hansard:
We, as the government, accept the fact of that rejection.
There are no qualifying words, no clauses. In the bottom right hand corner of page 6921 of Hansard we find those words:
We, as the government, accept the fact of that rejection.
On page 6922 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
-nor does it ask parliament to reconsider that decision.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Again, Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 6923 the Prime Minister continues:
It does not ask the house to rescind or reconsider any vote.
Then again on the same page:
We have made it quite clear we are not going to ask for further progress on that bill-
I rose yesterday, Mr. Speaker and members of the House of Commons, in an effort to prove that clause 2 of Bill No. C-208 is similar in every way, with the exception of a slight change in the manner of payment, to clause 4 of Bill No. C-193. Bill No. C-208 that the cabinet has seen fit to bring forward is, in my opinion, in direct contravention of the rules of the house. I am not going to say whether it is in direct contravention of the words of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister; I will leave hon. members to judge for themselves on that score. I have simply read to the house from the record of this House of Commons. If the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) hesitated, as he said he did yesterday, making the remarks that he did, I regret that it was possible for me to read the remarks of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister at this time.
I cannot support this bill, Mr. Speaker, and if it comes to a roll call vote, for the first time since I was elected to parliament I shall vote against the cabinet. There is nothing outstanding about that stand.


Mr. Boulanger:: Shame.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have sat in this house-


Prosper Boulanger: Why don't you get out of
the party then?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Make your own speech after I am through, buster.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Trouble in paradise.
Income Tax Act


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Paradise? In stating that I will vote against the party for the first time since I was elected to this house six years ago, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this action is not untoward. I remember sitting in this house when the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, as he then was, the present Minister of Justice, in the winter of 1965-66 voted against the party during a committee vote. He was sitting two seats over from me and I moved over and said to him: "Parliamentary secretaries are not supposed to vote against government motions". He leaned over and said to me: "I couldn't care less, my friend. This is a matter of principle to me and I am voting the way I feel".
However, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was in good company because four seats over from him the then associate minister of defence was also voting against the cabinet of which he was a member. Although these hon. gentleman voted against the party's desires on that occasion, it is interesting to note that they have not felt the discipline of the party. In fact, one has been advanced to Minister of Justice and the other has been promoted from associate minister of defence to minister of defence.


Robert Muir: You are next, Ralph.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Don't bet any money on that, boys.
I have nothing further that I wish to say on this question, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of principle to me. I am sorry it is not a matter of principle to other members of this party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am sorry to see the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) applauding when we are reducing the happiness that he gave to this nation with this tax. We are now reducing the tax from 5 per cent to 3 per cent. Later on it may be reduced to 1 per cent. If he meant what he said when I quoted him from Hansard, if all of us were happy with 5 per cent, why cut it down to 3?
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill that the cabinet has brought to the floor of the house. Clause 2 is too similar in every way to the original clause 4 of Bill No. C-193 for me to support it. I would support the original bill in a new session following prorogation; but I cannot support any repetition of Bill No. C-193, because of the rules of this house.

March 13. 1968
Income Tax Act
Might I end, Mr. Speaker, with a little item that I have taken from that great Canadian periodical Reader's Digest. You will remember that it was made Canadian overnight and is one of our Canadian thought makers. In the current issue for March there is to be found at page 240 an item that bears on this very point. It is taken from trial testimony submitted by the National Shorthand Reporters Association. They are the official verbatim reporters who cover the courts. We have an overbearing lawyer and a witness and the quotation is:
Q: As a matter of fact, sir, you were so scared that you don't know whether it was a motorcar or something resembling a motorcar that hit you, isn't that true?
A: Well, it resembled one, all right. I was struck by the resemblance.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to these debates on fiscal and monetary policy and also when I listen to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) I am always reminded of a well-known Doukhobor saying to the effect that if you stir the waters long enough you will muddy them so that no one will be able to see the fish.
I must say, having listened to the Leader of the Opposition and read in today's papers what happened in Toronto yesterday, that I cannot reconcile the philosophies of these two gentlemen. I think they are rather out of tune. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he consult with the premier of Ontario to make certain that they are taking the same philosophic approach to taxation policies in this country, policies that represent the view of the Progressive Conservative party.
I intend to be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think there is any necessity for me to repeat many of the arguments that have been made by members on the opposition side of the house in regard to this legislation. Let me say that I entered this debate with every sympathy for the minister, whom I recognize as an honourable man of integrity who is trying to do the best he can from his point of view under these very difficult conditions. However, Mr. Speaker, he suffers from the restrictions that are imposed by government policy. He suffers from the restrictions imposed by his own view of economic affairs and also from the restrictions imposed by all of those persons who occupy comfortable pews in Canada at the present time.

