1968-11-07

PRIVILEGE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question of privilege to raise. It arises out of the announcement yesterday by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of the personnel of the new Canadian Consumer Council. Among those named is Mr. A. J. E. Child, president of Burns Foods Limited of Calgary. To my mind this raises a question of privilege.
A few days ago I drew to the attention of this house a complaint from Calgary about a frozen confection known as fudgsicles, manufactured by the Woodland Dairy of Edmonton. On the wrapper it states that these fudgsicles contain three fluid ounces. Numerous checks, both before and after the complaint was made, have established that these fudgsicles contain only two and one half ounces. A written report dated October 25 from the Chemical and Geological Laboratories Limited of Calgary stated that their actual average fluid measure was found to be 2.516 ounces.
It is now more than three months since the complaint was lodged. Although the complainant was assured by the minister's office on August 28 that the matter was in hand and that the complainant would be notified when the report was finalized, to the best of my knowledge he has had no further word, either of the progress of the investigation or of the finalization of the report. Meanwhile, if the evidence is correct, the public is still being defrauded by the sale of these Woodland Dairy fudgsicles; and it would seem there is substance to the complaint.
When I outlined the matter in the house last Monday night the minister's parliamentary secretary stated:
While shortages in volume of fluid ounces were found to be smaller than those reported to the department, fudgsicles checked by the displacement method had volume content somewhat below declared value.
And again:
I am advised that the dairy products division will again make special checks in addition to its normal program of control, in order to determine whether the reported shortages are indicative of a current production problem or are limited to a small stock from older production.
Mr. Speaker, if the public is being defrauded it is being defrauded, whether by current production or older production matters not a scrap. Surely if rotten potatoes or bad meat were found in circulation they would be withdrawn, certainly within a period of more than three months. If these fudgsicles were found by the department to be under advertised content they should have been withdrawn from sale immediately. Instead, it is apparent that the department is allowing the Woodland Dairy ample time to sell them to an unsuspecting public.
Now, Mr. Speaker-and this is my question of privilege-the minister has appointed the president of Burns Foods Limited, the firm of which Woodland Dairy is an affiliated subsidiary, to serve on the Canadian Consumer Council, the body which is just now being established to protect consumers.
It is needless for me to labour the point. Until this whole matter has been thoroughly investigated and the complainant notified of the result, I feel strongly that the appointment of Mr. Child to the Canadian Consumer Council should be held in abeyance. If Your Honour agrees with me that this is a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to make a motion that consideration of Mr. Child's appointment be referred to the appropriate committee.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: On the question of privilege, with respect to these appointments to the Canadian Consumer Council, I wish to object to the absence of an appointment from the well known province of New Brunswick.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard both hon.
members on the question of privilege I feel I can give a ruling immediately. I have very serious doubts as to whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. The hon. member must realize that the privilege with which we are

November 7, 1968
Proposed Legislation
concerned is parliamentary privilege, which has been defined on a number of occasions. I fail to see how the parliamentary privilege of any individual member or of the members collectively is being affected adversely by the proposed appointment to which the hon. member has referred.
There may be a genuine, valid grievance by the member against the minister, against the department or the government, but I suggest with great respect to the hon. member that this does not qualify the matter to the extent that it can be considered a question of privilege which would require the suspension of the work of the house for the purpose of considering the motion which the hon. member wants me to put to the house.
In view of the circumstances I would rule that it is not a prima facie case of parliamentary privilege.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, presented to the house on Tuesday, November 5, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on national resources and public works, presented to the house on Tuesday, November 5, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-126, to amend the Criminal Code (vagrancy).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of presenting this private bill to amend the Criminal Code with regard to the section dealing with vagrancy. I am prompted in part by an article which
[Mr. Speaker.)
appeared in the Toronto Telegram of October 24, 1968-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot make his speech now in support of the bill. The standing orders allow him to make only a very brief comment.


