1968-11-12

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the house through you, sir, on behalf of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) and myself to call to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of two distinguished young Canadians, Robert Andrews from Mori-en, Nova Scotia and Timothy Matthews from Grand Falls, Newfoundland.
Mr. Andrews led the nation in an essay contest sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion. Mr. Matthews led the nation in a poetry contest also sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion.
I am sure the house will recognize the value of what these young men have accomplished and will join with the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and myself in our desire to pay tribute to them and to their achievements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LABOUR, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on labour, manpower and immigration-Mr. Caccia.
[Note: Text of above report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the disposition of Indian claims, and
in relation thereto to provide for the establishment of an Indian claims commission; to provide for the duties of the commission, its decisions and awards; to provide for appeals from the decisions and awards of the commission to an Indian claims appeal court; to provide assistance to Indian bands in preparing and pursuing claims; and to enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether we should conclude from his remarks at Kingston over the week end that the objective of the current foreign policy review is to find ways of diverting resources now committed to our international role for use in respect of domestic purposes, such as anti-poverty measures and efforts to improve the conditions of underprivileged groups in Canada.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: This is, of course, one of the elements of our overall study of these questions, Mr. Speaker. We will have to weigh our foreign commitments with our commitments in Canada. We will have to weigh our foreign commitments in terms of what we want to spend on assistance through foreign aid, national development and in the military sphere. These are all elements which we are weighing together.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, are we to conclude that the view of the government is that Canada fundamentally faces a choice between an active international role and an effective attack on social problems here at home?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition concluded that, he would be reaching a conclusion before we have done so. We are still in the process of review. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or anyone should conclude that before we are in a position to make a conclusion ourselves.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to conclude, then, that the government has not made any such decision as yet?

November 12, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is correct.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the government, however, to implement the recommendations of the economic council in respect of reviving the war on poverty and, specifically, reviving or replacing in a more durable and effective form the special planning secretariat of the Privy Council office?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we were conscious of the need to wage war on poverty before the economic council report which brought the opposition's attention to this problem. We are continuing in every way we can to seek means to alleviate this problem.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the responsibility for making decisions on this foreign policy review will rest with the government, but can the Prime Minister tell the house who is advising the government in respect of this review, if not in detail-


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


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister concluded that the civil war which might spill over into Canada from the United States is inevitable and forms the basis of his conclusion?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not really supplementary although it is related. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman what instructions have been given to the representatives at the ministerial conference of NATO in respect of Canada's commitments to NATO at the present time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, because we are in the process of this review, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, the instructions given to our delegation, in general terms, are that as much as possible they should avoid any commitments now which would prejudge the results of the review on which we have embarked.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr. Speaker .during th estudy whic
the government has been carrying on regarding our future role in Europe, have any factors come to light which would indicate to the Prime Minister and the government that Canada should in any way reduce its military role in Europe?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the question we hope to be able to answer when our review is completed, but it is not yet completed.


George Harris Hees: I did not hear the end of the Prime Minister's answer. Do I take it that nothing has come to light that would indicate we should reduce our role-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is simply reiterating the question he asked in the first instance. The hon. member for York South on a supplementary question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pursue the question I asked the Prime Minister. He said the instructions were that as far as possible our delegation should make no commitment. Can we have from the Prime Minister an assurance-this is from a different angle than some of the questions that have been asked

that at this conference in Brussels there will be no commitment to increase Canada's military part in NATO, in view of the fact that pressures in that direction have come forward as a result of the invasion of Czechoslovakia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, our position at the NATO meetings will be taken after we have shown our point of view to our allies and after we have listened to their points of view. I would not tell our partners in NATO that we are going in there with a closed mind; that we are not prepared to listen to anything they might have to say. I might just inform the house of the present government's position. It is one of review of NATO. We are not led to the immediate reaction, after the Czechoslovakian events, to conclude that we should necessarily escalate in NATO. This is our position. I repeat, however, that we will listen to the position of the other members of NATO and make up our minds then.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it be a fair statement to say that the representatives of Canada at the NATO conference are being instructed to indicate that Canada would like to reduce its commitments to NATO, but that it is prepared to hear what the NATO allies might have to say on this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would be fair to say that the latter part of the statement of the Leader of the Opposition is correct, that we are prepared to listen. On the first part, our reaction is that the Czechoslovakian events do not necessarily call for an escalation of forces, and therefore-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
November 12, 1968


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -our delegation to NATO is not going in there in order to achieve escalation, but on the contrary to argue as much as possible that we in Canada are embarked upon a review of our NATO policy and to say that we would not like to take decisions now which would prejudge the result of that review.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the importance of this foreign policy review presently being conducted by the government, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be willing to table very soon the terms of reference of this review, as well as the personnel involved in it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Prime Minister is waiting to explain the answer he gave at Queen's University that has caused quite an uproar in the United States, to the effect that in five years civil war may take place in the United States and swoop over into Canada, and that in effect the demonstrations of civil disobedience pose a greater danger than communism does in regard to the Berlin wall. Is that the view of the Prime Minister? If there is any doubt as to what he said, would he mind tabling the tape, which everybody apparently has, on which his statements are recorded?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is in order to table a tape. I do not think I would attach too much importance to tapes. I have a verbatim report of what I said. I am prepared to read it to the house, if the house is interested in hearing it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: No; we want the tape.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As long as the Prime Minister does not read the whole speech-


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house would like to give the Prime Minister that opportunity.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not think you would take me up on this.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it a true copy of the tape?


An hon. Member:: Is this on motions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is excerpts from the Prime Minister's statement in the question and answer period. So far as I know it is a verbatim report.


An hon. Member:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No good?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Baldwin:: The tape, the whole tape.


George Harris Hees: And nothing but the tape.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since all these questions relate to international policy and particularly the review of Canada's role in NATO, and in view of the rapid way in which developments are taking place as well as considerations with regard to NATO's role in Europe, can the Prime Minister indicate when the review of foreign policy is likely to be concluded and when we can hear from the government what are the results of that review?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's impatience. At this time I cannot say when the review will be concluded. I can just say that it is under active study. There are committees working on it now and I am not in a position yet to say when the report will be completed.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a
supplementary question I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister, in order to save confusion in the future, whether he would undertake to restrain his tendency to make hasty and off the cuff remarks before he has received the report of this committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to some of the questions asked earlier of the Prime Minister in regard to his very active week end of speech making. In view of the remarks of the Prime Minister regarding disorders in the great cities of the United States

November 12, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry and-and I quote-the "great riots and the beginnings of civil wars in the United States of America", would the Prime Minister say whether these observations constitute an expression of hostility to a friendly state as serious as that of sending food to Biafra?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question similar to that asked by the hon. member from Annapolis. In view of the remarks of the Prime Minister to the effect that relief supplies sent to Biafra could constitute an act of war, and to the effect that Canada did not want to involve itself in the internal problems of another country, does the Prime Minister not consider his statements in Kingston an intrusion into the domestic policies of the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question is slightly argumentative.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the premise of that question. I wish the hon. member would not say I said that to send relief supplies to Biafra could constitute an act of war. We have never taken this position. We have said it would constitute an act of war if it were done against the will and permission of the Nigerian government.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the Prime Minister is not only misunderstanding his own statement but he is misunderstanding mine.


Mr. Benson:: That is not very difficult.


Donald MacInnis: I referred to the fact that the Prime Minister had indicated that the sending of relief supplies could be interpreted as an act of war, and I put no qualification on that statement. Therefore, if the Prime Minister cannot understand himself, I can well understand why he cannot understand me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I apologize to the hon.
member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that hon. members might go on to another question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister which is still in the area of international affairs. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman if a change in our relations with Cuba is being contemplated as a means of seeking Canada's entrance into the Organization of American States.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman inform the house whether he has received protests from the director of police in Montreal regarding the admission by the Department of Manpower and Immigration of agitators and trouble makers, at the same time accusing the department of being unable to distinguish between proponents of ideas and ideals and rebel-rousing malcontents? If he has, what action does the government intend to take in this respect.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such representation. I did read some reports in the newspaper this morning that the chief of police in Montreal had some complaint, but I do not believe he said he had made any complaint to me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if, at the same time the Prime Minister is discussing the matter with his colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, he would look into the fact that many people in Canada who 30 or 40 years ago were denied Canadian citizenship because of alleged relationships with some red line organizations, are still denied their citizenship because of that old relationship.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wonder if the Prime Minister, in discussing this matter with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, will point out that it is customary in Canada to allow political visitors into this country without questioning from the police.
November 12, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making representations rather than asking a question.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I shall direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
My question concerns a statement made by the chief of police in Montreal according to whom there are so many undesirables in Montreal because the Department of Immigration does not exercise adequate supervision. Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether this Department will exercise tighter supervision in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member put his question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when he appears in the house?



CROWN CORPORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, since the percentage of the French-Canadian representation on the board of directors in federal public enterprises is 14.7 per cent and that of the English speaking directors is 85.3 per cent-I am coming now to my question, Mr. Speaker-and since also no legislation at the present time provides for an equitable representation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must ask a question.


André-Gilles Fortin: I am coming to it, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes one has to make speeches in order to be understood.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the house whether specific measures will be taken, in the very near future, in order to ensure fairness to the French-Canadian representation in public enterprise since the present situation reveals a gross injustice?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as you did not allow all the statistics, which I understand, I shall merely indicate that I disagree with the facts as stated by the hon. member.
Freneh-Canadians now have, in the Civil Service in Ottawa as well as in all parliamen-
Inquiries of the Ministry tary institutions and the cabinet, a representation the like of which they have never had before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the replies to the questions I put on the order paper indicate that-and I am not the one to say so, the government is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member must put a question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to that.
The figures prove, beyond a doubt, that the right hon. Prime Minister is misleading the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair recognized the member so that he might put his question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, if I sent the right hon. Prime Minister the statistical data his cabinet supplied me with, I wonder whether he would be willing to study them and report to the house, so that we might see whether his comments would still be the same?



JAPAN-REPORTED AGREEMENT ON QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Could he tell the house if it is true that the Canadian government is ready to sign with Japan a trade agreement retroactive to January 1, 1968 to set up quotas on various imports from Japan, and particularly on textile products, as announced by some Japanese officials this morning?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I am not aware of such an agreement, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member might put his question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Before putting my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with me that this matter is as important as that of Biafra, because of the adverse effects which an increase in imports from

November 12, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Japan and Asian countries could have on the Canadian economy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his question?


Gérald Laniel: -and that it should be referred to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, where representatives of the textile and other industries concerned could be heard?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, annually we discuss voluntary quotas with the Japanese government. These quotas, when determined, are usually announced in the house by the Minister of Finance. We have been working on these voluntary quotas, and we have received representations from the textile industry. We have a long range study under way on imports from low cost countries, which I hope will be coming to the attention of the government in the very near future. When this report is received perhaps it would be the best document to refer to the committee referred to by the hon. member.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Even if the minister has consulted with the representatives of the textile industry, I would like to know whether the negotiators listen, nevertheless, to the representations made by the representatives of the Canadian textile industry, because these people come later to see the members of parliament and are not always satisfied with the arrangements?


Edgar John Benson: I should like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that these representations go on continuously. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister and several members of the cabinet met with members of the textile manufacturing industry as well as labour representatives in the textile industry a few weeks ago.



MARIJUANA-JUDGMENT OF MANITOBA APPEAL COURT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which arises from his recent statement on

marijuana. Has he taken cognizance of the judgment of the Manitoba court of appeal to the effect that leniency in dealing with this drug problem is not the answer?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask a
supplementary question. The other day I directed a question to the parliamentary secretary to the minister referring to a report about drug abuse that was expected to be presented to the federal-provincial conference of health ministers. I asked whether that report from the province of Quebec, if received, would be tabled. The parliamentary secretary, I believe, said he would take the question as notice. I wonder if there is an answer available now.


John Carr Munro: The report we have now is a preliminary report, Mr. Speaker, and when we do receive a full report from Quebec we will give that suggestion consideration.



CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED PROCEDURAL CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I had thought, Mr. Speaker, of raising this matter as a question of privilege, but on second thought I decided a question to the Prime Minister might be just as satisfactory.


Mr. Mather:: Just as unsatisfactory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
colleague says "just as unsatisfactory", but I would not want to be that unkind.
In his Sunday night speech at Montreal the Prime Minister said that in December, after the procedure committee has made its report, the government will propose the adoption of new rules. Can the Prime Minister tell the house what he meant by that statement? Did he mean the government has its own set of rules that it is going to bring in, or did he mean the government would move the adoption of the report of the special committee on procedure?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minisier: Mr. Speaker, I think we indicated earlier- indeed I believe this is part of the agreement that all parties in the house entered into- that the committee would bring in its report by the beginning of December. It is this report that we hope to debate in the house.
November 12. 1968


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it
that report, Mr. Speaker, the adoption of which the government will support, or does the government plan to bring in its own set of rules?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do hope, Mr. Speaker, the report will be such that we will want to support it. We also hope that that is the expectation of hon. members of the opposition.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It is now a month since the house dealt with the farm improvement loans legislation, and I am wondering whether the minister can indicate the rate of interest the government has now established in relation to that legislation.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this legislation will be receiving royal assent soon. I believe it moved through the other place just last week, and it will be receiving royal assent this week. I have been in contact with the banks with respect to the rate of interest that will be acceptable under this legislation. It has to be a rate of interest that is fair to the farmers, yet one sufficiently attractive for the banks to promote use of the legislation. I hope I will be able to announce this rate very soon after the bill has received royal assent.



PAYMENT OF CASH ADVANCE ON FARM STORED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the acting minister of agriculture; that is, if we have one. Can the minister advise whether the Canadian Wheat Board has yet issued authority to country elevator agents to issue the full $6,000 cash advance on farm stored grain? If not, then can he advise the house when such authority will be issued?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darlmoufh-Halifax Easi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board, who
Inquiries of the Ministry looks neglected over there, being deeply engrossed in his mail. May I ask the minister whether the recent retroactive pay increases to national defence employees in Canada will be made prior to Christmas; and failing that, whether it is possible to give an assurance, if not on the part of the minister then on the part of the Minister of Finance, that the increases will not be subject to the 2 per cent social service tax which will come into effect at the end of the year.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will give sympathetic consideration to that representation.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether in all fairness the minister would comment on the second part of the question, which dealt with the increase being subject to the 2 per cent tax; that is to say, if the department is not able to make these payments prior to the end of the year.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the tax will have to be imposed according to the terms of the law. The question really relates to what period the pay is attributable to.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the domiciliary care program under the veterans charter been phased out as part of the process of turning veterans hospitals over to civilian authorities?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. This policy was made known by my predecessor, and it has not changed. The policy of the government is to continue to give the best possible care to our veterans.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it from the minister's answer that domiciliary care, a greatly needed service for our older veterans, is still available to our veterans and that there has been no change whatever?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: There is no change, Mr. Speaker.

November 12, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order. I have to rule that the question is hypothetical.\n[Mr. Dub6.1']
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could the right hon. gentleman advise this house how soon the government may expect to appoint a new head or new heads for Air Canada?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the house can expect an announcement within, I think, the next fortnight at the most.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to advise the house whether there has been any favourable reaction on the part of Hanoi since the cessation of bombing by the United States. Is he able to tell the house, naturally within the limitations by which matters such as this are circumscribed, whether there has been any advance along the road to a hoped-for peace between North and South Viet Nam?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, Canada is not a party to these negotiations, and I do not have any inside information which would permit me to enlighten the right hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister give consideration to sending over there the one man who I think he will agree knows more about this situation than anybody else, Chester Ronning, so he may be able to find out what is the situation; for apparently the officials of the Department of External Affairs have not been able to do so.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Should the United States resume the bombing of North Viet Nam, would the Canadian government give consideration to sending relief supplies to the people of North Viet Nam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to rule that the question is hypothetical.
[Mr. Dub6.1



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The honourable minister promised, on September 24 last, to make an announcement about national parks. Can he make it now?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make an announcement now, but we have submitted a project to the government of Quebec and we expect an answer soon.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since there is considerable uncertainty about the disposition of aircraft from Canada under the control of the Red Cross, will the Prime Minister undertake to find out for the house whether a clear agreement has been reached between the Lagos government and the Red Cross concerning our mercy flights to Nigerian-Biafra?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, to answer that question would require a fairly long repetition of what has been said many times before.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Then would the Prime Minister be prepared to make a statement on motions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is nothing new to indicate here. We have indicated in past weeks what agreements we have achieved through the government in Lagos with regard to daylight flights. We made sure that our representations were transmitted by the International Red Cross to Colonel Ojukwu. We are still awaiting a reply from Colonel Ojukwu to the Red Cross, or possibly for word in some other way which would indicate his agreement for such daylight flights.
November 12, 1968



Inquiries of the Ministry


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question about the use of Hercules aircraft question, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify the in air drop procedures. I think the country situation and the considerable uncertainty is anxious to know the merits of this proposal, surrounding the most recent proposal about
Caribou aircraft, would the Prime Minister Mr- Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not clear make a statement in the house or table in the about the hon. gentleman's meaning; that is house the terms of the actual agreement why there was a moment's hesitation in ris-between the Red Cross and the government in& 1 was not clear whether the hon. member in Lagos, so we may have an accurate idea of was referring to air drops within Biafran held what that agreement involves?	territory.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement in a form that might be tabled in this house. It was General Gowon who unilaterally indicated to Professor Head, who was there on my behalf, that he would permit daylight flights on the condition that Colonel Ojukwu would not use the airstrip in the day time for arms deliveries. This is not an agreement as such. This is a statement by the Nigerian government, and it is hoped that the authorities in Biafra will agree to it. In that case it would be up to the International Red Cross, under whose control the aircraft are, to decide what hours they will be flying and so on.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the problems that have arisen about the use of Hercules aircraft, have officials of the government given consideration to using those aircraft to begin air drop procedures, should that become necessary?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Roy-al: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister say whether current information about a substantial increase in arms being supplied to Nigeria and Biafra by several of the large powers leads this government to conclude that the time has come for a new Canadian effort to be made to persuade those countries not to supply any more arms to this area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have stated publicly on several occasions that it was the hope of the Canadian government that its friends and other countries would desist from supplying arms to this area. I have no reason to believe, however, that any further form of representation would lead to any results. The foreign policies of those countries which are supplying arms are under the control of their own governments and not under the control of the Canadian government.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister was prepared to answer my previous


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Within Nigeria.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Within Nigeria? There is no active consideration of that because that is not the way the problem was presented to us by the Lagos government. They said to us that the airstrips could not hold Hercules aircraft and therefore they could not be used. We discussed that with them both through Mr. Head and later through our high commissioner in Lagos. We wanted to know in what way we could assist them; was it by sending trucks or Caribou aircraft. After some consideration they asked for Caribou aircraft, and that is why we made this decision.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is it the view of the Prime Minister in conducting Canadian foreign policy that Canadian representations can never influence the foreign policies of other countries?



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. We understand that in three weeks a large conference is to be held in Toronto having to do with cultural and human rights. Has this conference the sponsorship or benediction of the government?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this conference.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. For the edification of native Indian people, particularly, who are attending the current

November 12, 1968
Inquiries oj the Ministry round of consultative conferences, is the minister prepared to make public the draft changes to the Indian Act which exist in his department?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the hon. member that there is no bill on the Indian Act, because we are now consulting with the Indians and we intend to wait until the end of consultations before starting to draft the legislation in question.