Nevertheless I give the minister credit for his work in connection with achieving complete exemption from United States controls over capital outflow to Canada and the additional $900 million in United States funds as stand-by credits to protect the Canadian dollar. I hope that these two major developments will be successful in maintaining the dollar at its present level. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it would be very hard under present circumstances to find fault with the minister's resolute action in defence of the Canadian dollar. This does not tie me in with the international bankers in any respect whatever, but I think it only fair to say that. As to what will be the effect of these actions, Mr. Speaker, I simply quote the Prime Minister's words today-that we must never give up hope. That is the attitude of a great many of us at this time to this aspect of our budgetary problems.
I am of the opinion that this new bill is more equitable than the former bill because it reduces the surtax on individual incomes from 5 per cent to 3 per cent. It also imposes a similar 3 per cent on corporation profits. I have heard some discussion in this connection and am given to understand that this 3 per cent tax on corporations may impose a hardship on small companies engaged in business or in manufacturing. We might hear more about that later in the committee stage.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I want to say a word or two about the Carter report, since it has been discussed a few times. I shall be brief. I see the agonized expression on the face of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) but I intend to pursue the subject. The minister has been subjected to some criticism for his failure to implement the principles of the Carter commission report. However, so far as I am personally concerned, while our group supports the general principles of the Carter report, I am of the opinion that the minister was wise to allow all those interested in its recommendations to make representations to the government and to the various parties in this house. I have been personally advised by officers of the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations that they were very pleased to have the opportunity to make representations with respect to the proposed taxation of disability pensions.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the national farm unions, the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association, the Beef Growers Association, the co-operatives, credit
March 13, 1968

unions, various organizations interested in the status of women-I do not know why such an ancient chap as I am should always be getting letters from the ladies with respect to problems only-and other groups have informed the government that they are glad to have the opportunity to make representations with respect to certain recommendations contained in the Carter commission report. I think that was wise. I do not think it was possible to take action on such an important taxation proposal without getting the reaction and representations of those it is intended to affect.
As a strong supporter of the main recommendations of the Carter report, personally I am glad that the government has provided the opportunity for the representatives of these various groups to present their views. However, I am disappointed to know that this bill provides for the taxation of people in receipt of the $105 a month which they have been able to obtain only after passing a means test. Surely here was an opportunity for the government to recognize one of the principles outlined in the Carter commission report, when introducing this bill. I hope when we reach the committee stage some more will be said about this. I trust the minister has a more satisfactory answer than has appeared so far.
I now want to say a word or two about foreign investment, because that has been mentioned in this debate. The problem of foreign ownership of Canadian industry and resources is becoming more and more acute, and members of this party join with many other Canadians in deploring this development, not in a spirit of narrow minded nationalism but rather because foreign ownership and control often brings with it a pattern of industrial development that is not in the interests of the Canadian people. It also makes progressively more difficult the control and management of the Canadian economy by the Canadian people through their elected governments.
When the Regina manifesto was the economic bible of our party-and I still have a lingering affection for the Regina manifesto; I was one of the early pioneers in this movement, you know-this situation would have been handled very easily indeed. We should simply have said, "Let's socialize all these companies," and that would be the end of it.
It may interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I was very surprised when talking to that philosopher, polemic and poet of the
Income Tax Act
press gallery, Mr. Arthur Blakely, to hear that he was a strong supporter of the Regina manifesto. However, my spirits drooped when he gave me his reasons. He said he knew our party could never get elected to power while the Regina manifesto was our program. Needless to say, I was very interested in his observation. Since the time of the Regina manifesto our party has changed its policy. It now believes that the crucial issue before the Canadian people is not the nationality of the shareholders of any company, but rather, who determines and guides our national development. It was for this reason that the financial experts of this party discarded at the outset the idea of wholesale or extensive nationalization.
For one thing, our experts say that nationalization is impracticable, since it could not win the public support which is essential for any policy in a political democracy. It is for that reason that the New Democratic party proposes a Canada development fund, under government control, which would channel Canadian savings into investment in public or private enterprises, or a combination of both, to the advantage of the Canadian people as a whole. I think the former president of the privy council has done much to create a climate that is favourable to that idea in this country. He also wrote a book on the question.
I frankly admit I am not expert on financial affairs; I leave those questions to persons who have made a particular study of them, but I am a bit confused about the advantages or disadvantages of a fixed or floating exchange rate. However, Mr. Speaker, my reading on this problem indicates that over the years government of all political stripes have used fixed and floating exchange rates at particular times to meet what were described as national emergencies. I trust that in the near future the minister will inform the house of his reasons for supporting a fixed exchange rate under present circumstances.
I will frankly admit, Mr. Speaker, that my opposition to this bill is not based on intellectual concepts related to the handling of money, but on government policy in general. And here I want to list three or four reasons which induced me to oppose this bill. One of them is inflation. That is a subject that has been extensively discussed in this house and country. Surely all of us realize that inflation is one of the most serious problems we must face at this time and that inflation is the