William Kenneth Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Section 164 of the code reads:
Every one commits vagrancy who
(a)	not having any apparent means of support is found wandering abroad or trespassing and does not, when required, justify his presence in the place where he is found;
(b)	begs from door to door or in a public place;
The proposal is that both these subsections be removed. The purpose of the bill is to remove from the Criminal Code the offence of vagrancy where no moral turpitude is involved, in order to restrict it to the field of social justice, its rightful place.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council) moves to introduce Bill No. C-127 entitled: "An Act to amend the electoral boundaries readjustment Act".
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides simply for a change in the name of the electoral riding of Missisquoi to that of Brome-Missisquoi.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WHEAT-ABILITY TO MEET EXPORT COMMITMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister assure the house that the Canadian Wheat Board is filling its export commitments on schedule and that the board is not in fact falling behind in any commitments by reason of any delay in moving the wheat to a forward position.
November 7, 1968


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be directed to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt, who is acting for the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio would be kind enough to answer my question.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: I shall be very pleased to check again into this matter. I certainly have no knowledge of any such problem, but I shall be glad to look into it for the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister should find that in fact there are any delays, would he made certain that the authorities or he himself gets in touch with the railways concerning the provision of box cars or supplementary methods for this purpose? Also, in view of the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce from the house, the minister might give some indication whether the U.S.S.R. will exercise its option to purchase 150 million bushels of wheat.


Mr. Speaker:: The first supplementary
appears to be hypothetical. The minister may wish to answer the second supplementary.


Mr. Lang (Saskaloon-Humboldi):: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that I would be glad to give the assurance to the hon. gentleman about the hypothetical supposition. With regard to the latter part, may I say that it remains the position of this department that these matters are not appropriately discussed in the house. This is not the proper place for this.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Due to the fact that 60 per cent of the grain in western Canada has been harvested either as damp or tough, is there any arrangement to market that grain earlier than other grain?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Wheat Board has established a three bushel advance quota for damp wheat, which on the basis of the information we have concerning the stocks on hand should go a long way toward solving the basic part of this problem.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, to what does the minister refer when he says this is information which is not given in the house? On the basis of past practice I have asked a question as to whether a nation is going to take up its option. I repeat the question to him because I
Inquiries of the Ministry am sure he could not have been clear when he answered it the way he did. Does the U.S.S.R. intend to exercise its option and accept the wheat it has undertaken to accept under the open option that exists?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, it will be apparent to hon. members that to some extent the question involves states of mind to which I may not have immediate access. The whole point of the question has to do with the issue of how negotiations in fact are going. I really suggest it is not in the interests of the Canadian farmer that this be discussed in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: If the state of mind of the minister is such that he has no information on this subject that is one thing. Is that what he means regarding the state of mind?


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, since it is understood that two directors of the Canadian Wheat Board are in the U.S.S.R. at the present time under rather special circumstances, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio whether a statement will be made to the house this week, or very soon.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I can only say to the hon. member that when it is possible to make a statement which will not in any way have an adverse effect on the negotiations going on, that statement will be made.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the government is considering any other measures to meet the very serious problems of the grain growers in western Canada, as the present programs outlined in the legislation which have been discussed are quite inadequate.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio what amount of grain will be dried at terminal elevators during the winter months, and to what extent the wheat board will be prepared to make additional or supplementary quotas available prior to the spring weather.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member not agree that his first question asks for detailed statistical information?


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I was suggesting to the minister that he make this information available to the house and the country.

November 7, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister without Portfolio or the Minister of Trade and Commerce had any discussion with railroad officials as to their ability to supply an adequate number of box cars to facilitate the movement of tough and damp grain as the Canadian Wheat Board opens quotas for that purpose?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the question as to exactly what stage these discussions have reached, and provide an answer.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the report of the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture in respect of the condition of the grain, referred to by the minister in the house yesterday, concludes that grain drying facilities in Saskatchewan are adequate; and is the minister prepared to make this report available to interested members?


Mr. Speaker:: The first question inquires about conclusions in respect of a report. I doubt whether this is in order. Perhaps the second part of the question might be answered by the minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. As far as making the report available in the house is concerned, let me say that this report was in the form of a telephone conversation I had with the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan. I am not prepared to say whether the capacity of these dryers is adequate, but simply that it is far in excess of anything that was available in any other year.
In answer to the other part of the question I should say that the Board of Grain Commissioners has all inland drying terminal facilities on a 24 hour, five day a week basis. As soon as sufficient quantities of tough and damp grain have been moved into these terminals they will operate on a 24 hour, seven day a week basis.