Frank Howard: A supplementary-question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. gentleman misunderstood my question. I asked whether he would make public a document which exists within the Department of Indian Affairs. It is a draft of proposed changes to the Indian Act. I ask this so that our Indian people may know the government's thinking on this matter.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with the hon. member. I am not aware of the preparation of any such legislation concerning the Indian Act and I do not see how I could table something that does not exist.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which relates to a question I asked on November 1. The minister said he would take it as notice. I asked whether the minister received a communication from the Saskatchewan Medical Association requesting immediate action to ensure adequate medical care for Saskatchewan Indians, and warning that a failure to act may force doctors to leave areas which have a large Indian population and completely deprive some Saskatchewan Indians of medical service. Can the minister now answer that question?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This

whole subject matter came up at the meeting of health ministers last week. At that time it was indicated that Indian health services at the federal level would be improved and that more resources would be put into them to correct a situation such as the hon. member has referred to.


Richard Russell Southam: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister indicate whether remuneration for service provided to Indians will be commensurate with that provided to white citizens?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and I direct it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Was the minister quoted accurately when, following a visit to the Indian reserves and Metis communities in Manitoba, he stated he found medical services there quite adequate?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not acceptable.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. When will the government be in a position to make a definitive statement about its decision regarding the causeway to Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister indicated that a statement might be possible early in November. I would expect it within the next two or three weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Laing: I would think within the next two or three weeks a complete survey will be completed in respect of this matter, and a statement might be made.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the considerable interest this project has generated both in Prince Edward Island and within the rest of Canada I wonder whether the government might be willing to table the report of the Stanford Institute dealing with
November 12, 1968	COMMONS
the more crucial issues of the construction and the cost of this important project.


Arthur Laing: I think, Mr. Speaker, some material which has been produced might be made public after a decision is taken, but I would think it is better to retain it within the department till then.


George Harris Hees: Would the decision have to be that it would not be politically harmful to the government?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was referring specifically to one document which is already available to more than the officials of the federal government. Therefore I think it would be quite useful if it were made available to members of the house.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 8, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, during the past week of this debate we have heard many opposition members rise in this house and declare that they were not at all satisfied with the 2 per cent tax with a $120 limit. I must say that when I first heard the minister announce this tax I had the same reaction. Like some other members I felt that this tax would bear more heavily on the middle income groups and favour more the upper income groups. As a result of my first reaction to the announcement I saw the minister and, with some others, I suggested that maybe a 1 per cent or a less than 1 per cent tax, without limit, would be preferable.
However, Mr. Speaker, having studied these alternatives and worked them out mathematically I have become less warm to my original proposals. I have found that if we were to raise through a percentage tax without any limit, the same amount of money as we now wish to raise, the tax would come to approximately 1.65 per cent, which is not too much different from 2 per cent. If we apply it to a married man earning $5,000 a year, with two children, we find the difference in his tax is only $8 per year. In other words, if the tax were 1.65 per cent without any limit rather than 2 per cent with a limit, the man earning
DEBATES	2635
The Budget-Mr. Allmand $5,000 per year, with two children, would pay only $8 less a year.
On the other hand, balanced against this we would have a system whereby those in the upper tax bracket would pay a greatly increased rate of tax, and this is a group already paying tax under a rapidly increasing progressive tax system. I would like to remind the house what those progressive rates of taxes are. A person who has a taxable income of $4,000 a year, that is, taxable income after exemptions and so forth, pays $610 per year plus 22 per cent on the next $2,000. A person with $8,000 taxable income per year pays at least a basic $1,570 tax plus 30 per cent on the next $2,000. If we move up to $12,000 taxable income a person pays $2,870 basic tax, plus 40 per cent on the next $3,000. Jumping up to $25,000 a year taxable income a person pays a basic $8,570 tax, plus 50 per cent on the remaining $15,000, and if we go to $60,000 a year taxable income a person pays a basic $27,000 tax, plus 60 per cent on the next $30,000. We note, Mr. Speaker, that the rates of taxation increase by a very progressive measure.
Comparing the rates of taxation in Canada for different groups with the rates of taxation in the United States the Carter commission noted that a married taxpayer in Canada making more than $10,000 per year paid higher rates of taxes than his counterpart in the United States, and a married taxpayer in Canada earning less than $10,000 per year paid a smaller rate of tax than his counterpart in the United States. It was suggested that the rates of tax in Canada for the managerial and entrepreneurial classes should not be such that they would be an additional factor in luring Canadians to other countries.
We know how easy it is for skilled Canadians, for Canadian graduates, to go to the United States. Most of them speak the same language as the people of the United States. Basically in many respects they have the same culture and it is easy for them to migrate to the United States and make a living there. It was suggested that for the managerial income groups the rates of tax in Canada should be somewhat similar to the rates of tax in the United States and that in the long run this would be in the general economic interests of Canada.
When doing research in preparation for this debate I noticed another very interesting point. In recent days when the opposition has talked about the government we have heard much about a credibility gap. I would like to
November 12, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Allmand suggest there are even greater credibility gaps with respect to the opposition parties, comparing what they say and what they in fact do.
If we look at the record of the C.C.F.-New Democratic party in Saskatchewan when it introduced a medical insurance program in the early 1960's and joined it with the hospitalization program, the New Democratic party decided that the program should be paid for by a flat rate premium which was to be the same for the lower income group, the middle income group and the upper income group. I believe that premium is now $36 per year for an individual and $72 per year for a family. If it is unfair and unjust to the middle income group to have a 2 per cent tax with a limit of $120 then I submit it is much more unfair and unjust to have a flat rate premium which is a much greater percentage of income for the lower income group than it is for the middle and upper income groups.
It so happens that the leader of the New Democratic party was the premier of Saskatchewan when that flat rate premium was introduced, and it is of note that he is at present campaigning in British Columbia to get a seat in this house. No doubt he will be attacking this 2 per cent tax and saying it is unjust and unfair. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the candidate for my party, the Liberal party, should bring to the attention of the voters in the British Columbia constituency that what he introduced as payment for a similar program in Saskatchewan was much more arduous on the lower income groups than it was on the middle and upper income groups.
The opposition parties may say that that premium did not cover and was not intended to cover the entire cost of the hospitalization and medical care program. They would be correct in saying that, but the 2 per cent tax that we are applying, with a limit of $120, is also not meant to cover the entire cost of the hospitalization program, the medical care program and the supplements provided for the post-secondary educational system. So, Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is a credibility gap so far as the opposition parties are concerned, particularly the N.D.P., in the way they attack this particular tax because they say one thing but when they are in charge of government they do another thing.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Let us look at the taxes which other countries in the world pay for similar programs. In England, under the national health service

there is a flat rate premium system. In Sweden 50 per cent of their program is paid by a flat rate premium system. Some other countries, however, have a progressive tax to pay for their hospitalization, medicare and social welfare programs. In every one I examined there is a limit. I can give examples. In West Germany there is a special tax premium ranging from 5 per cent to 10 per cent of wages per month for the health program. They have a limit on that of 660 Deutsch marks per month. In France the tax for the hospitalization and medicare program is 6 per cent of wages and they have a ceiling of 700 new francs per month. In making a study of these programs it became apparent that in every case there was either a flat rate premium program or a percentage or graduated premium program, but there was no case in which there was not a limit. In respect of Sweden I have an article entitled "Socialized Medicine In Sweden"-


Mr. Harding:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


Randolph Harding: Is the hon. member suggesting that the so-called social development tax of 2 per cent is connected with a specific government program, for example, medicare?


William Warren Allmand: The minister stated that the social development tax which was introduced was to pay for large deficits in the shared cost programs, especially post-secondary education and hospitalization and the medicare program which was to be introduced. That was my understanding of it. It is called a social development tax.
I was about to quote from an article entitled "Socialized Medicine In Sweden", to be found in the publication Current History, January, 1963, at page 336. It reads as follows:
The general health insurance costs are not fully met by public outlay, national or local. Since 1955, when the present compulsory insurance law went into effect, approximately 50 per cent of the cost has been covered by individual premium payments, 25 per cent by contributions coming from the employer and 25 per cent by the public treasury which means, obviously, by taxpayers. Referring to this distribution of costs, Karl J. Hojer, former director of Sweden's Royal Social Board, started in 1959 that by the early 1950's it had become clear "that direct taxes in Sweden had become so high, especially on upper incomes, that any attempt to apply further pressure would have dangerous effects." A situation "had been reached where a transfer by taxation
November 12, 1968	COMMONS
of money from the higher income groups to the lower income groups, in the form of social benefits for the latter, could not be pursued any further."
I know that in Sweden the rate of taxation in the higher income groups is greater than it is in Canada, but I cite that article to point out that in all the countries in western Europe that I have studied which have these programs they have seen fit to have a limit where they have a progressive rate of taxation in addition to specialized taxes. That is the main point of my referring to these articles.
I also should like to refer to some of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). In his speech last week he made the statement that there is a great credibility gap with regard to the government and its predictions concerning the estimates and so on. I submit that there is an even greater credibility gap with regard to the opposition, especially since it has been led by the present Leader of the Opposition.
In the period of approximately one year since the Leader of the Opposition came here he has consistently criticized the government for not properly controlling costs and for not properly controlling spending programs. Yet, whenever the government has brought forward proposals to control those costs and cut down on the spending program, either the Leader of the Opposition or members of his party have risen in this house and criticized these cuts. When the minister of finance brought forward proposals last spring in respect of certain cuts in costs, immediately there were complaints from the Conservative opposition about cuts in shipbuilding subsidies, in the subsidies to the cheese industry and about the review of the Prince Edward Island causeway program which was brought up again today. This fall we have had criticism about the cut in the observatory program in British Columbia, about the winter works program and about the cut in the atomic energy program. I am not saying that these are not good programs and perhaps have merit, but I am trying to point out that there is a real inconsistency in the approach of the opposition and a real credibility gap. They cannot have it both ways.


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


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member indicated there is a greater credibility gap on the part of the official opposition. Is he, therefore,
DEBATES	2637
The Budget-Mr. Allmand admitting there is a substantial credibility gap on the part of the government?


William Warren Allmand: No, I am not. I appreciate the quickness of the hon. gentleman. I am merely saying that if there is a credibility gap I believe it lies with the opposition.
When the public accounts committee met last year a recommendation was made which was fully supported by the Conservative members of that committee. The recommendation was with regard to second class mail. In its recommendation the committee said:
It considers it essential that the Post Office Department or parliament immediately find ways and means of covering the loss of the Post Office Department in handling second class mail-
The members of the Conservative party are always so happy to support the recommendations of the Auditor General and the public accounts committee, and they did so on that occasion when the committee recommended an increase in the rates on second class mail. Yet, when the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans) brought forward this fall a bill to increase the rates on second class mail they opposed the bill and voted against it. Again I think there is a great credibility gap between what the opposition says at one time and does at another time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I know the hon. gentleman would not want the record to go unchallenged in respect of the statement he has just made, which may or may not be relative to the budget. I am sure he would agree with me that the recommendation set out in the report of the Auditor General-we were both in the same room and present at the same committee-was that if the Post Office Department has a deficit that deficit should be brought into the house and met by a special vote so that the people of Canada will know if the Post Office Department is in effect operating at a profit or a loss. It was recommended that if there were a loss it should be covered by a vote, in effect, of this house. This is different from the postal bill which in effect said there was no deficit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness, I believe that the hon. member should be allowed to continue his speech. He has 30 minutes and his time is running out very quickly.


William Warren Allmand: I disagree with the hon. member. I have the reference before me. It says that parliament should immediately find ways and means of covering the loss of the
November 12, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Allmand Post Office Department in handling second class mail. That recommendation was supported by the Conservatives; yet when the government brought forward a proposal many of the opposition members voted against that proposal.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the hon. member read the remainder of the recommendation?


William Warren Allmand: Many things have been said by members of the opposition in this debate with which I disagree. Time does not permit me to go into all of them, but there are many inconsistencies.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I should like to refer also to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), the chief critic for the New Democratic party in the present debate. He criticized the government in his speech, as found on page 2275 of Hansard and said that a balanced budget should not be an end in itself but that the budget should have certain social and economic goals. I agree with that, and I think the minister would agree. The minister said in introducing the budget that in trying to achieve a balanced budget his goal was to counteract inflation and bring about a stable price system in Canada. The Economic Council of Canada had pointed out very strongly in its report this year that this still is an outstanding economic problem in Canada.
The hon. member for Waterloo went on to say on the same page in Hansard:
This budget explicitly rejects the Keynesian revolution of government fiscal policy used in promoting full employment of the labour force.
It seems to me that the theories of Mr. Keynes no longer find the same acceptance they had in the past. I have here a reprint from the New York Times dated November 7, 1968, which comments on an article which appeared in the Economist a week before. The headline is "Keynes Taking A Back Seat". The article in part states:
In England, the land of his birth, they have suddenly discovered that John Maynard Keynes is dead.
It then continues:
The obituary was written last week by the British weekly, the Economist. It recalled that at the end of his great work, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", Keynes observed :
"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
[Mr. Allmand.1
And then, not without a certain amount of cruelty, the Economist concluded:
"The piquant situation today is that Keynes himself is now a defunct economist."
The situation is that the analysis Mr. Keynes made was of a situation in which unemployment and deflation existed together. The situation in the last few years and today is one in which we have unemployment with inflation. The recommendations he made in respect of correcting the situation are no longer acceptable to most economists who are working today. Hon. members in the opposition seem to put forward these theories as though they were pills, with the suggestion that after taking them certain countries would automatically be cured of unemployment, and so on and so forth. That is not so.
I see that my time is almost up. I wanted to enter this debate particularly to contradict some of the arguments put forward by the opposition and the statement that there was a credibility gap in the government. If there is any credibility gap at all it is in respect of the opposition and specifically the N.D.P. That party implemented a program in Saskatchewan which involved a more arduous tax for social welfare benefits than this tax now before the house. The official opposition say one thing at one time and ask us to do something different at another time.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, as this is the first occasion I have had to speak in this house since my election to represent the riding of Palliser, may I take this opportunity of congratulating you on your re-election as the presiding officer of the house. I should also like to congratulate your deputy, the chairman of committees, and the deputy chairman of committees on their accession to those offices and to say that they are proving to be happy choices for those positions.
The Palliser electoral district is situated in that part of the province of Alberta which lies to the west, north and east of the city of Calgary. The riding also includes a large portion of the city of Calgary and the Indian reserve of the Sarcee tribe. As a result, in the Palliser constituency can be found examples of most kinds of agricultural enterprise ranging from ranching, dairy farming and mixed farming through to some of the most productive grain farms to be found in this country. This is an area that has produced several world wheat kings in recent years.
In this my first contribution to the debates of this house I had hoped to be as helpful and
November 12, 1968	COMMONS
as uncritical as possible. I still hope I can be helpful, but I can no longer be uncritical. In the face of the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), Pollyanna would be driven into an acute state of depression and Anne of Green Gables would be moved to profanity. It is, in my view, the most negative, defeatist and depressing statement made to the Canadian people in recent times.
It is defeatist because it admits nothing can be done to correct the shameful state into which federal finances have been allowed to fall in five years of Liberal rule. It is negative because it inhibits any progressive legislation in the field of national development and effectively prevents the creation of any new national wealth or the formation of a wider and stronger tax base. It is depressing because it seeks to give the philsophy of doom and gloom the sanction of the Canadian parliament, and squeezes the tax collar tighter around the necks of the already choking taxpayer, particularly those in the lower and middle income areas. It is a sorry day when, in the midst of unparalleled affluence, our Minister of Finance can offer nothing but rising debt and taxes.
This budget clearly mirrors the blind grop-ings of a minister driven by the compulsion to find some way out of the mess and stave off bankruptcy. There is something reminiscent today of the period immediately prior to the outbreak of the French revolution. You may recall that the great banker, Jacques Necker, was called back to bring order out of the chaos of Louis XVI's financial world. He failed and the revolution followed. Necker was exiled and the king lost his head. I am not suggesting that we will shortly face a violent revolution in this country, but actions such as those of this government, as reflected in this barren budget, could bring on a revolution of a milder sort.
Aside from the bitter disappointment created by this budget, apart from the sudden death it brought to the promises and hopes of a just society, of new national goals and a new spirit of national purpose, its most unpleasant aspect is the financial bumbling and inadequacy demonstrated by the minister's explanation of its provisions.
The greatest irony is his repeated plea for cut-backs in spending, for economy at all levels and for belt tightening and austerity. It is ironic because those who cry loudest for austerity are the very ones guilty of the most extravagant spending. If only one of his
DEBATES	2639
The Budget-Mr. Schumacher colleagues practised what the Minister of Finance preaches we could save a considerable bag of tax dollars. The cabinet's taste for high living is well known and has been frequently mentioned in this house already, but there are many other areas of expenditure where lack of common sense and restraint make a mockery of the minister's plea for economy and the painful provisions of this budget.
Recently the Minister of Finance sent the representatives of the provinces packing without even carfare home. He denied them any extra money to help them in the discharge of their responsibilities. He shut them out from any share in the harvest of tax dollars that this new budget is designed to scoop up. He particularly slammed the door on the provinces' sharing in the 2 per cent social development tax, although most of the measures he claimed came under social development. These had been foisted on the ill-prepared and financially strapped provinces by the federal government by what amounts to fiscal blackmail.
The Minister of Finance is Canada's most outspoken advocate of austerity, but what is happening in his own backyard? While he is in the pulpit preaching, his colleagues are robbing the poor box. There is no trouble finding funds for the pet projects of various ministers. There is lots of money to finance the B and B commission and to set up an expensive new bureaucracy under a language commissar. But scientific and research projects vital to the development of the nation are ruthlessly lopped off. Last year HARP, the high altitude research project, was killed, and this year the Queen Elizabeth telescope and ING, the intense neutron generator project, were scrapped in the name of economy in government spending.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
But there has been no change in the blank cheque policy of financing the National Arts Centre, which has been characterized by one of the members of the treasury benches as a "$47 million dance hall". There are ample funds for the lavish redecoration of ministerial offices. There is plenty of cash to build up the personal staff of cabinet members, including the largest prime ministerial staff in history. What happened to the freeze on the civil service? Is this just another gap in the minister's credibility?
There is no money for the provinces of Canada, no money for development of the
November 12, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Schumacher nation's human and natural resources, no money for fighting regional disparity or attacking unemployment and underemployment. There is no money for any of these vital undertakings but lots of money for federal ministers' housekeeping expenses.
When the government was busy cutting and hacking at potentially productive programs, why was no mention made of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? To my mind this is one of the greatest sink-holes in the whole fabric of the government of Canada. It is a drain down which tax dollars pour unchecked, uncontrolled, and apparently uncontrollable. If the minister had been sincere in his plans for greater economy and reduced spending at all levels, he should have started with a dramatic example by demanding and ensuring a responsible business operation of the C.B.C.
Earlier this year, as has been pointed out many times, the minister guaranteed a balanced budget. We now find that the government expects to spend $480 million more than it thought it would spend in May, and $190 million more than it thought it would spend last month. Such figures make a mockery of the minister's professions of concern over spending. His failure to tackle such notorious tax-wasters as the C.B.C. simply reinforces this fact. On August 15 last, the Windsor Star in an editorial commented:
A large part of the ever-increasing deficit of the CB.C. is due simply to extravagance. Anyone who has ever watched C.B.C. crews in operation at home or abroad knows exactly what we mean. They spend money like water and often to no good purpose.
It would be interesting to learn the cost to us of the film "Listen, America" commissioned by the corporation and shown on the November 3 edition of "The Way It is". If one is to judge by the list of credits accompanying this piece of subversive garbage, its cost will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: This film preached the philosophy of anarchy and destruction, having no connection with Canada or Canadians, without any notable creative merit and in the most sordid terms. It was a particularly glaring example of a type of program which is becoming more and more prevalent.
To cancel great scientific projects and then permit such senseless excesses by the C.B.C. is, to me, incomprehensible. The C.B.C. now

costs each and every Canadian almost $8 per year. Its estimated expenditures this year are in excess of $151 million. This is an increase of more than $7 million from the very high spending level that the C.B.C. attempted to justify because of centennial year and Expo 67's extraordinary demands. And this does not include a $25 million "loan" for capital purposes.
The fact that the C.B.C. is a part of the government and nominally must report to parliament is the chief reason, I believe, why it is uncontrolled and uncontrollable. As long as it is connected with government, its defenders, the pseudo-intellectuals and bleeding hearts of all parties, will be able to come to its rescue whenever it is criticized by crying "politics". This is an absurd argument but one that is difficult to offset. By making the C.B.C. something sacrosanct and untouchable we have permitted the setting up within it of autonomous enclaves, little principalities running their own show, acknowledging no other authority than their own and living off the abundant flow of tax dollars ensured by a helpless government.
As a new member of this house, Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that the government has never deigned to recognize, let alone act upon, the strictures laid upon the C.B.C. by the nation's Auditor General, Mr. Maxwell Henderson. The Auditor General has pointed out that on the eve of the retirement of one of its vice-presidents the directors increased his salary by 67 per cent to $25,000 so that he could receive a pension equivalent to that of our former prime ministers, and then gave him a retiring allowance of $25,000. This is what the Auditor General said of this generosity with the taxpayers' money:
This was not within the competence of the directors of the C.B.C. and payment of the retiring allowance was not within the powers of the corporation under the Broadcasting Act.
The Auditor General said, in other words, that the C.B.C. authorized and paid out large sums of tax dollars without justification, and illegally. To add insult to injury the C.B.C., in spite of these comments by the Auditor General, subsequently proceeded to give equally generous pensions to other top C.B.C. executives. Was anything ever done by the government? No. Did the man who now weeps for scarce tax revenue shed a tear for such unjustified and wasteful use of public funds? No.
November 12, 1968