March 13, 1968
Income Tax Act
reason for the increased cost of living, and the consequent increasing injustice suffered by those who are required to live on small fixed incomes-people such as pensioners of various types.
We know that the major cause of inflation in Canada at this time is the war in Viet Nam. Regardless of any bumbling or mistaken policies by this government, that is the major cause of inflation on the North American continent at this time. I might say in that respect that I consulted some persons who are, shall I say, well known in United States banking circles, and they have confirmed this.
The United States is living in a war oriented economy, the effects of which have been felt over the entire North American continent, which suffered a similar experience, though, to a lesser degree, during the Korean war. Therefore in my opinion in the interests of the Canadian people the government ought to do all it can to stop the war in Viet Nam. I am reliably informed that the quickest and most effective way to stop the war in Viet Nam is to prevent the export to the United States of Canadian nickel, which is so essential to the prosecution of that war. I am also informed that nickel is in short supply in Canada and in some other countries, and it is for this reason that the International Nickel Company is borrowing $50 million in the United States for plant expansion.
In this connection, considering former government action, I cannot understand why the government does not consider negotiating an agreement with the United States for nickel on terms similar to those offered to France for the export of uranium and, in so doing, earn the gratitude of all peace loving people, and take a confident step toward stopping inflation and the consequent increase in living costs in Canada, in addition to any other measures that the government of this country ought to take.
I find that in the Financial Post for January 27, 1968, Knowlton Nash wrote:
In Caesar's day, it cost about 75 cents to kill an enemy soldier; in world war II, the cost was up to $50,000 per dead enemy. In Viet Nam it's costing about $1 million for every enemy dead.
That indicates that the war economy of the United States and the cost of the war are the basic reasons for the inflation we suffer from at this time.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I am opposed to this measure because of government policy in this respect. While I am

normally a peaceful man, I am not a congenital pacifist. It is for this reason that as a Canadian socialist, in opposition to the views of some of the leaders of our party at that time, I supported the Canadian government's efforts in the second world war from the commencement, realizing that the Canadian government was fighting Hitler and the nazi philosophy which was a menace to our civilization. I wonder what would be happening now if Hitler had won that war. We would either be dead or in slavery. As I say, I am naturally inclined to be peaceful. Therefore, since about 1950 I have been opposed to Canada's support of NATO and have generally supported the arguments put forward by that well-known United States ambassador, Mr. Kennan. I have had no hesitation about presenting my views on this subject both in this house and in the country.
I must say I was interested to hear this morning that my arguments in this respect, presented at our founding convention in 1961, still linger in the memory of that impeccable, pithy and impartial columnist Mr. Maurice Western who was present on that occasion to hear two of the leading figures argue the case for staying in NATO and two other speakers, one of whom was the hon. member for Kootenay West, speak in favour of Canada's withdrawing from NATO. Anyway, since its founding convention in 1961 this party has been opposed to Canada's continued participation in NATO; we have made it clear that Canada should not remain in NATO, once that organization became a nuclear alliance.
The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), the former minister of national defence, replied to a question addressed to him by the hon. member for Kootenay West by saying, that NATO was a nuclear alliance and that the Canadian air division had a striking capacity 100 times greater than that required to destroy Hiroshima in the second world war. This is another reason I am opposed to the measure before us-because of the expenditures in relation to NATO membership.
What about NORAD? Since our founding convention in 1961, this party has repeatedly questioned whether any significant contribution has been made to the defence of Canada by NORAD. In any case we believe the organization has outlived its usefulness, that the agreements should therefore be terminated and that some of the money spent in this connection could be better spent on providing conventional troops or trained civilians for
March 13, 1968