BARLEY-REPORTED SALE BY AUSTRALIA TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in his absence I direct it to the Minister without Portfolio. What action will the minister take to prevent further erosion of our traditional

Japanese barley market, in view of the sale by Australia yesterday of enough barley to supply Japan for several months, reportedly due to our inflexible pricing system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member is of a very general nature, and that he is now asking the minister to make a statement which normally should be made on motions.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, since the prices of rental housing accommodation and privately owned homes have been rising steadily, does the Minister of Manpower and Immigration believe his department should be distributing to prospective immigrants to Canada a pamphlet which tells them that "The shortage of accommodation .. . particularly in the form of rental-" should improve shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might ask a new question. His first question as asked is clearly argumentative, but I will allow him to ask another one.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, does the minister know that his department is distributing a pamphlet which tells prospective immigrants housing both for rent and purchase at reasonable prices is available to them if they come to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the table has already received written notice of a similar question, and I believe this question is properly one for the order paper.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Secretary of State.
In view of the reply he gave yesterday to my question No. 513, as given on page 2476 of the Hansard, according to which the C.B.C. allotted the Parti quebecois five hours and forty-one minutes on the French network,
November 7, 1968

and three hours and five minutes on the English network, for a total of eight hours and forty-six minutes, from October 10 to October 15, 1968-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should put a question and not make a speech.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: -while, during that is the same period, only an hour and thirty-seven minutes were allotted to the Ralliement Creditiste, can the hon. Secretary of State explain that attitude on the part of the C.B.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member should put his question on the order paper.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must put a different question, since the question of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) was considered out of order, under the circumstances.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question before the house at ten o'clock tonight.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
What are the norms applied by the C.B.C. concerning the use and allottment of broadcasting time to political, non-political or other movements?
I know that the minister can answer my question, Mr. Speaker, for he told us the other day that he would inquire into the matter.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I can give no specific information on this matter today, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be glad to inquire into it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Secretary of State, to follow the answer he made a moment ago.
Can he, at this time, give us the assurance that a complete report on the general policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with regard to the use and allottment of its broadcasting time to all political, non-political or other movements will be tabled soon?
29180-159J
Inquiries of the Ministry MONTREAL-CONSTRUCTION OF PLACE RADIO-CANADA
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Georges Valade (SainJe-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
In view of a statement he made yesterday or a few days ago, concerning the construction of Place Radio-Canada in Montreal, can the minister tell us whether the work will start as scheduled on December 1 or does he expect further delays?


Gérard Pelletier: I have no information, Mr. Speaker, which would indicate that further delays are expected.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the reported boycott yesterday by Canada's diplomats, or the dean of the diplomatic corps in Moscow, of the celebrations relating to the October 1917 revolution in the Soviet union. I ask the right hon. gentleman whether his government and party intend to carry out the same sort of boycott with respect to the reception this evening at the Soviet embassy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the question is in order, but in view of the fact that there are doubts in my mind I am prepared to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and allow the Prime Minister to answer.
Righl Hon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I have no list of members of our party or our cabinet who might or might not be going, or who might have been invited to that reception.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Are you going?


Mr. Trudeau:: Personally I am not going. I just want to tell the hon. member that if he goes, I hope he will get some caviar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The type of caviar I enjoy is that which comes from a west coast salmon. It is much more delightful-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
2516	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having heard the reply and the hon. member's comments, I am satisfied that perhaps I should not have allowed the question in the first place.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the cancellation on Monday by the Hellyer task force on housing of a scheduled inspection of slum housing in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, so the task force could attend a party instead, and thus the inspection was never held, would the Prime Minister advise his minister in charge of housing that the primary purpose of this task force is to better acquaint itself with housing conditions in Canada and not to attend parties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since I have not received an answer to that question-


An hon. Member:: It is a silly question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but since he is not here today I will delay it until tomorrow.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the report that Canadian relief flights have been grounded since Monday by reason of the failure to get a positive answer from Colonel Ojukwu to the Prime Minister's appeal, announced in the house on Monday, that he should consent to daylight flights to Uli for civilian relief purposes only, through what means of communication has this appeal to Colonel Ojukwu been made and what answer, if any, has been received?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I should like to say, based on the premise of the question, that the grounding did not result from the suggestion made to Colonel Ojukwu, but rather took place for other reasons. It took place apparently as the result of an attack damaging aircraft under Caritas

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
and under Red Cross charter on the ground at Uli. I believe that as a result of that attack the Red Cross has suspended all flights to Uli, at least until yesterday. Therefore the suspension was not linked in our minds to what we had requested of Colonel Ojukwu.
I have been asked what means we took to inform Colonel Ojukwu of our position. It has been our experience in the past that any statement made in Canada, particularly in the House of Commons, is known by him very quickly, but for greater certainty we asked the Red Cross to convey to him the substance of our message.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister received any answer from Colonel Ojukwu, and if not would he consider telephoning New York 212-687-5280, where he can get a response within two minutes?