As Patrick Nicholson wrote at the time of Mr. Henderson's report:
The C.B.C., as has been made obvious over the years, has inflated itself into a self-governing empire beyond the control of parliament-and the government does nothing to stop it.
This is a pretty accurate summation of the situation as far as I can see. The fact is that the C.B.C. is a law unto itself. Government agents inserted into its structure, even at the top, are merely ignored or absorbed. A final measure of the C.B.C.'s arrogant self-assurance may be seen in the fact that in all the flurry of cancellations of projects in the sweet name of economy, not a finger was laid on the C.B.C. Its plush new office-studio complex of 23 storeys in Montreal will go ahead anyway, at a cost of $66 million. If it turns out like the National Arts Centre we could be running into a $300 million or $400 million project.
Until the minister and his colleagues can find some way to stop up the open sewers in their bureaucracy down which tax dollars are disappearing at an ever-increasing rate, it is a mockery for him to call for self-restraint and self-discipline in spending. These untouchable government agencies are only one of several areas of uncontrolled expenditure that make it impossible for any accurate forecasts to be made or to run the country on responsible fiscal principles.
The other most important area has already been dealt with at length by my colleagues in the opposition. That is the area of shared-cost, open-ended, federal-provincial programs. I will not deal with them now beyond saying that they are bleeding the country white, and the reason is simple. For purely political purposes federal Liberal governments of the past five years have concocted these programs too hastily, forced them upon provincial governments in no position economically or politically to oppose them and have failed, in setting up these programs, to provide any controls whatsoever upon expenditures. It is an example of negligence and irresponsibility without parallel, and to persist in the imposition of national medicare while at the same time announcing the intention to withdraw from the scheme in five years is, to say the least, amazing.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about another area in which I conceive this budget to be particularly weak. This is its failure to give any recognition to the basic economic development which must be the forerunner and foundation of any significant social development. This budget
The Budget-Mr. Schumacher makes much of the so-called social development tax. In my view this is simply a cheap method of camouflaging a straightforward, old-fashioned tax gouge.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I come from a part of the country that has more than a passing interest in wheat. It would be no overstatement were I to say that the social development of my area depends primarily on wheat. Foremost in the economic development programs of most urgency in my area is the development of a modern, efficient and effective sales and marketing set-up for wheat. Many speakers in many debates in this house have set out in detail just what a large and important part wheat plays in the Canadian economy and what a direct and important bearing it has on the well-being of many thousands of Canadians far from the wheat fields and 'the elevators. I will not go over that ground beyond quoting briefly from an address made only last month in Winnipeg by Mr. A. M. Runciman, president of United Grain Growers Limited. He said at one point:
Wheat growers have a legitimate right to ask for some sacrifice on the part of the taxpayers to maintain Canada's great industry of growing wheat for export.
Mr. Runciman also said that wheat growers had their responsibilities to the taxpayers too. One of the chief of these I believe is to ensure that the industry of producing wheat is not allowed to degenerate into a make work business, sustained only by generous transfusions of tax dollars from time to time in the form of subsidies or other artificial stimulants.
If we are to demand support from the body of the Canadian taxpayers we must ensure that wheat production remains a vital, necessary and lucrative business. This much is demanded by the national interest. If we accept this responsibility, however, as wheat producers we surely have a right to ask that the government assistance that is essential under our existing laws in support of the sale and marketing of wheat be the most modern, progressive and effective that it is possible for us to devise.
It is exactly in this area that 1 wish the Minister of Finance, and indeed the whole government, had shown some awareness of the vital necessity of moving swiftly and aggressively in the field of wheat marketing. I have no wish to burden the house with a detailed discussion of the complexities of wheat production, sale and distribution in
2642	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Marcel Lessard today's world market. It will suffice for me to quote Mr. Runciman once again. He said:
It is doubtful if exports this year will go over the 350 million bushels.
This, in a nutshell, is our problem-declining export sales in a world market where old, traditional customers are becoming less and less dependent upon us, new customers are ultra price conscious, and competition and production have gone up sharply.
One of the chief competitive factors we face in Canada is the greater flexibility our competitors enjoy in pricing to make sales. Our present set-up, which has served well and profitably over many years, has become a handicap in the changed circumstances of the world wheat marketplace. Valuable as may be a national grains council, I do not think the pressing facts of Canada's economic life, and particularly the pressing facts of western Canadian economic life, permit us the luxury of waiting until such a necessarily cumbersome body gets down to work. I would suggest that what we need is an immediate and massive attack on the twin problems of pricing our wheat for sale in competition with other producing nations and a determined and businesslike approach to the question of surveying new markets, encouraging new uses of grains, and making new friends, customers and sales.
It is not enough any more to depend on detached, long range sales techniques. In today's world wheat users will not come banging on our door. We must bang on theirs, but in doing so we must be sure we have the goods they want to buy. Wheat sales made at a ministerial or ambassadorial level can no longer be depended upon. Special trade missions with limited life and scope will not serve. We want special, expert, highly skilled and knowledgeable teams of Canadian traders on the job abroad 52 weeks of every year. We must have sales teams, market survey teams, promoters and idea men on this export job the year round, day in and day out. And behind them we must place the support of a very much stepped up agricultural research effort. We have to be aggressive. We have to go where the business is; we have to revolutionize our whole concept of selling wheat.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the sort of economic development which I believe should have been encouraged by this budget. This is the sort of concept the Minister of Finance might find much more productive of tax dollars than his present theories of regressive, 
DEBATES	November 12, 1968
inward looking and outmoded national financing. This failure to arouse the spirit of the country, this failure to meet the real needs of Canada at this time, and this abject surrender to a gloom and doom philosophy I believe stand as the great indictment of this budget.
The Canadian people will long remember the minister who fathered this creature for his timidity, his lack of spirit and his approach to great national issues which, when the test came, showed him to have the approach of a moneylender and the techniques of a loan shark.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, rising for the first time in this 28th parliament, after an absence of three years, I would like, before making remarks on the budget and the economy in general, to congratulate you for the confidence which the members unanimously showed you by electing you as Speaker of the house.
Having had the privilege of coming to this house at the same time as our Speaker in 1962, I have had the advantage of meeting him, and I was not at all surprised that he rose rapidly to the responsible position he now occupies with tact and competence.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I lived through the difficult years which this parliament experienced from 1962 to 1965, and I know that the 1965-68 period was just as difficult.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Indeed, during three and a half years, I took part in the debates many times, putting forward solutions and giving my opinions on the problems facing our country, and my area in particular.
Defeated as an independent candidate during the 1965 election, I accepted to be a member of the new Liberal team during the election of June 25 last, when the Canadian people gave this government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a clear mandate.
However, nobody expects miracles. Nowadays, every country in the world is going through difficult periods, and Canada as well. However, it is largely with us, members of this house, that rests the responsibility of deciding policies likely to provide all Canadians with one of the highest standards of living in the world.
Mr. Speaker, since I came back to this house, I have been happy to see that the atmosphere of the discussions has changed noticeably and that, in general, all hon.
November 12, 1968

members seem ready to co-operate in the best interest of Canadians. I think that this attitude of hon. members is due to the fact that more than a hundred of them are newcomers to the house and are interested in seeing this parliament progress as quickly as possible. I think it is the will of the great majority.
Personally, I agreed to come back to politics because I am confident that a renewed Liberal party, led by a dynamic and able young man, will find the new formulas needed to push our economy toward new heights.
The young people of Canada have also put all their hopes in that man and in this parliament, because to them the stakes are much more important; in fact, their future is at stake.
During the last few years, an always increasing number of students have reached the university level or have gone beyond the high school level. We have told them in the past that they would be successful if they continued their studies and became qualified. We led them to believe, and with good reason, that education was one of the conditions that would guarantee their future success.
In view of the technological changes which we have experienced in the last few years and which will increase in the years to come, I feel that we have not misled them by encouraging them to stay in school to acquire as much knowledge and as much competence as possible.
But today, Mr. Speaker, the problem which is facing us and which we must solve is that of an economy which is at a standstill and does not offer the job opportunities that those able young people trained in our schools are entitled to expect on the labour market. That is the tragedy, I think, that is the most serious problem and the great challenge we must face.
Personally, I cannot resign myself to seeing the young people back home expatriate themselves in order to earn a living. For too long now, we have seen that policy of inaction on the part of our administrators who banked on private enterprise and its good will. Far be it from me to blame private enterprise for that state of affairs. But this fact must still be recognized: in the past, our governments have relied on the more or less arbitrary decisions of private enterprise for the development of our economy.
But these times are gone and, today, it is the duty of the leaders of our country to intervene and to create the political climate
29180-167J
The Budget-Mr. Marcel Lessard and such conditions as will allow enterprises to be born and to flourish.
If we want to create an atmosphere propitious to the development of such undertakings and the economic progress of our country, the budgetary deficits Canada has known in the last ten years must come to an end. There is nothing worse then accumulated deficits, for they are the direct cause of the high cost of living, the increase in interest rates, in direct and indirect taxes and all the various taxes imposed upon the Canadian taxpayers.
It is our duty to return to the balanced budget, because no enterprise whatsoever can function properly when it anticipates on the income of future decades. In my opinion, the Canadian government cannot do better than private enterprise. Like Canadians themselves, it has limits to its spending capacity.
After discussing the matter with my fellow citizens, I have reached the conclusion that, for some years, the government should revert to the pay as you go policy. It should not incur expenditures which cannot reasonably be met through existing taxation and, if possible, taxation should be reduced. The present taxation system is detrimental to savings for all practical purposes. This inflationary period we have gone through is a reason why a man saving a dollar today will lose money tomorrow as this same dollar will have less purchasing power. In fact, I would say that, in its present condition, inflation encourages indebtedness. A man can today obtain more through borrowing than by waiting until later to buy what he wants with his savings. This is leading us into a disastrous situation. It will affect the family budget as well as the municipalities, school boards and the provincial and federal governments.
We must revert to a balanced budget, but we should not start by computing the expenses first and then obtaining revenues. In my estimation, a balanced budget consists in calculating first how it will be possible to obtain revenues through the existing taxes which the taxpayers can afford and the economy's producing capacity. On the basis of a probable and sufficient secure revenue, it must first be established in what fields the money is to be expended in order to stimulate our economy and our industrial development so that Canadians will be assured of some social security. However, our first objective must then take into account our economic development, because employment can create more income for the workers and they, in turn, are better able to look after their own social security.
2644	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Marcel Lessard
I would like at this point, Mr. Speaker, to quote a statement made by the newly elected American president who, soon after his victory, said as reported on November 7 in Le Devoir:
A return to a balanced budget is the sovereign remedy that Mr. Nixon intends to apply to the American economy to cure it of its ills when he comes to power on January 20 next.
Further on, in the article, we can read the following:
By controlling inflation, a balanced budget will also greatly improve the balance of payments of the United States, submits the President-elect. American goods especially will be able to sell again at competitive prices in the world, which will promote exports and curtail imports.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In my opinion, in Canada, we have to restore a climate and an economic situation which will allow our industries to compete on foreign markets. If the formulation of this policy is considered in the United States, it should, all the more, be considered in Canada. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) suggests that we go back to a balanced budget system and I fully agree with him on that. However, I would make a reservation with regard to the increase in the budget itself, because if we compare it with the budget of six years ago, we find that to all practical purposes, it has almost doubled.
I do not think that this is something we should be proud of because, as was so well put lately by the honourable member for British Columbia, strong governments are not necessarily good governments.
I think we should avoid over-expansion, particularly here in Canada. In my opinion, the economy has produced enough money during that period of time to balance the budget, but our successive governments have imposed a great many new taxes and raised existing taxes. This policy should be abandoned.
The government and the various ministers responsible for the estimates should keep within the sums allocated to them. In my opinion, the ability of a minister-and I think that should be one of the most important criteria for judging the competence of a minister-is not necessarily proportionate to the importance of the budget he administers or the number of employees working under him. He should be judged instead by the efficiency and the performance he obtains from each of his employees and each dollar at his disposal.

DEBATES	November 12, 1968
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a few words about the region which I have the honour of representing in the House of Commons, an honour which I share with three other members. The riding of Lac-Saint-Jean is situated in the beautiful region of the Saguenay and lake Saint-Jean, some 150 miles north of Quebec city.
It is a somewhat isolated area, a valley which one discovers after travelling along a magnificent highway which cuts across the Parc des Laurentides. This area, Mr. Speaker, has a population of 280,000, and its economy depends mostly on agriculture, the pulp and paper industry and the production of aluminum.
During the past 25 and I would even say 50 years, our region has developed a great deal but now, as is the case with several other parts of the country, we are merely marking time for our industries are not developing and, since we depend almost completely on primary industries, we have almost no secondary industries. Unemployment has reached a rather alarming level.
At the present time, according to the statistics of the National Employment Service and Manpower Centre of our area, more than 15 per cent of the manpower is unemployed and must rely on unemployment insurance benefits and various welfare measures to make both ends meet. Mr. Speaker, such conditions cannot go on and should not be allowed. We should do everything possible to cope with it.
The milk industry is the main occupation of the farmers in my constituency. They are grouped in a recognized professional association which is well structured. For a great number of years, it has fought for the interests of regional agricultural class. The Catholic Farmers Union, to which belong most of the farmers in my district, has, during past years, worked tremendously hard to promote the interests of the agriculutral class.
Farmers now have organizations that are able to represent them well and especially to provide them with the necessary technical information to permit them to operate their farms with the greatest possible efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, for some years now, the Catholic Farmers Union through briefs has been asking for the establishment of an agricultural marketing board.
I realize, of course, the difficulty of establishing a set-up of that kind, but those farmers are aware nowadays of the fact that in
November 12, 1968

order to be successful, to obtain some kind of security, to be able to share the well-being of the rest of the Canadian people, they must surely be more efficient and get a better income for their work as well as better prices for their products.
I therefore ask the government to co-operate with the above-mentioned organizations in order to set up as soon as possible the agricultural marketing board, so that we may once and for all find a solution to the farmers' problems.
Mr. Speaker, in the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean area-as everywhere else in Canada-we were pleased to hear that the people in Gaspe would at long last know a period of prosperity thanks to the application of a huge development program costing some $258 million.
In the last election campaign, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, and several of his cabinet colleagues, pledged themselves to work hard towards eliminating regional disparities. The Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean region is now experiencing difficulties and I feel that with its tremendous potential it is certainly the ideal area for an experimental project in development.
That is why, in line with my commitments during the last election campaign and with the support of the ministers, and especially that of the Prime Minister, we ask that some body be set up and some study be made and some program be established, taking into account, of course, our potential and our needs.
I feel that the people deserve that the government take care of them, as we have even now the qualified people needed to make a success of such an undertaking.
We are not asking for charity, but merely that we get back part of the taxes that we and our large industries, such as Alcan, have paid to the federal treasury in the past, and are still paying for that matter. If that money, or part of it, were reinvested in the development of our area, not only could we cease to depend on the help of the various governments, but we could then generate new income for the government.
Mr. Speaker, I could not resume my seat without having pointed out one of the serious problems which industry in general must now face because of recent discoveries, which I feel is becoming an increasing challenge to man, I am thinking of the progress of technology, mechanical engineering and automation.
The Budget

Mr. Marcel Lessard
Throughout the ages, the methods used to produce various consumer goods have changed. However, our generation is witnessing a unique phenomenon in the history of humanity, namely the rapidity with which those technological changes are applied in industry. Their introduction in industry has changed the methods of production. If they want to survive and prosper our industries have no choice; they must adapt their methods of production to the exigencies of national and international competition. For enterprises, mechanization is not a luxury; it is a condition of survival. Those which refuse to modernize, to fall into step, are simply doomed to disappear.
Mr. Speaker, during the next five minutes, I would like to mention one of the problems raised by the application of changes in factories. Their effect is to modify greatly the traditional way of producing and, therefore, workers are greatly affected. The displaced worker must go through job retraining. Quite often he finds himself out on the street without any job or income and completely lost.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In a situation of this kind, a deep feeling of insecurity takes hold of the workers who will soon become the victims of our development. The present situation is all the more serious because the great majority of all industrial workers of this generation have been unable to take advantage of advanced academic training. For them, retraining is difficult, even impossible in some cases.
Confronted with the threat of mechanization and automation, the workers' unions have to fight progress, because they have no other alternative, especially when the unemployment rate is as high as it is today. Collective bargaining has become more and more difficult because, in addition to trying to improve working conditions and wages for the workers, the union leaders are compelled to fight dismissals resulting from technological changes.
Mr. Speaker, what is our responsibility as legislators in view of this situation? What have we done in the past? Very little, if anything. What does this government intend to do? I direct this question to the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). I do not know.
Since I have returned to the house, most of the members who have taken part in this debate have not said anything on this subject.
2646	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Marcel Lessard I am surprised at that and concerned, because after listening to all the members' speeches and finding that nobody was raising the problem of technological changes that affect the workers, I am wondering if we are not on the point of forgetting that we have been sent here by the great majority of workers. Workers are nonetheless affected by these changes and most of them are responsible for our being here. When the time comes to send them the bill of our budget extravagances, generally there is no delay. We have some more evidence of that.
As administrators of the business of the nation, our first responsibility is to foresee. We have only to recall the numerous strikes in public services to realize that we did not benefit from the experience of private enterprise in the field of collective bargaining. We have granted the right to strike to public servants without making sure, beforehand, that effective and approved machinery would favour the signing of conventions without numerous strikes.
To get out of this mess, we have been forced to grant wage increases that started the whole inflationary process, at the expense of all, and mostly of our industries which have been in an unfavourable position with regard to international competition.
Here, in Ottawa, when there are problems, we proceed with royal commissions of inquiry. That is not necessarily bad, Mr. Speaker. But while we investigate and conduct studies, there are some who suffer from the fact that we are doing nothing. When the commissions present their reports-and normally they do-what happens to them? Most often, some officials take a look at them, a few newspapers print excerpts, but unfortunately, very often, the reports lie on the shelves or they rot in the files where nobody reads them.
In the field of labour relations, the Freedman commission reviewed the situation resulting from technological and operational changes in the Canad'an National services. This report was published some time ago, but has anything been done about it? What plans are contemplated in order to implement the recommendations made by that commission?
There are several recommendations, Mr. Speaker, embodied in that report. One deals with the introduction of technological changes and if it were implemented through appropriate legislation, it might have a great impact on future collective bargaining.