the United Nations, or in aid to underdeveloped countries.
The estimates for the Department of National Defence for the coming fiscal year total $1,700 millions. We could have saved at least $700 million of this for a starter had we withdrawn from the NATO and NORAD agreements. This is another reason for my opposition to the bill before us.
I am also opposed to the bill because the government of Canada has refused to use the Bank of Canada to provide the social capital required by federal, provincial and municipal governments for social investment, such as housing, hospitals, schools and other necessary facilities required by governments.
In conclusion, I wish to philosophize to a modest extent in order to place my ideas before the house. I fully appreciate the minister's difficulties occasioned by government policy, his own ideas on economics and the fact that society's technology shapes the lives and the understanding of citizens. The technology of our times, while it is air-conditioned and automated, is still essentially capitalist in its structure and logic. We have more comfort today, but after talking to the dozens of people I meet I question whether the people as a whole are any happier than their parents were 50 years ago; in many cases they have lost their purpose in life, lost their zest for undertaking things and lost their community identity because of the increasing size of our cities.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: That is the truest thing you have ever said.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Instead of the obvious
exploitation of years past, we have developed a comfortable capitalism which imposes new but more effective forms of social control. However, I cannot resist saying that despite our level of material prosperity, capitalism continues to institutionalize injustice and corrupt the potentialities of human beings. The capitalist system, with all its improvements, has succeeded in seducing the minds of many people who live in greater security and comfort, with the result that the status quo is granted a spurious consent. Individuals are inclined to identify themselves with the existence which is imposed upon them from above and are indoctrinated by the conditions under which they live and think, but are unable to transcend. In my opinion, the unrealized potentialities of many people remain undeveloped, due to an overabundance of goods and services which satisfy their
Division
immediate material needs, rendering them incapable of developing the aesthetic side of life which is the foundation of human happiness.
If government policies were designed to give effect to my proposals, that is, to stop the war in Viet Nam, to stop wasteful expenditure on defence and to use the Bank of Canada for social capital, I am confident we would be able to provide a material cultural environment which would enable all Canadians to understand the truth about life, to appreciate goodness wherever found and to enjoy beauty in all its forms.


Some hon. Members:: Question, a (5:50 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion I rise on a point of order. In view of what has transpired previously and in order to save the time of the house and duplication of votes, particularly on this bill, I would ask whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would state whether he considers this vote as a vote of confidence.


Some hon. Members:: March 13, 1968
Division
LeBlanc (Rlmouski)
Leboe
Lefebvre
Legault
Lessard
Lind
Loiselle
Macdonald (Rosedale)
MacEachen
Mcllraith
McLean (Charlotte) McNulty McWilliam Marchand
Martin (Essex East)
Matheson
Matte
Mongram
Morison
Munro
Neveu
Nicholson
Noel
O'Keefe
Olson
Orange
Otto
Ouellet
Patterson
Pearson
Pelletier
Pepin
Pilon
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Asselin (Charlevoix)
Baldwin
Barnett
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Bigg
Bower
Brand
Brewin
Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Cantelon
Caouette
Caston
Chatterton
Churchill
Coates
Code
Cowan
Crouse
Danforth
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Prud'homme
Racine
Reid
Richard
Rideout (Mrs.)
Robichaud
Rochon
Rock
Roxburgh
Ryan
Sauve
Sharp
Stafford
Stanbury
Stewart
Tardif
Teillet
Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Thompson
Tolmie
Tremblay
Trudeau
Tucker
Turner
Wahn
Walker
Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Whelan Winters Yanakis-126.
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Jorgenson
Keays
Kindt
Knowles
Korchinski
Lambert
Langlois (Megantic)
Laprise
Latulippe
Lewis
Loney
MacDonald (Prince) MacEwan
Maclnnis (Cape Breton South)
Maclnnis (Mrs.)
MacLean (Queens)
Macquarrie
MacRae
McCleave
McCutcheon
McIntosh
McKinley
McLelland
McQuaid
Madill
Mandziuk
Martin (Timmins)
Mather
Monteith
Moore
More
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria)
Muir (Lisgar)
Nasserden
Nesbitt
Nowlan
Nugent
Orlikow
Ormiston
Pascoe
Peters
Prittie
Pugh
Rapp
Regimbal
Ricard
Rynard
Saltsman
Schreyer
Scott (Victoria (Ont.))
Simard
Simpson
Skoreyko
Smallwood
Smith
Southam
Stanfield
Starr
Stefanson
Thomas
(Middlesex West) Valade Wadds (Mrs.)
Watson (Assiniboia)
Webb
Winch
Woolliams-116.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Dionne
Douglas
Enns
Fairweather
Fane
Fawcett
Flemming
Forbes
Forrestall
Fulton
Gauthier
Germa
Gilbert
Godin
Grafftey
Grills
Gundlock
Hales
Hamilton
Harkness
Hees
Homer (Acadia) Horner (The Bat-tlefords) Howard
Howe (Hamilton South)
a (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Irvine). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), who was called away on official business. Had I voted, I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. Ballard:: I was paired with a member of the administration, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 14, 1968