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether our government has made any representations to the government of Nigeria about the strafing of this field, in view of the fact that the possibility of our own planes being hit are very great; and would he tell us also whether arrangements are being made for flights to be resumed to Biafra in this very necessary relief effort?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did make representations to be conveyed to the authorities at Lagos to the effect that we hoped they would not embark on these activities until we had an answer from Colonel Ojukwu.
I suggest that if my hon. friend can telephone the person in New York to convey this information I will give him 10 cents to make this call.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would also like to answer the last part of my question about when we can expect to see these flights resumed. Does he have any idea how long we will have to wait?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret as much as anyone in this house that there has not yet been a response from the Biafran authorities. Until there is such a response we will of course not be able to make day flights. With regard to the night flights, it was the decision of the Red Cross to ground the planes, and I cannot speak for them with regard to when they will resume these flights.
November 7, 1968


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood who has a question of privilege has precedence.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The right hon. Prime Minister offered me 10 cents to put in a call to New York. Let me tell him that I already have the information he wants, and I will give it to him for nothing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the purpose of the question period is to get information, why did the hon. member ask me a question if he already has the information?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's comment that the Red Cross is unable at present to send planes into Biafra, he and his government might reconsider making arrangements with the churches for the use of our Hercules aircraft, as two flights took place last night from Sao Thome under the auspices of the churches.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The position of the government has been quite clear on this. We would not let any of our official governmental planes fly over Nigerian territory without their authority. The Nigerian government told us they would give authority for the flights if we chartered our planes to the Red Cross but would not do so if we chartered them to the churches. There is an additional reason, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last week. It is that flights from Sao Thome are carrying a great deal of arms, and the Nigerians have some suspicions as to what might be flown from there.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which in his absence I presume will be taken by the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Winnipeg South. The question is whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been ordered or asked to delay or to cease granting approval to urban renewal applications, particularly those from smaller communities.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there are urban renewal schemes under way in municipalities, both large and small, throughout Canada subject to agreements with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Under these agreements moneys are and will continue to be paid out. The amount committed but not yet billed for is $114 million. New applications, however, are being deferred until the task force on housing completes its studies and reports early in the new year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand from the minister's answer that the intention is not to grant any more applications for urban renewal once this $114 million has been expended?


James Armstrong Richardson: As I explained, Mr. Speaker, there is no intention not to grant more money, but grants will simply be deferred until the task force has completed its studies.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio. I should like to ask him whether he has either been assigned or has made application for the portfolio designed to handle housing, inasmuch as the minister responsible for that task is never here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio whether C.M.H.C. generally is marking time and is reluctant to approve applications until such time as the report with regard to housing is received from the task force.


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the figures I have revealed would indicate they are not marking time. There simply is a deferment in this one area.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: In view of the answer given yesterday by the Minister without Portfolio to my question regarding the reduction of service to Edmonton by Air Canada on its winter schedule, namely that decisions concerning compensation for flight service reduction come under
2518	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission whereas scheduling appears to be the prerogative of the airline involved, is the minister now in a position to clarify the role of the commission in compensating Edmonton for this reduction of service by Air Canada?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my answer yesterday the allocation of routes is a responsibility of the Canadian Transport Commission. These routes are constantly being reviewed. I have no specific information about any application with regard to Edmonton at the present time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say what authority the Canadian Transport Commission has with regard to approving schedule changes such as this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if the supplementary question is in order. The hon. member is asking for an interpretation of the law and I doubt whether, in the circumstances, the question could be answered.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I will take it up at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS POSSIBLE FEDERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to withdraw from medicare in the near future, and let the provinces be solely responsible for it?
Are we to expect a statement to that effect shortly?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day, the act provides for a 5-year period before this matter comes up for study, and that is the reply to the hon. member.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO MISSION TO RED CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I was going to direct my question to

DEBATES	November 7, 1988
the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan, but he is out of the chamber at the moment. He just left a moment ago. I should like to put it to the Minister of Agriculture, who I am sure has the information. Is there at the present time a mission in red China on behalf of the wheat board for the purpose of endeavouring to increase sales of wheat to that country, or at least to find additional markets there? If the mission has returned, has it been able to give an optimistic report which would give western farmers a sense of assurance that the vast amount of the wheat that is piled up will have markets found for it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sure the right hon. gentleman realizes that the answer to this question is the same as the Minister without Portfolio gave, that it is not in the best interests of the farmers to advise where we are trying to sell wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister, in view of that answer, must members of parliament secure their information from the press rather than from ministers? That information was in the press as the result of a press release which came from the department itself.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has received communications from municipal councils and other organizations in the Red river valley of Manitoba asking him to declare that area a disaster area, and have there been any replies.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Replies have been sent, Mr. Speaker, to all communications that have come to my office from municipal councils in Manitoba.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house when the Barber commission on farm machinery will report; and is the commission investigating the wide discrepancy reported to exist between the list prices of identical farm tractors in the United Kingdom and Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have asked Dr. Barber for an interim report. In so far as the other specific inquiry is concerned, I can convey the interest of my hon. friend to the commission.
November 7, 1968	COMMONS



YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and ask him whether the bill to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act is ready for introduction, and if so when it is the intention of the government to introduce it? While the minister is answering perhaps he could say when he intends to table the Carr commission report, in view of the widespread distribution it has already received.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, I hope to be able to introduce the bill on the Yukon mining resources very shortly. It is a fairly bulky bill consideration of which, we expect, will be completed soon, so that it can be tabled in the next few weeks. I apologize; I thought it could be tabled before, but it has been impossible for me to do so.
Now, for the second part of the question, I must say that the problem is one of French translation of the report. I expect that this will be completed shortly and that it can be tabled within a few weeks.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on the Carr commission report. In view of the fact that the English version has received widespread public distribution, could the minister at least table that version for the benefit of members of the house?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of principle. With a view to helping out the members, I myself prepared a summary of the conclusions of the report and sent it to all the members. However, I feel that the reports should be tabled in both languages. When the French version of the report is ready, we will table both versions in the house. I shall do my utmost to have it done in the very near future.
DEBATES	2519
Inquiries of the Ministry



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Minister without Portfolio. My question is, have steps been taken as yet to restore railway passenger service between the city of Toronto and the city of New York?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into that matter, but I really do not understand the reference to restoring rail service.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The matter has been brought before the house on various occasions by myself. There is no railway passenger service between the city of New York and the city of Toronto. I thought since I have asked the question previously the minister, who has certain responsibilities in the field of transport, would probably be aware of it.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister tell us whether, as promised in his remarks of October 17 to be found at page 1511 of Hansard, the question of drug distribution and pricing practices was on the agenda of the recently convened federal-provincial conference?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: This was a closed conference, Mr. Speaker. My officials and those of the Department of National Health and Welfare did outline to provincial officials our plans with regard to our program to try to reduce drug prices. I do intend, as I outlined in those remarks to which the hon. member referred, at a later date after Bill No. C-102 has been dealt with in this house, to meet with provincial officials and authorities with specific reference to distribution at the retail level.
November 7, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington): May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will he advise the house when he will bring forth the white paper on prices and costs which was promised the house some time ago?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I intend to have something to say in this regard tomorrow during the course of the budget debate.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises out of a speech the minister gave to a seminar of the Montreal board of trade at which he outlined in some detail the government's plans with regard to an overhaul of the present corporation laws. Will the minister tell the house when we may expect to hear his statement on this matter so this house may be in the same position as the Montreal board of trade?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must admit that is not a supplementary question. It may be related, but in any event he cannot ask a question in those terms relating to statements made outside the house.



INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
REPORTED INSTRUCTION IN RIOT TECHNIQUES On the orders of the day:
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We were recently informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Indian magazine that our Canadian Indians are being taught riot techniques. Will the minister advise the house what action he is taking in this regard?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I will answer the hon. member tomorrow or Tuesday.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Prime Minister, or the Minister of 

Finance, or the government house leader. In view of the addition of the strong voice of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) to those pleading for an increase in the pensions of retired civil servants, and in view of the many references that are made to the report of the joint committee tabled on May 8, 1967, will the government provide an opportunity for the house to concur in that report so it will be aware of the support of this house for its recommendations.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to my previous answers to this question. In any case, I think there would be a technical difficulty in having the house concur in a report of this committee to a previous parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I direct my supplementary question to the government house leader. I can assure him that before I prepared my question I studied my procedure. I am asking him whether he will consider providing time for the house to consider the report that was tabled last year, so the house may express its opinion on that report.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Minister of Finance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether increases of pensions for retired civil servants are still under consideration.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to add to the answer I gave my hon. friend a week or so ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister who ultimately will be responsible for regional development. In view of the cultural and economic euthanasia resulting from the government's centralization of the people of the Atlantic region, can the minister say whether this centralization is based on economic and sociological studies?
November 7, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the question asked by the hon. member is too wide in scope, and ought to be answered by way of a general statement.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries that the population of the Atlantic region is to be mobilized and moved to more productive areas, so to speak, could the question not be answered?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to make a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: This is what I am afraid of. The hon. member must realize that this type of question can only be answered by a lengthy statement, and that would give rise to the legitimate opposition and objection of hon. members on both sides of the house. That is why I think his question ought not to be asked at this time, and ought not to be answered.