DEBATES	November 12, 1968
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is recommended by the Freedman commission that any technological change introduced during the life of a collective agreement should be subject to bargaining and that the workers could even go on strike if no satisfactory agreement is reached. Mr. Speaker the Freedman commission goes farther than that and this is very important.
It is recommended that those workers losing their jobs be compensated for their moving expenses, for the possible losses they sometimes incur and for selling their properties. It is even suggested that municipalities be compensated for the problems resulting from loss of revenues due to reductions in the number of employees or because of shutdowns by industry.
Mr. Speaker, if those recommendations are applied, they will have may implications. It will not be easy to make the companies understand this, and neither will it be easy to make the labour unions accept the regulations. However, I think it is our duty to tackle this problem and to find a solution to the application of modern technology which penalizes the workers for a time. It is indeed today's tragedy that the breadwinner lives with the impending menace of losing his job and his means of subsistence. I believe that is our primary responsibility.
I definitely intend to come back to this point because, as a worker coming from a working class family, I cannot dissociate myself from the problems of my fellow-Canadi-ans, my fellow-citizens, my colleagues and my friends. One of the questions I was asked very frequently during the last election campaign was: "What do you intend to do to protect us against automation?"
I think workers can be protected through legislation, but they can also and above all be protected by a flourishing economy which will increase the number of jobs available. Technological progress would present no great problems, Mr. Speaker, if there were many jobs available, because then, simply on account of the departure rate, the mortality rate and the retirement rate, companies could introduce new techniques, new methods of works and new machines without great prejudice to the worker. But unfortunately this is not the case. At present, the workers have no alternative. They are being laid off and there are no jobs available. If there were, I would be the first to ask for an immediate application of technological changes, as this
November 12, 1968

would, in the end, result in an economy of efforts, which is not the case now.
As this is not the case, we must find means of protecting the workers. Before I finish my remarks, I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), the two most involved here, to combine their efforts and bring this house to pass legislation as soon as possible to protect the workers' interests and insure full employment security for them and protection for their families.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the rules of this debate are somewhat elastic and I hope you will pardon me if I tend to test their elasticity. From the way our so-called reformers are debating overtime it may be some time before I shall have another opportunity to speak.
I want to talk about the time just before this government took office. For a few months before that time a mania was rampant in this country. That is what the press called it. That term did not emanate from this side of the house. Please bear in mind that it originated with an approving press, a favourable press, sometimes, one might say, an adoring press. They called it "Trudeaumania". For the fun of it I brought with me a little dictionary of synonyms and antonyms and looked up the different meanings of "mania". The different shades of meaning listed are: madness, insanity, furore, adoration, amentia, dementia, morosis, frenzy, delirium, delusion, hallucination, and brainstorm.
I shall begin, as a foundation for my remarks, by saying that this is a very shocking basis for any government. On June 25 the people of Canada were subjected to a test, to an examination, if you wish, to see just how seriously they were infected by this mania. Sir, the results of that test confirmed our very worst fears. It had indeed reached epidemic proportions, serious but not incurable in the west, serious in central Canada, possibly incurable or possibly not; I don't know. But in the east the mania did not get off the ground because we in the east had developed an immunity to manias. We in Newfoundland in particular had developed an immunity to manias. We have been suffering from a very serious case of Joey mania for the last 20 years but I am proud to report to this house
The Budget-Mr. Peddle that recovery is on the way. In any event, we in the east did not suffer from this mania.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am going to make a few observations now and I will try not to be too much of an isolationist or too parochial. I also hope to make a few remarks with reference to the national scene which may be regarded as pragmatic because many Newfoundlanders are inclined to see all black or white and very little grey. However, I was elected by the people to come here and say what I think and not what somebody else thinks.
I refer first to a colourful magazine that came to my desk today, "Montreal 68". I have been receiving it for some time and it is very interesting. It has an item headed "Montreal's Gift To Canada." For the benefit of the house, and I am sure not too many people are familiar with this, the article reveals that the full name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau and that he was born in 1919, which makes him 49 instead of 46. But that is beside the point, Mr. Speaker.
I now wish to quote from a week end newspaper which states that the Prime Minister addressed some "3,200 smartly dressed people" who turned up at a $50 a plate dinner in the grand ballroom of a downtown Montreal hotel. I have no doubt that they did turn up smartly dressed and enjoyed their $50 a plate dinner.
The tenor of the Prime Minister's remarks seemed to revolve around political participation in democracy. This seemed to be the whole gist of his speech. He is worried about people not participating in politics in Canada.
I would like to point out that I have been a member of this house since September 12 and on only one occasion have I seen the Prime Minister sit in his seat and listen to the remarks of members of parliament. That one occasion was the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the debate on the throne speech. As the Prime Minister is known to be the author of the throne speech, naturally common courtesy compelled him to be here on that occasion, but on not one other single occasion have I seen the Prime Minister remain in the house after the question period.
He goes about this country and talks about participating in politics. I would like to point out that we have a participatory form of politics. The people of Canada elected 264 members to come to this house. This is the way they participate. I suggest that the Prime
2648	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Peddle Minister sit in his seat and participate once in a while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I am not worried because he is not here to hear my speech, but he is not even here to hear his own members speak. I am worried that this Prime Minister, who has been involved in Canadian politics only for the past two years, appears to know all the answers. But he gets up and with his ministerial following behind him he leaves, as though something dirty was going to happen here following the question period. He does not want to listen to the elected representatives of the Canadian people discuss their problems. He would rather go to a $50 a plate dinner in Montreal and invite the people there to participate in democracy. I suggest that the Prime Minister of this country sit in this house once in a while and listen to the representatives of the people. I suggest that when he rises from his seat and, with the ministers whom he permits to be here on a particular day, leaves the house, he is showing in no uncertain terms his contempt for parliament, his contempt for the 264 members who sit here, and his contempt for the Canadian people.


Edgar John Benson: Where is your leader?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: And I see no reason in the world why he cannot test our present system of democracy which has been well tried. Our parliamentary system was not founded yesterday. When I entered the Newfoundland legislature for the first time some five or six years ago I confess that for the first six or seven weeks I said to myself, "This is a lot of garbage." But I soon found the reasons behind it. I soon found out, I soon learned and I soon appreciated why things were dragged out. We were members of the opposition and we were overpowered by a government that brought in legislation. But I could see that we were given the opportunity to question the legislation, to pick it apart, to examine it in detail. The system also gave the government the opportunity to stand behind its legislation and justify it.
Now the Prime Minister suggests that we speed up the parliamentary process, that we computerize it. According to the newspaper report he said:
In this age of computers and instant communications, parliament can no longer proceed with its traditional slowness-

DEBATES	November 12, 1968
He is impatient.
-without running the risk of always being left behind by advances in the life of society.


Mr. McGrath:: He wants to computerize all of us.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Maybe the Prime Minister would like to see 264 computers in the chamber. Maybe he would like to press buttons. Maybe he would like to become a benevolent dictator. This is what this statement suggests to me. He is worried because the Canadian people cannot participate in democracy. This House of Commons is the bulwark of democracy because here democracy is practised in this country. We do not want the Prime Minister, who came to power on a kind of a wave, a mania as the newspaper people described it, to come here and chip away at the bulwarks of our democracy. Let us reform parliament, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that the Prime Minister is out to deform parliament, to destroy it. I quote again from the newspaper:
He called upon the people "to let parliament know they don't want this kind of delay"-
On June 25 the people of Canada knew what they were doing.


An hon. Member:: Or did they?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Well, that is not the question, but they did elect 264 members to this parliament under our present system. They were not anticipating any fancy system that the Prime Minister might come up with later. This is the system under which they elected us. This is the system under which we must serve until somebody comes up with a better system, and I am not at all convinced that the Prime Minister has a better system.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The Prime Minister suggests that he knows all the answers. I suggest he does not know the questions, let alone the answers. He says he expects to have a series of these $50 a plate dinners like he had in Montreal on Sunday night. I have news for him; he will have very few $50 a plate dinners in Newfoundland. This is all very fine, but the Prime Minister cannot wait until the end of the question period to get out of here. There would seem to be something unclean about this place. He must get upstairs, downstairs, or wherever it is, to closet himself with those pseudo-intellectuals, not the Canadian people, at whom he can crook his finger and say, "Come here, boy; I can use you." He wishes to further his
November 12, 1968



plans for some kind of a benevolent dictatorship or maybe one that is not so benevolent.
As I say, I am very concerned about this. It is all very well to be a member of the jet set. It is all very well to come swooping down in a jet, a helicopter, or what have you, speak to a group of people in a modern shopping plaza at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer in all probability, say a few well chosen words, give that famous smile, kiss a few teenage maidens, and take off again. I have figured out the reason the Prime Minister did not have much to say during his shopping plaza tours. He did not say much because he did not have anything to say. I have also figured out the reason for the famous haircut for which he is supposed to be responsible. It is not a hair style at all; it is only a very skilful attempt on the part of his barber to cover up his baldness. When the people of Canada realize this they may start to see through a lot more of these deficiencies.
The whole election campaign was won on two planks in the Prime Minister's platform. What were they? They were the just society and a promise to do everything that could be done about the regional disparity which exists in Canada. There is something else which has occurred to me. We have a new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) who is very very concerned about this matter. He is the champion of the Canadian people. A few days ago he made a speech in the house in which he was very unctuous and pious. He mentioned that he is very much concerned about the wording of contracts, the fact that the weight of a product might be half an ounce less than it should be as marked on the container, and things like that.
I should like to talk about the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, this Canadian politician who goes back and forth across this country making irresponsible promises, the politician who stands up and suggests to the people of Canada that at seven o'clock in the morning on June 26 they will have a just society. I cannot help it if the people swallowed this; apparently they did. Now we learn that it will take time to bring all this about.
It is the job of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to see that the people of Canada are given the whole story. A few months ago the Prime Minister intimated to the Canadian people during the campaign that the Canadian economy was in wonderful shape. We know now that this was not true.
The Budget-Mr. Peddle Let us sick the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on him because he misled the Canadian public. One is not supposed to do this. If we are not to have a just society that is founded on hypocrisy we must see that the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is a real factor.
This department should be dealing with advertising, for instance in respect of cigarettes. It is recognized and accepted throughout the world that cigarette smoking can lead to lung cancer, another lung disease the name of which I do not know, heart disease, and a number of other diseases. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is very concerned about the fine print on finance contracts and about labels being correct; yet every time we sit down to look at television or open a magazine we see advertising that is designed to lure us into smoking a different kind of cigarette. We even learn that there is a new 12-minute cigarette that will give us lung cancer twice as fast as the compact 6-minute cigarette. All this goes on.
The minister is concerned about the fine print in contracts and the labels on packages, but these things will not give one lung cancer, emphysema or a heart attack. These are the things which receive the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs while the cigarette manufacturers have a field day. They tell everybody down on the docks to smoke cigarettes. They show a big robust man with muscles. This will appeal to the younger generation. The suggestion is that you are a square if you do not smoke cigarettes.
This morning I saw a large billboard which said that everywhere today somebody is smoking a duMaurier. "Two pack Munro", as somebody said here the other day, says that smoking is declining for the first time since he became minister a few months ago. I am glad that he did not deliver the speech himself. He had his parliamentary secretary deliver it for him. I do not think he has any foundation for saying this, but it shows he is worried. What about the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro)? If his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs does not take action in this regard it is up to him to do something about it. Let us wipe out some of the newspaper and television advertising in respect of cigarettes. Incidentally, I should like to say to "two pack Munro" that I smoke two packs a day also.


John Carr Munro: You shouldn't.
November 12, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Peddle


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: As I say, there must be something done about this; otherwise we will be developing not a just society but a society of hypocrisy and a government of hypocrisy. If the government does not see its way to do something about this it will be the laughing stock of the Canadian people.
There is one other item I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Remember that on June 25 the people of Canada were sold a package. I suggest to members of this house that the package did not conform with the label indicating what was in the package. The label did not at all agree with what was inside the package. I refer to the practice of members of this present cabinet taking news releases of other members of the cabinet and rewriting them so they will be suitable for the consumption particularly of the voters of Newfoundland.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I will not put the whole of this on record but I should like to refer to a news release by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand). It was released some time ago but the date does not really matter. He announced new mills to boost the Newfoundland lumbering industry. It is a very cautious and businesslike statement in which it is mentioned that this help to the Newfoundland industry would be conditional. The minister emphasized that these were normal public measures to aid in the development of a chip mill at Happy Valley, Labrador, and a liner board mill at Stephenville. He was very careful to emphasize that these were conditional but normal public measures. The minister was also very careful to say that some $6 million or $7 million of the entire $20 million would be recoverable from the companies, and that a large chunk of this, namely, the Atlantic Development Board portion, would only be payable after the companies became operative.
I suggest that at the very same time Newfoundland's representative in the cabinet of the government of Canada issued a release. What did he represent those measures as being? He represented them to the Newfoundland consumer as a great, magnanimous gift from a magnanimous government. He mentioned nothing about conditions and nothing about these amounts having to be repaid by the operating companies. He mentioned nothing apart from the fact that Newfoundland was to be the recipient of a $20 million
[Mr. Munro.J

gift from the government at Ottawa. We have a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to protect the Canadian public against wrong labelling and so on, but who is going to protect the Canadian public from this type of misrepresentation which is just as serious as improper labelling?


An hon. Member:: Who will protect the Minster of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson) from the government?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Let us have another minister to protect the people of Canada from irresponsible politicians.
I promised not to become insular or parochial, but before resuming my seat I should like to put a few words on record about regional disparity. Let me give the house an example of regional disparity of the type that should be labelled "made in Canada", by the government of this country. I refer to the installations and buildings maintained by the Department of National Defence in Canada. Very quickly I should like to give figures in relation to the total number of people, both military and civilian, employed in the provinces in this regard. In the province of Newfoundland there are 559; in the province of Prince Edward Island, there are 1,674; in the province of Nova Scotia there are 20,105; in the province of New Brunswick there are 7,612; in the province of Quebec there are 15, 227; in Ontario there are 42,071; in the province of Manitoba there are 8,785; in Saskatchewan there are 2,214; in Alberta there are 8,877; and in British Columbia there are 12,782. Surely this is regional disparity of a kind that should be labelled "made in Canada." Perhaps it should be stamped, "made in Canada by a government with obviously no concern about correcting it." Some attempt should be made to equalize defence spending across this country.
All sorts of things of a serious nature to the province of Newfoundland have taken place since this government took office. Let me refer to the salt rebate program. The Minister of Defence Production has belittled this program. He is an affluent man and knows nothing about poverty. He suggests this means only $50 or $60 to the fisherman. From very good advice I know that it means $170 or $180 to some of our fishermen, and twice as much or $340 when that man is fishing with his son. The minister has suggested this is band-aid treatment. I asked the doctor who shares my place here what one should do if one has a wound and only has a band-aid. I
November 12, 1968

asked whether one should pluck off the band-aid and let the victim bleed to death or leave it on until a better bandage was available. He replied that of course common sense would tell you to use whatever you had and make the best of it. He said we should not pluck away the band-aid in the way the Minister of Defence Production has suggested. His analogy there bears some examination.
I do not come here asking for handouts for the province of Newfoundland. We do not want silver platter treatment. Newfoundlanders do not want to be given a living but they rightfully feel they are entitled to the opportunity of earning a living. This is a responsibility of this government and I humbly suggest it should get going to find a solution, even at the expense of some of the other programs which cost millions of dollars.
Once the big problem of unemployment is solved the other problems will become smaller. I am sure that problems in respect of bilingualism will decrease. There is one common language in this country and that is the language of hunger. If you ask our unemployed, French speaking friends in Quebec what is more important to them, finding jobs or-


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


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this house today to speak for the first time. It is also a great honour to be the first member of parliament for the new riding of Scarborough West. This riding was created in 1966 by the redistribution act, with the northern half carved out of the huge, old York-Scarborough riding and the southern half coming from the former riding of Danforth.
At this time I should like to pay tribute to the former members of parliament who served these two parts of my new riding recently, including Mr. Frank Enfield, Hon. Frank McGee, and Mr. Maurice Moreau, as well as the present member of the new riding of York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). These members represented the old riding of York-Scarborough from 1953 to 1968. I should also like to pay tribute to Mr. Reid Scott, who represented the former Danforth riding from 1962 to 1968. While all these members did not belong to the Liberal party, they were all active and articulate members who served their constituents well, and it is a privilege
The Budget-Mr. Weatherhead
and a challenge for me to try to follow in their footsteps.
Scarborough West comprises the southwestern part of the borough of Scarborough, which is the most easterly of the six municipalities making up metropolitan Toronto. It runs for about five miles north from the Scarborough bluffs of Lake Ontario and it is about three miles wide. In this comparatively small area dwell about 85,000 people, still predominantly of Anglo-Saxon origin but being more and more enriched by peoples of almost all racial, cultural and linguistic origins. Until the end of the second great war much of the riding consisted of farm land, but in the ten years or so thereafter it became completely built up, mostly with single family houses but also with some parts devoted to a wide variety of light industry.
During the election campaign last spring I devoted considerable time, while canvassing door to door, attending coffee parties and public meetings, to discussing the desirability of a one Canada policy, not only to allow equal opportunities for our French and English speaking peoples right across the country but also economic opportunities. Every effort must be made to develop those parts of Canada which, because of conditions, have not been so fortunate, particularly the Atlantic provinces, parts of Quebec and other rural areas in Canada.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
While the great majority of my constituents are in the middle income bracket from which most of the taxes are raised to run this country, and while increasing living costs are pressing many of them quite severely, the people of Scarborough West are willing to concede that there are many parts of the country that need substantial, additional help, and they are willing to contribute to the worth-while and essential national goal of equality of opportunity no matter in what part of Canada one is born or lives. Therefore it is with much sympathy and some understanding that I have listened to hon. members in the house for the last two months relate in detail the problems particularly of the Atlantic provinces and some of the rural areas of this country.
I am sure that in the next few years our government, led by the initiatives of the new department of regional development, will add to and improve the many excellent regional development programs that we have started in recent years in order that this ideal of
2652	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Weatherhead equality of economic opportunity will rapidly become a reality. However, I trust that my hon. friends who represent these areas will also reciprocate this sympathy and understanding when we deal in this house with the problems of the great majority of the people of Canada, the problems of those who live in the urban areas of this country.
As is well known, about 70 per cent of all Canadians now reside in cities and within about ten years this figure will rise to about 80 per cent. Therefore in 1980 about four out of every five Canadians will not be in the outports of the Atlantic provinces or on the farms in the west but will be living in the great urban areas of Canada. Accordingly, now and to an ever-increasing extent in the near future, the problems of Canada will be the problems of Canadian cities. These problems are severe and their solutions are difficult and expensive.
However, if Canada is to prosper and remain a good place in which to live and raise a family, the problems of Canadian cities, in which most Canadians live, must be attended to and attended to quickly. Despite overlapping constitutional jurisdictions in some of the problem areas of pollution, transportation and housing, the federal government in my view must take a larger and more important role in dealing with these problems.
Of the various urban problems I would like at this time to say a few words with respect to housing. I was certainly pleased when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appointed the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) as the minister in fact responsible for housing, because of his past personal experience in the housing industry in metropolitan Toronto, particularly in the Scarborough area, and because of the minister's reputation for getting difficult jobs done. I was also pleased when the task force on housing, under the direct leadership of the minister, was announced with a view to touring the country and getting the opinions of all interested and knowledgeable people and organizations with respect to this major national problem and reporting some concrete findings and proposals by early 1969.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, a group of interested citizens and elected officials from all levels of government, school board, municipal, provincial and federal in the Scarborough area, including my good friend the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) and myself, discussed the problem

DEBATES	November 12, 1968
and then prepared a joint brief which we had the privilege of submitting to the task force at its hearings in Toronto last month. While our brief did not specifically mention this, I believe first of all that a new federal department of urban affairs should be created. Such a department would be able to be an effective liaison not only between the various federal departments interested in urban matters but would be able to direct and increase the cooperation among the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government, which is so necessary because of the overlapping constitutional jurisdictions in this field.
Such a new department would also be able to focus federal interest and concern on urban areas and also stimulate research, both in our universities and in the department itself, on urban problems. We have had departments of fisheries and agriculture ever since confederation and now, when most Canadians reside in our cities, I strongly submit that a department of urban affairs, with its own minister in the cabinet, is not only desirable but absolutely necessary.
Second, Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that there is no shortage of land for housing, even in an urban area like metropolitan Toronto. However, the cost of land has risen so sharply in recent years that a modest home is no longer possible. While speculation accounts for some of the increase, it seems that this was made possible by the shortage of serviced land available for development. Municipalities have found it difficult to finance the costs of services such as sewers and water mains, and they have resisted a too rapid growth in housing until sufficient industrial development has been attained to offset the costs of future services such as education.
While some of the possible financial solutions fall mainly in the provincial field, such as a possible equalization of assessment practices on land and buildings to discourage land speculation and the transfer of most educational costs from the municipalities to the provinces, the federal government still has a definite part to play. One way to reduce land costs and make land readily available for housing would be to encourage municipalities and regional governments to act as developers on their own through land acquisition. Federal loans at favourable interest rates might be provided for this purpose on condition that serviced lots were leased or turned over at cost after services had been installed. Although C.M.H.C. can now act in partnership with provincial authorities, our experience in Scarborough with the Malvern project
November 12, 1968
would not suggest that involving the provincial authority leads to quick solutions. The regional or municipal governments, on the other hand, with appropriate assistance from the federal government could probably act more quickly in conjunction with their own planning authorities, thereby eliminating an important source of conflict.
Third, in order to achieve the necessary increase in housing units across Canada from the level of 180,000 in 1968 to 225,000 by 1970, in accordance with needs as projected by the Economic Council of Canada, we will require an additional $1 billion each year in residential mortgage funds. Substantial new sums of money will also be required for public housing to assist families with low and modest incomes, retired people and students. Therefore, much of the additional funds for residential mortgages will have to come from the private sector, and in our brief to the task force some of the following ideas were suggested by which these funds could be generated.
(a)	Trust and loan companies could supply a substantially larger volume of funds to finance housing if present legislation were amended to allow them to borrow for terms exceeding the present limit of five years, in the same way as recent changes in the Bank Act permit chartered banks to borrow on subordinated, long term debentures.
(b)	Trust and loan companies registered under the federal government deposit insurance plan should be permitted to increase their borrowing ratios from 15 times paid-up capital and reserves to 20 times these reserves. This would enable them to increase borrowing capacity in the market by 33 per cent and would enable them to significantly increase lending on residential mortgages.
(c)	Pension funds are the most rapidly growing form of savings flow in Canada and have the greatest potential to contribute to the financing of new housing. However, in 1967 only 9 per cent of $8 billion in trusteed pension funds was invested in mortgages. If the pension funds were to increase by four times the proportion of their assets in residential mortgages, they would only equal the mortgage proportion in the portfolios of many life insurance companies. An active promotional program should be undertaken among pension managers to encourage mortgage investment, and the legislative requirements under which they operate should be thoroughly studied with a view to removing any technical or archaic impediments to their
The Budget-Mr. Weatherhead investing in greater amounts of residential mortgages.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
(d)	A secondary mortgage market should be established, with C.M.H.C. prepared to enter the market as a buyer as well as a seller. While C.M.H.C. should not be expected to guarantee the purchase of blocks of mortgages in the market in the absence of other buyers, any more than the Bank of Canada is obliged to support the Canada bond market under all conditions, a developmental approach on the part of C.M.H.C. to demonstrate a willingness to act as a seller or buyer in the interest of stabilizing prices would encourage the holding of larger mortgage portfolios by both small private investors and institutional investors concerned with liquidity.
Fourth, with respect to public housing, while the federal government supplies up to 90 per cent of the capital funds for public housing, up to 75 per cent for land assembly, and 50 per cent of the funds for subsidized rents in accordance with family incomes, the constitutional responsibilities for public housing lie largely with the provinces, and I would urge the federal government to take the lead in encouraging the provinces to create active housing authorities to make greater utilization of these programs right across the country. Although the quantity of public housing units immediately required is of paramount concern, we must be careful not to overlook the human aspects of the problem. If we continue to create apartment ghettos without providing recreational facilities, or without an appropriate dispersion throughout a somewhat mixed social and economic neighbourhood, or if we continue to treat public housing tenants as second class citizens, we can expect to find in a few years time that this great expenditure of public funds will have created serious social problems.
In particular, I would recommend using the present section of the National Housing Act which allows the spending of moneys by C.M.H.C. on ancillary matters appropriate to the project to encourage the installation of proper and sufficient recreational facilities in and about the larger public housing projects. The creation of proper public housing should be concerned not only with the bricks and mortar of the buildings themselves but also with the creation of the whole environment of living. Hopefully, it could be arranged to open such recreational facilities to the whole

2654	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Weatherhead surrounding community, but in any event I feel strongly that such facilities should be considered a necessary and integral part of any large public housing project.
While limited dividend housing has been subject to severe criticism, not the least in Scarborough, the program, given a sufficient supply of funds, could generate a major expansion quickly. Not the least consideration is the fact that though publicly assisted the housing is self-sufficient and particularly geared to families of moderate income.
Fifth, the lack of standardization on all building codes must be an important source of delay, red tape and added costs. Present building codes are too rigid and restricted, particularly in their response to new technology. C.M.H.C. should definitely take a much stronger lead in the standardization of regulations and products. Along this line it could encourage the use of new and cheaper materials and promote their acceptance by local authorities and building codes. It might also promote national standards in dimensions of windows, doors, etc., and it could test and promote the use of prefabricated modular units such as bathrooms, kitchen units and complete homes.
Lastly, rapid transit could play a major role in making additional land and satellite communities attractive for low cost housing. Adequate land for housing with convenient access to the city would tend to stabilize prices, rents and excessive speculation. The federal government's role in transportation in Canada's history is well established, with its support of railways, the trans-Canada highway, etc., and since the great preponderance of Canadians are now living in or very near to the big cities, subways and commuter rail services can no longer be considered as a purely sectional interest. Such rapid transit facilities must be built around regional planning in the use and development of land for housing, and the federal government, particularly through a new department of urban affairs, should closely co-operate with the provincial and regional authorities which constitutionally have the prime responsibility for such planning.
I see that my time is almost gone, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry that I will be unable to comment directly on the budget in very great detail. In campaigning last spring I found that the people of Scarborough West were convinced that the present tax laws at all levels of government were inequitable and that substantial changes should be made to

DEBATES	November 12, 1968
make taxes fairer to all concerned. I certainly share this view and to me, therefore, the reform measures in the new budget with respect to the increased taxes on life insurance companies, on the banks and on the resource industries, as well as the exemption from estate tax of estates left to widows, are very welcome and are definitely steps in the right direction. However, more important is the definite assurance by the Minister of Finance that substantial new tax reform legislation will be introduced within the next six months.
I hope that among the tax reform proposals next spring some form of capital gains tax will be found. I am therefore looking forward with high expectations to the new tax reform legislation in general since to me its implementation will be one of the most important things this parliament will be doing over the next three or four years. While no one likes increased taxes, I believe the people of Scarborough West and the country realize that the new social development tax of $120, which decreases for those having taxable incomes of less than $6,000, is necessary as a contribution by each of us to the large sums of federal funds being spent on the very necessary and worthwhile social programs of hospital insurance, and to post-secondary education, and medicare. I am very proud of the lead the Liberal party has always taken in establishing nationwide social programs of this kind, and I believe the people realize that moneys have to be raised to pay for them. This new tax and the substantial increases in taxation of the insurance companies, banks and resource industries already mentioned will definitely allow us to work toward a balanced budget in the next fiscal year, which will provide a firm base from which substantial tax reform legislation can be introduced, debated and implemented.
Before concluding I would like to mention my high hopes for the proposals that the parliamentary committee for reforming the rules and procedures of the House of Commons will be presenting to us next month. As a brand new member I feel a little presumptuous in looking forward to changes in the rules when I am very aware that I do not fully understand the present ones. I also try not to advocate change just for the sake of change. However, times are changing more quickly than ever before and the people of the country expect, and I believe have a right to expect, that parliament will be able to amend its rules
November 12, 1968

and procedures in order that the great backlog of proposed legislation in all federal departments can be brought forward, debated, amended as necessary and passed as expeditiously as possible.
I realize and agree that the rights of the opposition parties to fully criticize proposed legislation and the estimates, etc., have to be protected, but I am sure that full and adequate protection can be given while at the same time changing substantially the present rules and procedures to speed up the flow of parliamentary business. Such reform is greatly desired and demanded by most Canadians and surely it is a basic prerequisite before parliament can hope to deal with all the problems and challenges of Canada as it enters its second century.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough-West (Mr. Weatherhead), on a very fine maiden speech and an excellent contribution to this debate. You know, visitors from other countries who have listened to the opposition speeches in recent days must retreat from this chamber in bewilderment and dismay. They must think to themselves, surely this is a paradox in paradise. When one listens to the opposition speeches, one must believe Canada is in dire ruin and unemployment is shockingly high; there is irresponsibility everywhere and disillusionment in the land. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the case of the opposition has been so grossly overstated that it certainly is not going to influence the Canadian people. Almost without exception, these opposition speeches have been epistles of doom and disaster.


Mr. Richard:: You should have heard the Liberals in 1960.


Raymond J. Perrault: These speeches lack the basic quality of optimism. If a Liberal were to refer to this glass of water he would say it is half full, but a Conservative or a New Democrat would say it is half empty. This is the difference in philosophy between these parties. There is a spirit of optimism which prevails in government ranks in this house. The Canadian people detected this difference between the parties and this is one of the basic reasons there is a Liberal government today while the other parties are in opposition.
The Budget-Mr. Perrault
I should like to refer to some of the facts relating to this budget. I should like to quote the remarks of some of the members of the opposition. On page 2262 of Hansard an hon. member is reported as saying there is a "lack of credibility" in the government. A prediction was made by one opposition member that the budget "will be a dismal failure". The prediction was made also that "hard times are ahead" and "there is a likelihood of tax increases". Then we had the prediction of "a deficit of alarming proportions". This can be found on page 2263 of Hansard. The budget critic of the New Democratic party said the budget was a "colossal fraud". Actually, these words are rather temperate in comparison with some other words which have been uttered during this debate. Then he said "the budget was unenterprising, unfair and a budget for the privileged". Suffice it to say that none of these members has ever been accused of being an optimist and, true to tradition, these are not optimistic remarks.
The fact is that during an extremely difficult time in the history of the world-a time of gold crisis, an international exchange crisis and monetary crises in a number of nations, Canada has weathered the storm remarkably well. These are the facts. At no time in the twentieth century has there been a more difficult economic storm for a Canadian government to weather. Yet this government has come through. And looking to the future, surely there are grounds for optimism-an optimism so lacking in the claims of the "gold dust twin" parties, representatives of which we have heard speaking in these past days.
We have seen exports increase in recent months. We have seen good support for consumer expenditures. We have seen sharp increases in tourist expenditures and we have seen a record number of housing starts. I had the opportunity of attending some of the housing task force hearings on the Pacific coast during the past week. I feel, as a result, it is most unfair for any opposition member to stand up and accuse the government of lack of action in the field of housing. I think it is most unfair, particularly in view of the excellent briefs which are being presented from coast to coast in this country. All parties should work together to support constructive action in the area of housing, especially for those lower income groups requiring special assistance.
As for the budget, you would think even members of the opposition would be able to raise a faint cheer for the 7 per cent increase
2656	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Perrault in gross national product in 1968. Even they should welcome the tact we are going to increase our real output in the neighbourhood of 3.5 per cent. This record is not as good as most of us would like, but it is progress; we are moving ahead.


An hon. Member:: Do not be too critical or pessimistic.


Raymond J. Perrault: All is not "lost". The situation is not "desperate". Compared with some other jurisdictions we are doing extremely well. We, in common with most nations, are battling the twin evils of inflation and unemployment. The programs which have been launched by this government should produce beneficial results in both areas. When we talk about inflation in Canada, let us not use the word too glibly and attempt to portray Canada as a nation where inflation has run away, where it is out of control.
I have taken the opportunity of checking some facts. Australia, Thailand, South Africa, Switzerland, Portugal, Ecuador, Austria, Ireland, Pakistan, Italy, The Philippines, Japan, Spain, Bolivia, Turkey, Peru, and many other nations one could name all experienced depreciation in the purchasing power of their currency in 1967. All of them are battling the same problem we are battling here in Canada. In most cases they are fighting a less successful battle than we are in our own nation.
Our friends in the New Democratic party have been lecturing us during the budget debate, as is their wont, on the need for social planning. Let us look at Scandinavia which is supposed to be the shrine of socialist endeavour. While Canada's currency suffered a depreciation rate of 3.4 per cent in 1967, the rate in Sweden was 4.1 per cent, Norway, 4.3 per cent, Denmark, 7.6 per cent and New Zealand, also cited by our friends in the New Democratic party, was 5.8 per cent. Between 1957 and 1967 Canada experienced an average annual rate of depreciation of its currency of 2 per cent, while the rate for Sweden was 3.7 per cent and for New Zealand 3 per cent. These facts are not cited to support inflation but they represent an attempt to put inflation in Canada in proper perspective in the world, something I suggest the opposition members should have done before they made some of their comments during this debate.
I do suggest that for the opposition to imply that Canada stands alone in some sort of inflationary crisis is palpable nonsense, and they know it is nonsense. If we can agree on

DEBATES	November 12, 1968
anything in this house it is that the government's efforts to battle inflation deserve the support of all parties. And in this fight against inflation the provinces must not opt out as "conscientious objectors" because there has been a vastly greater increase in provincial and municipal expenditures over the past ten years than there has been in the expenditures of the federal government.
Never have Canadians simultaneously sought national and individual freedoms on so wide and swift a scale and yet in the process set themselves on the brink of losing all freedoms by unleashing inflation. The opposition members in this house who suggest that the fight against inflation should be only a minor side skirmish are just as misguided as those who state that at all times and in all years the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has only one useful function and that is to balance the budget. Both of these concepts are wrong, destructive and ill advised.
The goals today, as they have been elucidated by the Minister of Finance, are these: full employment, a high rate of economic growth, reasonable stability of prices, a favourable balance of payments and an equitable distribution of rising incomes. It was a difficult task for the previous Conservative administration to achieve a proper melding of these objectives. It is a difficult task for the government here today, just as it is a difficult task for the provincial governments. No one should suggest that budgetary problems can be resolved by some basic, fundamental, simplistic action like merely proclaiming that a budget be balanced and then proceeding to do so. And those friends in the opposition who would vastly increase our social welfare programs regardless of inflation advocate, in effect, policies that would be disastrous for those in need. We have heard many proposals from the opposition side of the house suggesting limitless increases in benefits to various people. Not once, Mr. Speaker, has a price tag been put upon these programs, and I say that is not responsible opposition. Unless increases in Canada's human programs are funded in increased productivity and in meaningful purchasing power, then these programs are a fraud, a delusion, and would be ruinous especially to those who live in deprivation.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
During the recent campaign and during this session, Mr. Speaker, one clear message has issued from the government, and it is this: If we demand an increasing range of government supported services, then we must be
November 12, 19B8	COMMONS
prepared to produce more and to pay more; to assent to more taxes, if these services are to be provided on the basis of economic reality instead of economic fallacy.
There is a widespread misconception, Mr. Speaker, propagated by opposition parties in the house that some sort of fiscal and financial fourth dimension exists, a monetary fourth dimension from which claims for government support can be satisfied. There is no fourth dimension of this kind. Neither this government nor any other government can hand out more than what it has taken from others, be it by taxation, tolls, fees, duties, or by the insidious and appallingly unfair method of inflation, which is the taxing of those who have to restrict their spending because their incomes do not rise as fast as the value of money falls.
The Economic Council of Canada reminds us, Mr. Speaker, that we must create 1.2 million new jobs in Canada every five years. The challenge before us, regardless of our political affiliation, is to bake a bigger economic pie so that there will be new jobs for our young people coming on to the labour market, and new taxes and revenues in order to bring the just society to more Canadians.
Those people who have participated in this debate and have had nothing but words of criticism for the efforts of this government should refer to a survey conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development which was issued this year. They will not find the same critical tone in this objective analysis of the way Canada's affairs have been managed. I should like to quote an extract from page 31 of the report:
In the last two years, with the trend of business conditions changing quickly, the authorities have on the whole been successful in maintaining relatively high levels of employment while combating first excesses and then mildly recessionary tendencies appearing on the demand side. Both monetary and fiscal policies have been rather promptly adjusted to changing conditions.
This report is not a partisan one, Mr. Speaker. The Organization for Economic CoOperation and Development is a group set up in December, 1960, by the member countries of the Organization for European Economic Co-Operation and by Canada and the United States. Canada is held in high repute in international monetary and financial circles for the job we are doing in trying to restrict inflation as much as possible while at the same time maximizing employment opportunities. We have in this budget, something that reflects
DEBATES	2657
The Budget-Mr. Perrault admirably and well the government's intention to press on with this realistic approach to promote programs that at some later date will be productive of wealth for Canadians and our economy.
The opposition, Mr. Speaker, represents this approach as some sort of fiscal calamity. In fact, vast amounts of money are being invested in programs which will within the foreseeable future pay rich dividends to Canadians in economically viable new regions of our nation and provide all Canadians with higher incomes. In the case of aid for higher education, in financial terms alone there will be a return of almost 20 cent on our investment.
All we have heard during this debate from the members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, is narrow, negative, tunnel-vision criticism of the sort that cannot see beyond the next 12 months. The other day the leader of the Conservative party stood up like some biblical prophet and lectured the government on how it had failed the Canadian people, on how it had deceived the Canadian people. When the leader of the Conservative party was premier of the province of Nova Scotia he grabbed federal money with both hands. He has never gone on record at a federal-provincial conference as telling the conference participants that no, they must refuse aid because this might cause an imbalance in the federal budget and that they should be concerned about the Canadian economy.
I ask you to listen to these figures, Mr. Speaker. The leader of the Conservative party, who the other day had nothing but condemnation for this budget, should remember that in the year 1961-62, during that heady period of Conservative rule, the province of Nova Scotia received $56 million by way of federal payments. In fiscal 1967-68, as a result mostly of Liberal legislation, that amount had gone up to $181,702,000. This is for the province of Nova Scotia alone. I hear no members of the house saying that this aid should not have been extended to the province. Surely it is time for governments at all levels to give due credit to other jurisdictions attempting to assist them achieve certain economic and social objectives. This is not being done, Mr. Speaker.
The fund for Atlantic development has never been criticized by the leader of the Conservative party because the province of Nova Scotia benefits from that fund. I should like to refer to the fifth annual economic
November 12, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Perrault council review, which shows that the province of Nova Scotia received from the Atlantic development fund a total of $52 million by the end of 1967. Mr. Speaker, as a British Columbian I am not standing here today declaring that there should not exist an Atlantic development fund, because this program is needed. But proper credit should be given to a federal government which has a deficit this year largely because of efforts to assist provincial governments like Nova Scotia. I suggest that it is easy to direct criticism at the federal government in a surface, narrow way.
If we examine the total contributions to the provinces, excluding tax rental agreements, we find that during the last year of Tory rule only $1.17 billion went to the provinces. This year, Mr. Speaker, $2.81 billion will go to the provinces. There, Mr. Speaker, is where you find a large part of the answer to why we have a deficit. Will one of the opposition members stand up before this budget debate has concluded and explicitly state which program should be cancelled in order to bring the budget into balance? Because this is where we separate the men from the boys, Mr. Speaker. These people who were ready to vote aye for medicare, for the Canada Assistance Plan and for the Atlantic development plan now stand up in righteous indignation and declare that the federal government is spending too much money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Raymond J. Perrault: Let one of them stand up and tell us what the opposition would like to have cancelled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While the hon. member is on his feet, would he say that these plans should not be discontinued as far as the federal government is concerned in five years?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to members who have neat, pat solutions to Canada's fiscal and monetary problems and I along with many others have been unimpressed. In those Tory days of which hon. members of the opposition have spoken so lovingly and nostalgically, on