John Howard Lundrigan: Then may I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any truth in statements coming from colleagues of the minister that people of the Atlantic region are to be centralized in a suburban region outside Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that question is out of order.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture. He said it would be safe to assume that he could give a more detailed reply tomorrow, that being today. I wonder if we may hear that reply.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With regard to the inquiry of the hon. member yesterday about transitional adjustment grants to Ontario sugar beet growers, I have been advised that it will be necessary for us to request approval of parliament for the provision of the necessary funds to make these payments. It is our intention to bring forward a supplementary estimate for this purpose at the first opportunity, as soon as the calculations are finished.
DEBATES	2521
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



PROPOSED JOINT COMMITTEE AND INDEPENDENT AGENCY TO STUDY ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has now reached a decision regarding the repeated recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada that the government ought to establish a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on economic affairs and also an independent agency on economic studies.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have given consideration to this and feel there is nothing to be gained by setting up a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons determines its own procedures and it can, in its present economic committees, hear witnesses who are members of the economic council and thus achieve the same end. We feel therefore it is not necessary to set up such a joint committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister answer the second part of my question, which relates to the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada that an independent institute should be established for economic studies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I beg your pardon. An
independent what?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That an independent institute for economic studies ought to be established. That explicit recommendation has been contained in successive reports of the Economic Council of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, we announced in the speech from the throne that there will be consideration given to setting up an institute for domestic studies, that is domestic research on administrative problems in Canada. This project is being advanced and I will be announcing later in the day the nomination of a man from the private sector of the economy to advise us of ways we might approach such an institute. But on the other aspect of the question, we are not proceeding.
2522	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, might I ask the government house leader to advise us of the government intentions with regard to next week's program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Today, tomorrow and next Tuesday, November 12, we will continue with the remaining days of the budget debate, so long as the debate continues. If it should not run its allotted time we would then deal with the budget resolution. As hon. members know on Monday, November 11, the house will not be sitting. On Wednesday we would call third reading of Bill C-124, with respect to the financing of the Canadian National Railways, being item No. 24 on today's order paper. After that has been dealt with we will call the resolution preceding the bill to establish a freshwater fish marketing corporation, which is item No. 30 on today's order paper. It would not be the government's intention to proceed with that bill at this stage of the session beyond the resolution stage, but we shall be calling it for the purpose of enabling the resolution to pass so the bill could be made available for study by those interested in its proposals.
On Thursday next we shall proceed to the budget resolutions, and in dealing with those resolutions we would commence with that amending the Customs Tariff and then follow with the others. On Friday next we will call committee of supply.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government house leader. Can he say when the government will be in a position to bring in legislation dealing with the fisheries price support board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We will be dealing with that but I cannot advise the hon. member when. Certainly it will not be within the next week.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 6, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 2262).