a per capita basis the provinces received $63.45 in fiscal 1962-63. This year the provinces will receive contributions of $135.81 per capita. It was $63 per capita in Tory days, Mr. Speaker; it is $135 per capita today. Again, I would ask the members of the opposition to tell us which programs they would like to have cancelled in their respective provinces in order to bring this budget into balance? Now is the time to stand up. We have been listening for six days to nothing but criticism; we now want to know which programs they want to cancel in order to bring the budget into balance.
In terms of a percentage of the gross national product, Mr. Speaker, the latest available figures show that 4.15 per cent went to the provinces in 1967-68, which is a vast increase over the days when the Conservative government was in power in this country. That Tory government with such an appeal for our friends to my left devoted 17.93 per cent as a total contribution to the provinces as a percent of total federal budgetary expenditures, less tax rental payments. In the fiscal year 1968-69 that amount has zoomed to over 26 per cent of the total budgetary expenditures. These are facts which are just as readily available to members of the opposition as to government members.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. McIntosh:: The hon. member tells only half the story.


Raymond J. Perrault: In efforts to hasten the establishment of the just society, in efforts to equalize economic opportunity, educational opportunity and an opportunity for a decent standard of health, Liberal governments have established steady and rapid growth in federal contributions to the provinces. The share of total federal budgetary expenditures represented by these contributions has nearly doubled during the seven year period ending in the current fiscal year 1968-69.
The Leader of the Opposition in this house should be among the first to give due credit to the federal government for what federal aid has meant to his home province. When we look at the budgetary estimates of his own province while he was premier it will be seen that his provincial budgetary errors in forecasting amounted at times to considerably more than the 4 per cent figure he describes as "irresponsible" when applied to the federal government. The last available budget from Nova Scotia indicates that over 50 per cent of that province's revenue derives from tax
November 12, 1968	COMMONS
sharing arrangements and other federal payments.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we often hear members of the New Democatic party in this house suggest, as someone suggested the other day, that it is unfair, unchristian, undemocratic and totally wrong that there should be so much unemployment in Canada. The last time the C.C.F.-New Democratic party was entrusted with governing any part of this nation was in 1961, in Saskatchewan. In 1961 I took the opportunity to visit Saskatchewan and I attended the Saskatchewan federation of labour convention. With the indulgence of the house may I be permitted to tell the house what the Saskatchewan federation of labour thought about the socialist panacea for unemployment. They said in their convention report:
So far, the government of Saskatchewan has neither obtained the action from the federal government needed to increase employment let alone to create full employment, nor has it in the alternative, requested the necessary legal authority with a view to creating badly needed jobs-
So far as we know nothing whatever has been done (by the CCF-NDP Saskatchewan government) in this connection, although the need for such a step has become extremely urgent-
Even in such a relatively straight-forward matter as the collection of data on the labour force, nothing is being done within the province of Saskatchewan. We still have to rely almost entirely on the inadequate information provided by the federal government.
That is what was happening in 1961. Perhaps between 1961 and 1968 the socialist party in this house has evolved a magic formula to solve unemployment, something it could not do in 17 years of government in Saskatchewan. If they have discovered the new formula they have been remarkably successful in keeping it a secret. The fact is that when given the responsibility of government, political parties often change their attitudes. That is because they are faced with hard economic problems and facts, the solutions to which are not simple of achievement.
We have heard a great deal of talk about the 2 per cent social development premium which is to be levied on all Canadians. The funds from this source will be directed toward improving the health of the Canadian people. I do not like increased taxes; nobody here does. The premium is $120 a year, and there is a premium reduction for those who earn less than $8,000 a year, give or take a few dollars. That is the way to describe it.
For the family man with two children who now pays $150 a year in medical care premiums, the premium will be something like $66
DEBATES	2659
The Budget-Mr. Perrault a year. What does he get for it? In the case of British Columbia, the man's premier gets $23 million back in medical care grants from the federal government this year and over $50 million in medical care grants next year. These are facts. The man with two children should receive a premium reduction of about $75 a year in his medical care premium if, in fact, his premier passes along the full benefits of the federal medical care grants. The man making $3,500 a year with two children will pay $16 extra in taxes and receive back $75 in medical care assistance from the federal government, again provided the premier of the province passes this money along. But that is not the story told by the opposition, who wish to portray the government as a group of steely-eyed, heartless individuals intent on one thing only, the destruction of the little man.
The fact is that members of the opposition, almost all of them, voted for medical care and for the Canada Assistance Plan. They understood even in their remote way the need which exists in Canada. But it is not becoming of them, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to attack and denigrate efforts by the government to finance these great social programs. Their motives are patently political. Yet this is what we have seen in this debate. It has been suggested by opposition members that the medical care premium is-and I use their word-"oppression". It is clear that millions of people throughout the world wish they were suffering from such "oppression". Millions would welcome a medical care plan like Canada's.
It is most encouraging to hear the Minister of Finance say that in 12 months further reforms in our taxation system will be introduced to make taxation in this country more equitable.
This is a good budget, a heartening budget, a realistic budget, which sets worth-while and attainable goals. It offers more than pie-crust promises impossible of fulfilment. Above all, it is an optimistic budget reflecting the optimism which resides on the government side of the house with respect to the future of this great country.
In their frustration the fainthearted in opposition may condemn this budget, but the Canadian people are able to discern where their best interests lie. They do not lie on the opposition side of this chamber. They lie with a government which has established clearly
November 12, 1968

The Budget-Mr. McCleave its priorities in order to build a strong foundation for the country through sound economic, fiscal and monetary policies-a government determined to strengthen national unity between our two founding races. These are the best possible guarantees that we shall see a just society in the years to come.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. As it is six o'clock this house stands adjourned until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault) had read to us his continuing jeremiad against the opposition parties in this house. I do not mind the hon. member preaching for a call to a higher notch in the just society, but when he reads speeches continually

and it seems to be the same one we have heard on a couple of previous occasions-I wish his call for higher duty could be mixed in with some extemporaneous prayer.
As a simile the hon. member held up a glass which contained some water and said that a Liberal would call it a half full glass of water because a Liberal was an optimist, while we on the opposition side would call it half empty. Knowing the habits of the hon. gentlemen with whom the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour is now associated in this house, I think he got his simile badly mixed. What really should have happened is that the glass would have been held up empty, but we would have been told it was filled to the brim with the most delicious of water.
Sir, it was about the time that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was born that the Liberal Federation of Canada met in Ottawa and passed a resolution, part of which dealt with medicare. It may be of interest to the house that the seconder of that resolution is now probably our senior parliamentarian, Hon. A. W. Roebuck, who is a distinguished ornament in the other chamber. Now we are told by members of the government that having brought in medicare they are going to withdraw from it. I think their behavior here is likened very much to that of a frolicsome young bachelor who is able to talk a young lady into certain action, takes a look at the bouncing baby boy-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Jardine McCleave: -finds out it is called medicare, pats the infant on the head and says, "But this entails too much responsibility, and so I am getting out while the getting is good."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I could deal with the other so-called shared cost programs in the same way, but there are three or four of them involving ten provinces and it would take a somewhat lengthy period of time.
For the benefit of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) I would like to say one thing before I turn to the main burden of my remarks about housing. It is with respect to a situation which I think is now developing across Canada in the collection of our national revenues. For years I believe the tax collectors had blinded their eyes to the so-called common law situations, but now they are not allowing people to claim as dependants those who are living with them in a so-called common law union.
This has been brought to my attention in at least one case in my area. The man in question has supported this woman for about 25 years but is not married to her. Now he has suddenly been told that he cannot claim her as an exemption. This will cost him a sum of $200 out of his own pocket. He wrote a very graceful letter in which he asked the Department of National Revenue to assume the responsibility for the lady, and see if they could feed and house her on $200 a year. But the letter unfortunately-


Edgar John Benson: May I ask the hon. member a question, because I am sure he would not want to give the impression of producing the wrong kind of information. I wonder if he realizes that in fact our income tax law has never recognized common law relationships. If they have been allowed it is because they have never been picked up. I also think it is very unfair.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his generous remarks. I think I did indicate when I was drawing this case to his attention that it was a matter about which the tax people had suddenly become aware after a large number of years. In any event my friend's letter, in which he offered to consign the lady in question to the Department of National Revenue if they could feed and house her for $200 a year, apparently fell into the hands of the computer in the department,
November 12, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES
because he did not get much satisfaction in the reply. Now, knowing that the minister is aware of the situation, I hope we can expect happier news in that direction when the next budget is presented by the hon. gentleman.
Now, sir, I wish to make a few remarks about the housing situation. This morning when reading a letter to the editor in the New York Times I was struck by some of the phraseology in it dealing with the terrible housing conditions that exist in many parts of the world, but in this case in particular in New York City. The writer pointed out that the pathology of deprivation to use his expression, meant that many people would be so emotionally crippled in their outlook before they even reached the first school years that tney could not carry on either as successful students or become successful citizens, but would instead become a burden to the state for the rest of their lives. I suggest, sir, that this wastage of human resources almost from the cradle is something to which we have to give a lot more serious attention in this rich country of ours. I think it is one of our most important problems and, as I shall note later on, I think we should make a rallying cry from here, from every legislative body, every council and chamber, every ratepayers association in Canada, that housing is a fundamental right of every citizen.
But before I get to that may I read from two newspaper clippings, the first from the Montreal Gazette of September 16, 1968, headed, "Poverty, Misery Found Here," which states in part:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Poverty in Montreal has grown at such a rapid rate in the last two decades that more than half of the city's population now suffers "intolerable financial conditions," a local welfare executive said yesterday.
G. Roland Hennessey, assistant executive director of the Federation of Catholic Charities, told a poverty conference at Loyola College that the gap between the haves and the have-nots is widening steadily.
"Deprivation increased statistically six per cent in the Montreal area between 1946 and 1966. In 1946, 27 per cent of the population was destitute. In 1966 the count was 33.3 per cent."
Mr. Hennessey said today 38 per cent live in poverty, privation and misery' and 50 per cent suffer unbearable financial hardships.
You might note that this story was almost buried on page 3 of one of our leading Canadian publications. Then from my own area there is a story back on page 5 of the Halifax Mail-Star for Wednesday, September 4, 1968, which reads as follows:
The Budget-Mr. McCleave
Low Rental Public Housing: $165 a month?
Low rental public housing at $165 a month? That figure is the break-even cost of Dartmouth's first public housing project.
Planning director M. E. Lloyd told city council last night the low rental housing units would actually rent at $65 per month. This, he said, represented a $100 deficit on each unit.
The relatively high cost, $17,809 per unit, of the 40-unit public housing project, failed to raise an eye-brow from Dartmouth aldermen when details of the proposal were outlined at last night's general meeting.
Then further on the same report notes there is a waiting list of 250 persons for the public housing in the city of Dartmouth. These are just two examples. They were not very commonly displayed either. Perhaps we are becoming apathetic about this; I do not know. However, I believe it is something with which we must deal. A few weeks ago a number of members of this house, my friend from Toronto Broadview, my friend from Vancouver-Kingsway, myself and the Minister of Transport-perhaps there were others who I may not have noticed-were at the Canadian conference on housing held in the city of Toronto. This was sponsored by the Canadian Welfare Council.
For several days we heard statistic after statistic and harsh fact after harsh fact poured upon us about the problems of poverty and how they affect the home environments of tens of thousands of Canadians. Many resolutions came forward from that housing conference, but I think three are worthy of being placed on the record of Hansard. I believe my friend from Broadview and my friend from Vancouver-Kingsway and myself claim some credit for the first one. In a political way we thought the conference could make its record more effective if it stated a simple declaration in its first paragraph concerning what should be the goal of Canada. Here it is, although not as we undoubtedly would have written it. However, this is the form in which it was written at the conference, and adopted:
The Canadian Conference on Housing (1968) declares that all Canadians have the right to be adequately housed, whether they can afford it or not.
Then I should like to read paragraphs 3 and 5 of the same report:
There should be greater freedom of choice of appropriate housing for low and middle income groups, choice with regard to location, design, and ownership (private, cooperative, non-profit, public).
Canadian housing goals will not be easy to achieve. They require much higher priority within the national economy and should be seen to be as
2662	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. McCleave socially essential as education. No government is spending according to the priorities this conference insists on.
To that I say, "amen". Well, the problem is here; it receives a certain amount of publicity. A dominion-provincial conference on housing was held earlier this year. The former minister of labour who is now the Lieutenant-Governor of the province of British Columbia went about Canada last year investigating the situation. He held meetings everywhere. Now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) in his capacity as spokesman in this parliament for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is doing the same thing. However, I believe there are certain facts so obvious that any task force would fail to uproot anything new about them. There are certain hard steps which in the long run must be taken. Certainly the problem of land values demands an approach which probably is beyond the political philosophies of most of us. Yet these steps undoubtedly will have to be taken.
I think there are steps which should be taken now and which should have been taken at the time the budget was presented to us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). What group does the housing problem hit? I suggest particularly those in the low income brackets. The richer person will not have to sleep out in the open or on a muddy floor. He will find some place to lay his head and will be able to pay the price for that accommodation. But there are people who live in dire poverty in urban and rural areas in every province of Canada. For them we must emphasize over and over again, until it becomes a cornerstone of our political tradition no matter what part of the house we are in, that something must be done to see that more public housing is provided in Canada. It is as simple as that. There is something else which I believe could be brought about by federal impetus. I have in mind the provision of minimum standards in respect of housing across Canada. In this regard national standards are a help to municipalities which cannot afford the necessary research. I believe the federal authority could play a very proper role in this regard.
In my own city of Halifax minimum standards have existed for a period of approximately ten years. This has done much to build up the older stock of housing and maintain it at reasonable and livable levels in the city in which I live. If I have any objection to the minimum standards it is that they should be upgraded at intervals. Every decade the

DEBATES	November 12, 1968
level should be raised another 10 per cent, let us say. In this way existing housing can be conserved. If the only approach to public housing should be that we have to pay up to $15,000 for an old home, tear it down and replace it with public housing so that the cost of every public housing unit in the development becomes somewhere in the order of $27,000 or $30,000, I dare say none of us in this chamber could go into a venture like that if we had to commit ourselves to an expenditure of that magnitude.
There is another step; that is, to get rid of the 12 per cent sales tax. I believe this is one of the most iniquitous taxes devised by revenue hungry people. Volume V of the report of the Carter royal commission on taxation deals with sales taxes, and at page 74 states:
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
On economic grounds, we believe, as we have already stated, that all goods and services used to produce or distribute goods and services for final use by individuals should be exempt from sales tax. To remove the regressive features of a sales tax we have argued that shelter should also be exempt from tax. There is, therefore, neither economic nor social justification for the taxation of building materials.
One of the effects of this sales tax is the inevitable and unfavourable increase it has on the cost of homes. The tax measure itself has to be administered by approximately 11,000 different organizations and companies across Canada which deal in building materials. They must employ extra staff or set aside time to look after these taxes. I know from personal experience, having dealt with some of these companies, that they have a terrible time in their dealings with the Department of National Revenue. This is not because the department has any idea about skinning them or making life miserable. It has been proven that this tax measure is difficult to set up administratively. This is true because wood products, for example, pass through many stages before they become part of a house.
In addition to the administrative difficulties involved in setting up this tax, the Department of National Revenue has changed the rules and regulations to my knowledge on at least two occasions, and perhaps more often than that. All these companies dealing in building materials have had difficulties with their initial assessments, and have then found that when the rules are changed the tax collectors come back, perhaps a year or two later, and re-assess the tax. This has made life extraordinarily difficult for them.
November 12, 1968

Leaving all these difficulties aside, and- perhaps some of them have arisen because of our psychological aversion to paying taxes- the fact is that the 11 per cent sales tax piles up administrative costs for those companies which deal with these building materials. In this way the 11 per cent becomes a higher percentage in relation to the over-all cost of a new house.
I suggest that if houses cost from $1,500 to $3,000 more because of the sales tax and its side effects, taken in conjunction with the high mortgage rates which all of us have to pay these days, many people find themselves with $500 to $1,000 less than they need to buy their own homes. When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) comes back from his travels, or interrupts them, perhaps he should drop in on his good friend the Minister of Finance and persuade him that the elimination of this 11 per cent sales tax is a practical step to be taken immediately. This would put the cost of housing within reach of tens of thousands more Canadians who are now grasping at ownership but not able to reach it.
The Minister of Transport has at many meetings in various cities referred to conventional wisdom when faced with this old problem of housing. Perhaps he has suggested the same old solution. I do not know what else there is but conventional wisdom in this field. I do not think there is anything new under the sun in this housing field. Perhaps the minister will be able to find some new plan or scheme that is entirely different. If he does, he will have our entire appreciation, but I suggest in the meantime the elimination of the sales tax is a practical first step.
I intend to save some of my remarks for another occasion, but I think the government will have to recognize that if certain steps are taken as outlined in this budget it will be more difficult to find mortgage money for home building. Let me read very quickly in this regard from part of an editorial that appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette:
In the last federal budget, Mr. Benson, as the federal finance minister, imposed new, heavy taxes on the insurance companies. To compensate for the diminished income resulting from the new taxes, the insurance companies may shift more of their investments out of fixed-value, long term securities and into common shares.
The insurance companies are permitted under law to invest 25 per cent of their assets in stocks. They now have in stocks far less than this permissible percentage. By moving into stocks they may not only hope for capital gains but would have the benefit of the 20 per cent tax credit.
The Budget-Mr. Clermont
Mr. Benson has spoken of the wide tax reforms he may introduce in his next budget. If these reforms follow the recommendations of the Carter commission, they will increase the amount of the tax credit for the holders of common shares. This would of course have the effect of making fixed-value, long term investments, such as mortgages, still more unattractive.
This is a very substantial problem facing the minister and I suggest that consideration must now be given to the use of money sources such as the federal superannuation fund and the Canada Pension Plan fund in respect of the very important matter of housing.
Finally, let me again read this statement from the Canadian conference on housing, which I think should be adopted by all Canadian politicians, no matter where they serve:
The Canadian conference on housing (1968) declares that all Canadians have the right to be adequately housed, whether they can afford it or not.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by recalling an event which occurred last September 12. On that day, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) issued a postage stamp commemorating Henri Bourassa, nationalist leader, member of parliament, journalist and founder of the newspaper Le Devoir, to celebrate the centennial of his birth. Henri Bourassa was born in Montreal on September 1, 1868. As a very young child, he moved with his father to Montebello, a small municipality in the riding of Labelle. When he was 21, he was elected mayor of his municipality. He had been offered the nomination two years earlier, but he was unable then to meet the requirements of the law. In 1896, he was elected to the House of Commons as a Liberal member for the riding of La-belle, which he represented until 1905. In 1905, he decided to go into provincial politics. From 1926 to 1935, he was again elected to the House of Commons, this time as an independent member.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) opened last September 3 an exhibition presented by the public archives of the national library, thanks to the generosity of the Bourassa family, which let them have some very interesting exhibits. The exhibition is to continue until November 15, 1968 and is open to the public.
I should now like to quote some extracts from an editorial written by Claude Ryan
COMMONS DEBATES	November 12. 1968
The Budget-Mr. Clermont and published in Le Devoir on August 31, 1968.
A man independent by nature, Henri Bourassa had a taste of party politics at the beginning of his career. He very quickly moved away from them. His vocation lay elsewhere.
This vocation can best be summarized by two words. Bourassa had been born and was to spend his whole life fighting for freedom and justice.
Bourassa was the father not only of French-Canadian nationalism, but of Canadian nationalism. However, nationalism was never an end in itself for him. It was rather the form which his love of freedom and justice had to take at the time when he lived.
Mr. Speaker, I had the honour, on three occasions, to represent the former Labelle constituency. Once again, I take this occasion to thank the electors for this honour and also to thank the people of the new Gatineau constituency for their generous support on my election last June 25.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would have preferred no doubt to present to the house a balanced budget for the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70 without any increase in taxes. He was not in a position to do so because of supplementary expenditures resulting mainly from joint federal-provincial programs which are not under the immediate jurisdiction of this government as they are administered by the provinces.
However, in the field of secondary education, the federal participation for the fiscal year 1965-66 was $40 million which included a special rebate to the province of Quebec. We find that, for the current year, federal transfers and cash payments to the provinces are estimated at some $500 million, which is equivalent to 12 times the amount paid three years ago.
During the present fiscal year, expenditures for university and post-secondary education amount to approximately $138 million more than forecast. On the other hand, the Canada assistance plan will be $47 million more than was expected. In the case of hospitalization, Mr. Speaker, the figures indicate an increase of $45 million. These three joint programs amount to a grand total of $230 million.
Mr. Speaker, three major changes not included in the calculation of the tax structure committee alone add $675 million in costs incurred by the federal treasury, compared with the projections for 1968-69, especially equalization payments to the Atlantic provinces for provincial post-secondary educational programs and other related programs, in order to assist as much as possible the

provinces to rationalize social welfare and to distribute further the costs implied in the Canada assistance plan established in 1967. Therefore, the contribution of the federal government to joint expenses for social welfare has been raised from $211 million, as indicated by the projections of the tax structure committee to the present estimates of $413 million. As for the equalization payments to the Atlantic provinces, the projections of $410 million, will apparently reach $590 million. For provincial post-secondary educational programs and other related programs in 1966, the federal government accepted to pay 50 per cent of the operating costs. As a result, instead of expenses of $300 million in 1968-69, in accordance with the estimates, the total amount of the federal commitments to financial assistance for provincial education will have almost doubled, that is about $610 million. This does not include, Mr. Speaker, the huge expenses for adult education entirely paid by the federal government under a national program which will cost some $220 million this year.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been wise, as far as the estimates of the present financial year are concerned, to have refrained from trying, through financial measures, to collect sufficient revenues to balance the budget. In fact, as he suggested, such measures would have been quite strict and would have been prejudicial to the Canadian economy.
With regard to the year 1969-70, he was realistic and quite brave, because he could have gone to the capital market and obtained the revenues necessary to make up the deficit but, the provinces, the school boards, the municipalities and the private interests would have had greater difficulties in getting the necessary funds which they need, with the possibility of paying a higher rate of interest. In certain quarters, the Minister of Finance is blamed for the fact that the social development tax of 2 per cent does not bring any additional revenues to the provinces. According to the minister, the tax amendments suggested in the 1968-69 budget will bring, for the year of 1969-70, sufficient income to balance the budget. Otherwise, he would have had to increase the taxes further in order to transfer some to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to federal contributions to the provinces and municipalities, such as equalization payments, social welfare benefits, health insurance, winter works, expenditures concerning the Trans-Canada highway, post-secondary education,
November 12, 1968

tax transfers and so on, from 1961-62 to 196768, they went from $900 million to $2.6 billion, which is about 26 per cent instead of 15 per cent of the total federal budget expenditures. That has no relation with the regular increase in tax payments made to the provinces with regard to personal income tax, which have gone up from 16 to 28 per cent, that is from $641 million to $1,829 million.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has announced on various occasions that, in 1969, the government will have to put before parliament a proposal to revise the taxation system in depth. I hope that this so-called social development tax of 2 per cent-the 3 per cent surtax levied since the beginning of the current year is supposed to end on December 31, 1969-will also come to an end on that date and that this revision will eliminate discrimination with regard to income tax.
Many criticisms have been made about the ceiling of $120 on that so-called social development tax of 2 per cent. But, Mr. Speaker, there have been precedents with regard to the maximum.
In 1951, when the old age security pension was adopted, a tax of 2 per cent was introduced with a ceiling of $60, and now this ceiling is $240. In 1965, when parliament voted for an abatement of 10 per cent on income tax, a maximum amount of $600 was also set. Similarly, with regard to the Canada pension, plan, we have a minimum income of $600 and a ceiling of $5,000 which will be raised to $5,200 on January 1, 1969.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw this to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Other members have mentioned the fact that some people have to spend part of their income on such things as tools, equipment, books, even clothing in certain cases, and on transportation costs to get to work, and the fact that those deductions are allowed companies and the self-employed.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In this connection, here are few remarks and proposals made by the royal commission on taxation. I quote a few excerpts from volume 3, page 289:
We now turn to consider the deduction of expenses by employees. The principle involved is clear enough. All the expenses incurred in the expectation of generating net gains, other than personal living expenses, should be allowed as deductions from all actual gross gains. Distinctions between the kinds and forms of taxable gains, and considerations of whether a net gain actually resulted from the expenditures, are irrelevant. The major problem would be to allow the deduction of all expenses laid out to generate employment income and yet to prevent the deduction of personal living expenses.

The Budget-Mr. Clermont
I shall now quote from page 312 of the same volume:
We came to the conclusion that the most equitable course would be to treat employment income on the same basis as income from a business or profession. Expenses would then be deductible if reasonably related to the earning of income. The prohibition against the deduction of personal and living expenses as set out in section 12(1) (h) of the Income Tax Act would, of course, be applicable, as would the provision in section 12(2) that expenses must be reasonable in the circumstances.
The deductibility of particular itemized expenses would then be determined in accordance with the rules to be applied to business expenses. Employees, like the self-employed, would not be permitted to deduct travelling and entertainment expenses in excess of the limits discussed earlier in this chapter.
Mr. Speaker, these expenses could be considered as acceptable to the extent of 3 per cent of the gross income or a maximum of $500. Any person having expenses over $500 could deduct them, with supporting proofs.
I would like also to deal with the legislation on small businesses loans, amended in 1967, to enable more owners of small businesses to take advantage of it. Another amendment would increase from $250,000 to $500,000 the approximate yearly income maximum required of a borrower. At the present time, a borrower may get a maximum of $25,000 only, a ceiling established in 1961 when this legislation came into force, to enable the owner of a small business to consider a substantial expansion of his enterprise. But in 1968 such a maximum is unrealistic, and this amount must necessarily be increased.
Moreover, the section on the 5J per cent maximum interest rate should be amended. I recognize that it is very important for heads of businesses to secure loans, but how good is a 5J per cent interest rate if bank managers find all kinds of reasons to refuse these loans?
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, this house very recently changed the farm loan corporation interest rate. It was 5 per cent. The farm improvement loan rate was also changed.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister of Finance should give serious consideration to my remarks and I think he could amend this section on interest rates without a review of the legislation by parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I would like once more to bring forth a matter I wish to deal with in this house. It has been raised by several members and has to do with water pollution.
November 12, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Penner
Our area is affected by the pollution of the Ottawa River and of its tributaries. According to a study of the salubrity of the river, issued by the Ontario Water Resources Commission it has been found, in several places along the river, between Pembroke and Hawkesbury, that the water was not up to the required standards and that taking the necessary steps to control it would involve considerable expenditures which are far beyond the financial means of the municipalities concerned.
The Association quebecoise des techniques de l'eau has held on February 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, its fifth annual Congress, at the Sheraton Mount Royal Hotel, in Montreal.
The theme of that conference "Water, everyone's problem" was intended to illustrate that everyone should fully assume his responsibilities, if our society wishes to achieve the progress necessary to promote the rational use of water.
In the Realties magazine about a year or so ago, a questionnaire was submitted to 25 Nobel Prize winners as well as to 25 of the world's prominent figures. One of the questions was: In your opinion, what are the most serious problems which the world will have to face within the next 20 years? The answers showed that population explosion was considered as the most serious problem; it was generally thought that such an explosion would cause food shortages, and poverty in under-developed countries and, furthermore, that man and industry would pollute water almost irretrievably unless a drastic change in the present approach concerning the use of that basic resource be implemented.
Conservation of water is everyone's problem. Therefore, governments, municipalities, industries and citizens in particular must fully assume their responsibilities.
We must get rid of an idea which is voiced too often by too many people; "Such and such an industry or municipality has yet to do something, so why me?" Too often, as result of this attitude no one does anything and our rivers continue to go out to the sea as they have always done, but with this difference that along the river, homes, industries and cities repeatedly use their drop of water.
Public opinion is already sensitized to the important problem of water pollution. Still, it is imperative that the people understand that solutions are difficult to find as well as costly.

In every country, the critical problem is that of finding the financial resources to be applied in a fight against pollution. It has been established that it would cost approximately $500 million to purify the waters for all Quebec municipalities with a population of 5,000 or more, and approximately $300 million to do the same for the smaller municipalities.
That is why financing the struggle against water pollution requires close co-operation between provincial and federal governments because the municipalities and cities do not have the required financial resources to solve this serious problem.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, as a representative from northwestern Ontario, an area which constitutes slightly more than half of the land and water mass of the entire province and rivals each of the three prairie provinces in size, I wish to limit my remarks in this budget debate to the topic of regional economic development, with particular reference to the mid-Canada corridor concept. There has been a revolution in Canada's thinking about northern development. It was only a decade ago that a royal commission on Canada's economic prospects described as unfavourable the outlook for northern development. They could not see a very close analogy between the historical opening of the west and the similar pressure now for economic development of the north.
Frequently, northern Ontario has been referred to as an economic desert, conveying to us the impression that this great central part of our country is forever doomed to remain unpeopled and unproductive. In his history of Canada, Stephen Leacock more than 20 years ago wrote this:
Perhaps the brightest page in these annals, is the record of discovery and exploration of the incalculable mineral wealth of the central wilderness of Canada between Hudson bay and the lakes. This means far more than the wealth itself, great though it must he, for it removes from our commonwealth its fatal geographical defect of an uninhabited and seemingly worthless central area which broke east and west apart.
Dr. Leacock's prophecy of a flourishing north has not yet been fulfilled, but many experts now believe that Canada's future is inseparably linked with the development of natural resources in the north. This vast undeveloped and most important area has the potential to support millions of people. The
November 12, 1968
advent of new and easier forms of transportation, better and cheaper systems of communication and modern technology applied to township development, carry the promise of considerable economic activity and settlement in Canada's north, this treasurehouse of national resources.
Recent economic studies and conferences have established that there are a number of problems in the development of the north which must be tackled. I should like to refer to just a few of these, Mr. Speaker. The first, and probably most important, is the availability of markets. Nothing can be done, no matter how rich and vast the resources, unless we have markets. This is more important to the north than to any other part of Canada. Resources will have to be developed, and on a large scale, in order to recover costs. Therefore large markets are needed, most of them outside of Canada. We must be widely concerned with the development of markets and our relations with countries which are going to be our markets, particularly I think the United States of America.
Second in the way of problems is the availability of capital. Most northern development involves very heavy investment of capital. Our future circumstances are not likely to be easy in this respect. We will live in a world of scarcity of capital for some time to come. There will be many competing demands for capital elsewhere, so if the north is going to develop it must be able to compete. We must have policies applied to the north, and to the country as a whole, that will attract capital. Capital has far less nationality now than at any time in the past, and it will go where the attractions are the greatest. In Canada the question of long term opportunity and security are very important.
Third in the way of problems is manpower. We face manpower problems in the north with which we in Canada have not had much experience. Northern development must proceed in a way that will give native peoples a future in their own country. However, nowhere in the past in Canada have we carried out economic development on the basis of involving the native people to any great extent. The danger is that economic development will run far ahead of the ability of native people to participate. We must do everything possible to shorten the time required to educate them sufficiently.
The fourth problem is transportation. Fortunately, there have been major new developments in transportation that offer great promise, although they still remain to be adapted
The Budget-Mr. Penner to the particular problems of the north. In the meantime we must rely heavily upon rail transportation. Other areas of Canada have received great assistance in their development by means of specific subsidies from the federal government for reduction of freight rates in their respective territories. There is a precedent therefore for similar consideration of the needs of northwestern Ontario, as part of a national economic development policy. In the clamorous contention for equality, the just and reasonable demands of this great central section of Canada have gone unheard and unheeded. Its promise, therefore, has remained largely unfulfilled as a result.
The fifth problem is that of efficiency. The north will always be a high cost area. In the past, Canada has had a habit of letting other countries, particularly the United States, solve its development problems. But in this case, in the development of our north, Canada will have to make more than her customary effort to solve her own problems. Fortunately we can now use technology more extensively than in past development. The basis of research and development is already set up in our universities but we have not a big background in this respect as yet.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I wish now to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, regarding what has become known in some circles as the mid-Canada corridor concept. The long range development of a coast to coast corridor through Canada's midnorth would go a long way to meet both the opportunities and the problems that have been outlined. Such a concept has been advanced in a corridor running from Newfoundland through Labrador, northern Quebec south of James bay, the northern Ontario clay belt, northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and into three arms-one stretching up the Mackenzie valley of the Northwest Territories, another into the Yukon, and the third into northern British Columbia. It generally runs between the narrow belt in which 90 per cent of Canadians live and what is considered to be the far north, and varies in width between 200 and 500 miles.
The Canada north development corridor is identified as an area with the following general characteristics: The climate is acceptable to working and living; the terrain is accessible and suitable for development; resources are abundant and well distributed; settlements already exist; there are potential urban growth centres; north-south transportation

November 12, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Penner routes already reach into the areas; and finally, new east-west transportation routes can be provided in a reasonable manner.
Preliminary study supports the concept of a coast to coast Canada north development corridor, Mr. Speaker, and a number of reasons are advanced to support the claim. Canada is expected to become a giant among the productive nations of the world, thus its future is inseparably linked with the development of the north. Such a development would require people, capital resources, foresight and initiative. It could be a challenge that would truly shape our destiny; a Canadian undertaking, financed by public and private funds and part of an overall national planning policy.
Of great consequence will be those elements of the national policy which direct economic activity and capital to certain specific areas in the development corridor. Northwestern Ontario is now ready to receive such special attention. It is obvious that the conscious creation and implementation of a Canada north development corridor concept as outlined must be a national undertaking, requiring vast amounts of public and private capital and manpower, and the support of the people of Canada as a national objective over the next several decades.
The provision of adequate incentives to bring industry and people into the area will play an important role in the establishment of the development corridor. Incentives for industry may vary from direct financial subsidies to the provision of tax regulations, and a transportation rate structure to allow new industries to operate competitively. Incentives for settlers may include high incomes, good employment opportunities, long holidays, and urban settlements of sufficient size with a wide range of services and amenities-perhaps a climatically controlled environment and good and inexpensive transportation linkages to other settlements in Canada north and south. While the rate of development in Canada north will, to a large extent, depend on the demand for its resources, the rate of development will also greatly depend upon a national policy which expresses the kind of nation in which Canadians wish to live.
Concrete plans to develop the concept are already in progress, Mr. Speaker. A two-part conference will explore the feasibility and that were first presented in a 1967 report. The conference will explore the feasibility and practicability of the development plan, and held in conjunction with it will be field trips to Siberia and northern Sweden.
The conference will be sponsored by the University of Guelph, Lakehead University, Laurentian University and the Ontario government. It has grown from a vision of Richard Rohmer now a Toronto lawyer, who last year commissioned a research project by a prominent and well known research and planning firm of Toronto. The opening session of the conference will be held at Lakehead University next January 18 and 19. The second meeting, after the field trips, will be held in August 1969.
The federal government has agreed to support and participate in the conference, Mr. Speaker. The provinces and territories through which the corridor passes will also be asked to join as co-sponsors. Representatives of industry, labour, finance and commerce will also be invited to take part. The ultimate findings of the conference will be submitted to the governments involved for them to initiate further studies and policy leading to action.
To dramatize the project, a film has been prepared which is entitled "Leave this not to Cain". The title refers to Jacques Cartier's purported comment that the Canadian north was the land that God gave to the first murderer. The film unreels photographic and factual evidence that this is no wasteland, and that modern technology can make northern living comfortable and give it a distinctive appeal. It asserts that Canada is fortunate to have such a frontier, with its potential attraction for the restless young in search of a challenge. The film concludes:
It is here, after all, that we will forge an identity. The land will form us. It will stamp us with its uniqueness. Always, from the beginning, it has been a bequest, the sort of gift a future can hinge on-the future of a whole people.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of my first speech in this house, I should like to congratulate you on your unanimous re-election as Speaker of this house. Canada is fortunate in having been able to have you presiding over the proceedings of its legislators. Your integrity and your dignity represent the ideal required of leaders by the institutions of our parliamentary system. It is with admiration that I support the choice of this house.
I think it is suitable to point out the outstanding contribution of the Hon. Hedard Robichaud to the public affairs of Canada. I feel particularly proud of having been elected as the successor of a man so dedicated to his fellow citizens and to his country, I also