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, a colleague in my party has described this budget as a colossal fraud which has the full support and blessing of the chamber of commerce. I wish to underline that statement. The Minister of Finance has taken an approach that is typical of an accountant. It is obvious that he is more interested in figures and balances than in people, human problems and human resources.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The best example of this is the imposition of the 2 per cent social development tax with an upper limit of $120, which indicates the minister's concern for the upper income group compared with the majority of Canadians. The speech of the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) last evening indicated his concern about the decision of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to lessen the impact of this tax on the middle and upper income groups. In this connection I recall the statement made recently by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Halifax to the effect that he intends to reduce the amount of income tax payable by those in the higher income brackets. He attempted to show that people in the higher income groups already pay tax at the rate of 80 per cent and that it would be unfair to impose an additional 2 per cent tax without modification.
The approach taken by this government is a simple one. It is its duty, it says, to raise taxes in order to pay for government expenditure, and since the government has increased its spending, which may have contributed to inflation, the best thing it can do is to impose taxes and create a slack in the economy. It calls this taking the fire out of inflation.
We have taken the position that there is nothing sacrosanct about balanced budgets. I recall that the late President Kennedy used deficit financing in the early sixties to get the United States economy out of the doldrums. We believe that balanced budgets are not the answer to the problems which face Canada today. The action taken by the Minister of Finance was taken in the face of a report which according to the minister's own economic white paper, showed that the rise in prices reached a peak in 1966, declined a little in 1967, and declined further in the first half of 1968. For example, there was a 4.5 per cent rise in prices in 1966, a 3.9 per cent rise in
1967	and a 3.3 per cent rise in the first half of
1968	compared with the first half of 1967.
November 7, 1968	COMMONS
Thus, contrary to the inflation psychosis of the Minister of Finance and the chamber of commerce, the rate at which prices have been rising has moderated over the last year and a half.
It is clear that the minister, without stating any specific policies, has opted for price stability to the detriment of full employment. The minister shows no concern for the 500,000 or more unemployed in Canada. It is true that full employment is an elastic concept and one to be achieved at the risk of some price inflation and some marginal trade-off of one for the other. But for obvious social reasons most Canadians prefer to accept a little inflation in order to obtain the full employment of men and resources, putting us in a better position to assist those groups which are most seriously affected by the rise in the cost of living, for example, pensioners, the old and the handicapped. The budget does nothing to obtain full employment or to assist the poor and elderly people of Canada.
We in the New Democratic party put people first, and this is why we would direct the economy to the attainment of full employment and increased productivity. By attaining these goals we can fulfil the basic needs of all groups in society and give people a pride and dignity worthy of achievement. This is why we in the New Democratic party support the principles and proposals set forth in the report of the Carter Commission. We do so because of the tax equity which would be achieved by following those recommendations. And this is why our monetary policies would be directed to full employment. Again, it is with this in mind that we have advocated a prices review board to prevent unwarranted and unjustified price increases such as are being imposed on Canadians today.
Tinkering with the economy by making the insurance companies pay their fair share of taxes, by making the banks, mortgage lenders and institutional lenders reduce their tax deductible reserves from 3 per cent to 1J per cent and by making the corporations accelerate their tax payments, as the government proposes, are steps in the right direction. But the refusal of the government to use fiscal and monetary policies in order to obtain the goals set out by the Economic Council of Canada, namely, full employment, a high rate of economic growth, and the equitable distribution of rising incomes, makes this a disappointing and disheartening approach to the so-called just society, especially when it is coupled with the almost total rejection of the 29180-160}
DEBATES	2523
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert proposals of the Carter commission on taxation and complete lack of attention to the Watkins report on foreign ownership in Canada. I am reminded of a saying which is going the rounds in the cocktail circle today when people discuss political matters. Many people are saying: Don't blame me; I didn't put him in. This is an attitude which is quickly developing among Canadians today.
I should like to address the main burden of my remarks to Canada's most serious social problem today, the crisis in housing. There was no reference to this serious subject in the Speech from the Throne, and the only reference to housing conditions in Canada in the minister's budget statement was to the effect that the capital budget of the C.M.H.C. next year would reflect the conclusions of the government after it had received the views of the special task force on housing. Mr. Speaker, this travelling circus called a task force should be summoned home at once. It should be made to present an interim report and the government should act on that interim report immediately. To wait until the task force makes a final report will mean that no action can be taken until spring. In this connection I think we heed the slogan which the minister of labour used in his advertisements: Don't wait 'til spring, do it now!
The federal government must accept the major blame for the housing crisis in Canada today. The economic council in its fourth annual report placed emphasis on the shortage of housing and recommended an annual target of 200,000 homes a year-190,000 new homes and 10,000 replacements for older homes. This figure does not take account of the shortfall in housing during previous years as evidenced by the number provided- 165,000 in 1965, 134,000 in 1966 and 160,000 in 1967. Looking at these figures one can understand the shortage of housing which Canada is experiencing today.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who is in charge of housing, proudly boasted in September that housing starts would reach a seasonally adjusted rate of 187,000 units based on the housing statistics of C.M.H.C. in its monthly supplement for August. However, the September supplement indicated a seasonally adjusted rate of only 155,000 housing starts, and the Minister of Transport then had to draw $170 million from the capital moneys allocated by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for public, low rental and senior citizens housing to finance direct loans and
November 7, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Gilbert loans on condominium housing to increase the housing stock. This action by the minister indicates the failure of the government to take a leadership role in solving Canada's housing crisis.
Why has there been a housing crisis, Mr. Speaker? Why is there a shortage of housing and why are homes so expensive? The shortage in housing has been caused because this nation has not made up its mind that it wants decent housing for all its citizens. Housing should be regarded as a right and not a privilege, in the same way as we regard education. If we regarded education in the same way as we regard housing the majority of Canadian children would have a hard time getting inside a classroom.
We have also regarded housing with an almost complete dependence on private enterprise and the rules of private profit. This is why only 65 per cent of the people in Canada can take care of themselves in the matter of housing accommodation.
The solution lies in some form of social housing that is not for the benefit of investors, for the regulation of the economy, or for the purpose of making profit, but which has no other purpose than to provide homes for people. It is obvious that probably about 35 per cent of our people cannot go it alone in housing. That is why, if we had 20 per cent of our housing starts in some form of public housing and about 15 per cent in some form of co-operative housing, we would probably be the best housed people in the world. Of the 164,000 homes that were built last year only 10,000 were public and co-operative units.
The philosophy of the government, as reflected in C.M.H.C., has been a policy of letting the private institutions, the private lenders, take care of most of the home building. The corporation assumes the responsibility of providing the moneys for public and low income housing. C.M.H.C. set aside $500 million to take care of this sector but just last month we found out that these moneys were not taken up for public and low income housing and in fact the minister had to transfer $170 million out of this fund to initiate more homes and housing starts. This indicates that the policy of having the private institutions provide the money for private homes and having the government take the responsibility for public and low cost housing has not succeeded.
Why are homes so expensive, Mr. Speaker? The two main reasons are the high cost of