November 12, 1968

wish to express my admiration and respect for the premier of New Brunswick, the Hon. Louis J. Robichaud. The eagerness and courage with which he is serving New Brunswick show he is a great Canadian.
I also wish to express my most sincere appreciation to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre-Elliott Trudeau; he understands Canada and he is a real Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herb Breau: His leadership answers the aspirations of young Canadians and the needs of our country.
Since the house is now studying the budget speech, I would like to assure the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) of my wholehearted support for his fiscal and budgetary changes.
This budget, Mr. Speaker, is realistic. It fights against inflation. It is unfortunate that the government should have to take steps to restrain development and diminish the purchasing power of the Canadian people. However, let us not forget that inflation always follows a boom which upsets the economic balance.
Certain members on the other side of the house have criticized this budget. They accuse the government of being irresponsible and bring forward all sorts of arguments, all of them unrealistic, in order to attract public attention.
To impose taxes is a difficult and complex job, Mr. Speaker.
However, I must remind those members that the Canadian people had the opportunity to listen to them and to their colleagues in the party before last June 25, and that on that date it chose the party it wanted. In my opinion, they are wasting their time trying to have their inconsistent fiscal policy adopted. They say that government expenditure is too high. However, they did not refrain from making promises during the last election campaign. I wonder how they would have managed to keep them without increasing expenditures or reducing certain services. Mr. Speaker, their attitude is completely illogical.
It is customary, I believe, for a member making his maiden speech in the House of Commons to talk about his riding. I should like to speak particularly about the future of the riding of Gloucester in view of the efforts made by the government to reduce the economic gap between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of the country.
The Budget-Mr. Breau
The economic situation of the constituency of Gloucester is not flourishing because of a great number of factors. First, we are struck by the importance of the economic gap existing between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada, and my constituency is badly affected. In short, from the economic point of view the geographic situation of the constituency of Gloucester is not so favourable as that of the other Atlantic provinces.
Another factor which is prejudicial to our economy is the psychological climate of the population. It is true that in a certain part of the constituency, namely the Bathurst region, wages are reasonable and maybe even appropriate. We find there a psychological climate more favourable to investment and, therefore, to economic development. Generally, that region is the most prosperous of the constituency.
However, as far as the rest of the constituency is concerned, the greatest part of its population is composed of fishermen, farmers or lumberjacks. We have seen in the economic history of other countries that people in such trades are not attracted by economic development. That economic situation is detrimental to the cultural and social progress of people and therefore there is a real danger of losing a great deal of skills which are so necessary to our country.
The fishing industry, at the present time, is having a hard time. Because of the unfavourable market situation, the prices paid to the fishermen are relatively low. Even under normal circumstances, fishing now requires technological studies and investment. The small fisherman-there are several of them in my riding-is still placed in a dilemma and lives in frustrating economic conditions.
Weather and soil conditions in our area are not very favourable to farming. Consequently, unless modem techniques are being developed in order to improve this situation, the small farmers in my area must forget about that avenue, or engage in it through sheer love of the thing or to provide for their own needs. It should be mentioned also that the main market for food products is located far away. Therefore one can reasonably say that farming at the present time is not a viable industry for the Gloucester riding.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
As far as lumber operations are concerned, mechanization now eliminates the lumbermen. They are therefore forced to get into another field of work, which is very difficult for them.

November 12, 1968
The Budget-Mr. Breau
The conditions I have just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, are well known to hon. members but, in my opinion, it is my duty to bring them up.
The federal government has done a lot already to improve the situation in my riding and to reduce the economic gap between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada. In fact, two years ago, the government of New Brunswick and the federal government reached an agreement under which the latter undertook to co-operate in the implementation of a rural development program.
The news was very well received but after a while, since they had not understood the real meaning of the program, the people felt frustrated by the lack of visible results. The program I am talking about is only breaking ground for a real development scheme. It is a pilot project, therefore a program that will serve as a guide for subsequent programs. That program will have to make the population more conscious of development. If the people of the riding of Gloucester take part in the pilot project now under way, they will be ready to take advantage of other programs. They will see to it that those programs reach their objectives more easily and are consequently more advantageous for Canada.
The citizens of Gloucester were very happy to hear the Prime Minister say that the problem of national unity will not be solved as long as economic disparities have not been abolished in Canada. They have been waiting to hear those words for a long time, because they want to be first class Canadians. Therefore, the creation of a Department of Regional Development makes me very happy.
I read with great interest the remarks made by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) before the Atlantic Development Board in Halifax on October 29 last. I commend him for the serious and realistic way with which he faces his challenge. To reduce the economic disparities between provinces, it is essential to initiate a well-planned study, geared towards a common objective. I mean by that that the federal, provincial and municipal governments, in short the whole population, must develop an objective to which everyone must hold fast.
The operation of the new department is now confined to the co-ordination of the efforts of the various departments, while appraising the markets for viable industries and preparing the various avenues necessary for development. But in my opinion, the minister must see to it that the government fiscal and

budgetary policies make allowance for regional circumstances. He should also, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hel-lyer), set up a more realistic policy concerning the transportation problems in the area.
The department will also have to consider the possibility for the federal government to have a greater concentration of its purchasing power in the Atlantic provinces. For instance, it should encourage industries, which are government suppliers, to settle in that area. The government national policies have not promoted progress in the Atlantic provinces in the past. I do not say that the future Department of Regional Development should not go beyond those three suggestions. Those are simply three examples of decisions which could stimulate the economy of the area. It will then be easier for the department to find means of reducing the economic disparities which exist, and to that end, it should provide for the establishment of basic guidelines concerning the maximum use of manpower by training a qualified and mobile manpower and increasing the quantity and the quality of jobs. It is a pity that most of the workers in our area should, at a certain age, have to leave the province in order to go somewhere else in Canada, or which is worse, to the United States.
We must also control the maximum development of the production potential of the Atlantic provinces through education, training and retraining and develop all human resources. Moreover, we must provide for accessibility to production technology, for the establishment of economic growth centres, for the orderly and planned use of financing as well as human capital.
The minister must also ensure the availability of essential services for the villages and towns that are potential industrial centres.
Encouragement must also be given to creative economic activities, use of an adequate and modern technology and development of viable economic activities.
Finally, we must see to the full development of our tourist resources and to the establishment of essential facilities for tourism.

The six principles that the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) has expressed to the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council are the essence of a very realistic plan. Of particular importance is the fifth principle mentioning the importance of
November 12, 1968

the people's participation. People must indeed become involved in this rural development. The whole scheme must be an effort of the entire population. Without that it will fail.

I should mention here the efforts made by the Conseil regional d'amenagement du Nord and The Northern Regional Development Council. Those councils of my district must ensure a minimum of support on the part of the population. They must really help the population to go through the psychological changes necessary to the development and, therefore, should be careful not to confuse people. They must inform people, explain to them the real meaning of the present projects and their relationship to future projects.
The lessening of the economic gap existing between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada will have the effect of encouraging and reassuring the people of my district, but as the future Minister of Regional Development said, we shall not see the tangible results of this before some fifteen years.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The elite of today may still enjoy better conditions but it is not the elite which suffers the most today. It is true that it does not enjoy conditions comparable to those of their equals in the centre of Canada, but it is the small fishermen, farmers and lumberjacks I have mentioned who do not profit by the prosperous economy.
The few fishermen who are lucky enough to participate in the development of their industry, those who work at the paper mill of Bathurst, or in the mines or at the foundry of Bathurst may have a sufficient income. But the less fortunate will not participate in this development.
Most of them are between 25 and 60 and what is unfortunate is that the social assistance scheme does not solve their problems. Social assistance cannot-and I pray heaven that it will not-become a substitute for employment.
Even though our labour force is unskilled, it must be gainfully employed in order to avoid the danger of having unemployed people. I think that the government social assistance programs are obviously essential, but there must be some assurance that these programs are benefiting those in need of them and are not being used to destroy the people's initiative.
The Budget-Mr. Breau
I think the Minister of Regional Development will be in a position to collaborate with the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to establish regional policies ensuring social security as criteria vary with the different regions.
Regional criteria differ in rural areas from those in urban areas. The department must take future planning into account, because regional development in the interest of the population and economic progress call for planning: it is not done on short notice. In the meantime, short term solutions must be found in order to assist the less fortunate and those are two factors which are quite different.
Mr. Speaker, as the member representing Canadians of the Gloucester constituency, I wish to convey to the right hon. Prime Minister and to his government the assurance of my full co-operation.
I want to remind the hon. members that I am interested in the development of the Atlantic provinces for one good reason: because it is essential to Canada.


Mr. Bernard Dumoni (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, will the member allow me a question?


Herb Breau: Yes.


Bernard Dumont: Could the hon. member for Gloucester-by the way, I congratulate him sincerely on his perfect bilinguism-could the member tell us whether he made representations to his government with regard to sending help to Biafra? He told us fishing income was not adequate in his riding and alluded to the shipment of salt cod to Biafra. If he did, when did he intervene?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the question. Is the member speaking of the shipment to Biafra?


Bernard Dumont: Yes, the shipment of salt cod to Biafra to feed the Biafrans. Did he make representations to his government in this regard?


Herb Breau: It was not necessary to do so, because the government had already made efforts in that connection.


Bernard Dumont: Has the shipment reached Biafra-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon member for Battle River.
2672	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Downey


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Rising to speak in this budget debate makes me sad, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak in support of the budget, because I am sure the government has done its best, but I find there is precious little cheerful news in it for anybody, and certainly not for my constituents in Battle River. All the budget promises them is sweat, taxes and tears-their sweat their taxes, and Mr. Benson's tears.
To hear our Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) weep over the terrible state of the federal government's finances is enough to soften the hardest heart, until of course you remember that he and his colleagues are the authors of their own misfortunes. However, he was able to choke back his sobs long enough to be able to announce that all of us will have to pay a new 2 per cent surtax on our incomes. He said this was necessary because federal finances were in such bad shape, and admittedly they are. He was very eloquent when he pleaded for everyone to cut back spending and save money, but certainly we have no evidence that the government is considering restraint in its administrative costs.
The Auditor General has reported that $2J million is being paid out by three federal departments for new office accommodation, and an additional $1 million for equipment, I would gather mostly for prestige. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is that door hanging at the back of the centre block of the parliament buildings. It does not really look that much different from a great many other doors I have seen-I do not believe you could even drive a combine through it-but there must be something different about it because I notice we paid over $13,000 for it.
The Minister of Finance did not mention that while the government is supposed to be setting an example to the country and to individual taxpayers on how to save money, his colleagues in the cabinet are living high, wide and handsome at the taxpayers' expense. I would like to recall something that Thomas Jefferson said almost 200 years ago:
I place economy among the first and most important virtues and public debt as the greatest of dangers to pursue our independence. We must not ourselves load up with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of caring for them, they will be happy. The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the use of public money.
The minister did not mention the money that would be spent this year on the B and B
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
DEBATES	November 12, 19G8
commission, a mere few hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the $7 million already spent on it. He skipped quickly over the fact that not every Canadian taxpayer will pay the full 2 per cent on his or her income. Only those earning less than $10,000 per year will pay the full charge. This country of ours, this bulwark of the just society is supposed to provide the same opportunity for all, with no discrimination; yet three quarters of our taxpayers will be paying an additional 2 per cent while about one quarter will pay considerably less.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
As an illustration I will take an income of $4,000. On this an individual will pay a tax increase of $80. A man with an income of $40,000 will pay a tax of $120. The man with an income of $4,000 pays 2 per cent. The man with an income of $40,000 pays one third of one per cent. On top of all this the Prime Minister announced publicly that he would be trying to find ways to lighten the tax burden on the higher income groups. The Minister of Finance called the new surcharge on income a social development tax, but I am sure if his boss has his way and high incomes are to have their tax rate cut back we can look forward to getting hit with additional taxes in the next budget. The Minister of Finance probably will call it a poverty development tax, because if he and his friends keep going the way they are they will be turning all of us into the new Canadian poor.
This new tax perhaps would not have been so hard to take if it was really what he said it was, a social development tax. If some of that 2 per cent tax revenue was to be paid out for higher old age pensions, social assistance or veterans allowances, it would be justified. If it were put on our backs to help the people in our society who need real help just to stay alive at today's prices and with today's inflation, we might be happy to pay it. When we speak of inflation we must remember that no civilized country in the world ever adopted the extreme philosophies of either fascism or communism unless the middle class was first liquidated by inflation.
This was a desperation budget. Five years of uncontrolled and irresponsible spending by the federal government left the till empty. Desperate measures had to be taken to raise ready cash. The first and obvious step was to load a bigger income tax on the group of citizens least able to resist or talk back. That explains the 2 per cent surtax and the cut-off at incomes of $10,000. Our finance minister
November 12, 1968	COMMONS
then looked around at the next most helpless group, and found the old reliable area, the dead. Sure, he made estates passing between husband and wife exempt from taxation, but at the same time he more than received the money back by finagling the taxation rate on other estates.
Then of course we must look at the plight of those engaged in western agriculture. The men of the west are experiencing one of the most trying times in their history. People are selling their farms; some are hungry, and I might say that in respect of those that are not hungry or selling out, if conditions do not soon improve the nation will see one of the greatest bank robberies in history. But, no, we cannot afford an acreage payment or a subsidy for the farmers of the west. Under a previous Conservative government acreage payment cost the federal treasury approximately $46 million in one year. This was of immeasureable help to many people in buying their groceries throughout the winter.
This government has already spent $46 million on the national arts centre, that Liberal granite memorial across the street here. While I am dwelling on the figure of $46 million another matter comes to mind, which also concerns a matter of approximately $46 million. I refer now to our Canada 3 per cent perpetual bond issue of the dirty thirties. People who were patriotic bought these bonds because they had faith in the future and faith in the integrity of our country. I am sure, however, that their generous gesture did not include a gift of money to Canada for all time. After all it was a loan with interest to be paid at 3 per cent and every loan must have a maturity date. In this case the date was 30 years hence, or 1966. Any other financial arrangement that is even hinted at is completely out of reason. The subsequent events of 1966, the extending of the maturity date another 30 years at 3 per cent interest, in my opinion was an attempted swindle, the result of a blatant confidence game which if perpetrated by private enterprise would be investigated immediately, and penitentiary sentences would be handed out to those who instigated such a crime. We have had explained to us by our previous finance minister the reason it was not paid back; but let us not stand for any mamby-pamby financial jargon, because the facts are clear.
The facts are that the government of Canada asked for a loan from its citizens; it promised to pay 3 per cent on that loan until maturity after 30 years, or 1966 in this case.
DEBATES	2673
The Budget-Mr. Downey It refused to honour its debt. The market price has nothing to do with the value of the actual debt. Our government owes the people the face value of this loan. In my opinion this is a very serious matter, and one of principle which rises above academic political thinking. Something must be done, and done now, because we cannot let the integrity of Canada rot at the seams for the sake of the price of this granite museum across the street which, I might add, most Canadians will never see. If we are to expect the people of Canada to have confidence in our debt and to buy future bond issues, then we had better give them something on which to base their confidence.
Franklin D. Roosevelt said in 1932 in respect of debt that any government, like any family, can for a year spend a little more than it earns; but you and I know that continuance of that habit means the poorhouse. I think this holds just as true today as it did in 1932. All this is unpleasant and depressing, but I believe the worst feature of the Benson budget is its negative, defeatist spirit. It makes no provision for national development, for assistance to agriculture, for our export trade, or for our vital resource and service industries. It is an open admission of surrender to the influence of big business, and a shameful confession that the minister and his colleagues have neither the heart nor the guts to do the things that are necessary for Canada today.
It is not news to anybody that this government has written off the small farmer and the small businessman. So far as Ottawa is concerned, they have been classed as expendable for five years now. But it is news, and grim news at that, that the government by the terms of this budget appears to have written off the whole area of Canadian agriculture and large sectors of other vital basic industries. The members of the government appear content to sit tight in their Ottawa offices, raising money by taxes and loans while prices climb, inflation grows and interest rates soar. They appear to be unconscious of the fact that most Canadians are overburdened by taxes, frustrated by lack of government policy and action, and are growing increasingly depressed about the future.
In closing I should like to reiterate the sentiments expressed by one hon. member the other day. It would seem that to be a financial expert today is to pass our financial troubles on to future generations. No progress will be made in getting out of this financial morass in which we are mired until we

November 12, 1968
Ways and Means
accept the responsibility of paying the debts of our time in our time.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I suppose to suggest here today that we as a nation should pay our way would label me as a bit of a square, but we all know what happens in the business field if we spend more than we make. I see no reason why the principles of business management should not also apply to the business of this nation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Main motion (Mr. Benson) agreed to on division.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1.	That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 20925-1, 21045-1, 22001-1 and the heading thereto, 22002-1 and the heading thereto, 22003-1 and the heading thereto, 26325-1, 40938-1, 42761-1 and the heading thereto, 42762-1 and the heading thereto, 44043-1, 44047-1,	47600-1,	56400-1, and 69315-1 and the
enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, I have the suspicion that my hon. friends may wish to say something about this resolution in respect of the Customs Tariff. Perhaps whoever is the spokesman should be allowed to take the floor, and by agreement adjourn the debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might suggest that in view of the fact the subject matter of this resolution was considered last year by a committee of the house, and that during the intervening period some things may have happened, the minister would like to bring hon. members up to date by giving a short statement, to be followed by comments of spokesman for each party at the resolutions stage. That may be all
that is required. I do not think we are in a position to do that this evening.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, that is the procedure I would propose to follow at the resolution stage of the Customs Tariff. This has been referred to a committee of the house and considered in some detail, except for those changes in respect of chemicals. Perhaps we could proceed with this resolution on Thursday, or tomorrow, at which time I could make a statement dealing with the individual items, and then move on to the next resolution, and so on.
There is one main resolution we should like to complete in addition to this, that dealing with anti-dumping. In view of this I might have the permission of the committee at this time to call it ten o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I intended to suggest the same thing. In spite of some remarks to the contrary, this house has done very well and made remarkable progress. Perhaps we might call it ten o'clock now. If the house leader accepts that suggestion, perhaps he is prepared to indicate the business of the house for tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The proposal would be to take the third reading of the bill-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps before we do that, the minister should move that we rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the first item to be called tomorrow will be the third reading of the C.N.R. financing bill. If that is disposed of we will proceed to the Customs Tariff resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.
It being twelve minutes before ten o'clock, by unanimous consent Mr. Speaker adjourned the house, without question put.

Wednesday, November 13, 1968