land and the high interest rates. The cost of land has reached prohibitive prices. In the city of Toronto the average lot ranges between $8,000 and $10,000, and this is indicative of the high price of land throughout the country. In the city of Toronto the average cost of a home is between $29,000 and $30,000. One wonders why the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) would publish a booklet indicating that the cost of homes in Canada averages $19,000 for a new home and $12,000 for an old home. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport how immigrants in Toronto, or in fact any other person, could buy homes at those prices?
Interest rates are the highest in the history of Canada-8J per cent on N.H.A. loans and 9 to 9J per cent on conventional loans. At these rates most Canadians cannot afford the high cost of mortgages. In fact, an $18,000 mortgage at the conventional rate of 9 per cent works out at approximately $50,000 over a 25-year period.
What is the short term answer to the housing crisis? I feel certain that the Minister of Transport knows the answer. It is not necessary to await the report of the task force on housing. In the Minister of Transport we have a man who has had wide experience in housing. In fact he became a millionaire as a result of his enterprises in housing. We have in him a man of concern. I am sure he is very anxious to solve Canada's housing problems, and I feel doubly certain he could take immediate action right now.
No speech should be completely destructive, Mr. Speaker. We in the New Democratic Party tend to be more constructive than destructive. This is why I am going to suggest certain answers to the housing problem which the Minister of Transport could adopt immediately.
First, the sum of $1J billion should be set aside in the capital budget of C.M.H.C. to increase the stock of public, low rental, cooperative and senior citizens housing units and to provide subsidies to certain projects. This compares with the $500 million that was set aside by C.M.H.C. We need a massive infusion of money to take care of this problem if our goal is to have 20 per cent of our program directed to public and co-operative units.
Second would be a federal plan or target of 250,000 housing starts in 1969, made up of a mix of 65 per cent private family housing, 25 per cent public, low rental and senior citizens homes, and 10 per cent co-operative housing
November 7, 1968	COMMONS
and shell housing. The figure of 250,000 is 50,000 over the number projected by the Economic Council of Canada. When we take into account the shortfall of housing that we have had in the last few years 250,000 would only begin to take care of the present shortage.
Third, there should be an amendment to section 35A of the National Housing Act, which contains the provisions with regard to public housing. The capital costs of land acquisition and construction of housing should be changed from the present governing formula of 75-25 per cent to 90-10 per cent.
The best illustration I can give in this respect is the report from C.M.H.C. within the last few days that the city of Brandon has embarked on the purchase of land, to the amount of $400,000, in co-operation with C.M.H.C. On the basis of the present formula the federal government will pay 75 per cent of the cost of acquisition of land and the city of Brandon 25 per cent. That city is fortunate to be able to meet 25 per cent of the cost of land acquisition.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Last year the federal-provincial conference on housing recommended, in particular the provincial representatives, that the formula be changed from 75-25 per cent to 90-10 per cent. This would mean that the operating costs for these public housing projects should also be changed from the present formula of 75-25 per cent to 90-10 per cent. When one thinks of the burden municipalities bear with regard to these public housing projects in having to provide schools, fire and recreational facilities, it would not seem to be too much to ask that the federal government contribute 90 per cent of the operating costs of public housing in Canada. This is known as the cost sharing formula under section 35(e) of the National Housing Act. Subsidies in respect of low income rentals should be changed from the present 50-50 relationship to a subsidy tied in with the income of the tenants. Again this is one of the recommendations of the provincial representatives at the federal-provincial conference on housing last year.
As a fourth recommendation we would ask that the government, if necessary by amendment to the Bank Act and the Insurance Act, direct the investment of private capital to meet the shortage of private family units. The reason we ask this is that the experience of the Minister of Transport is that the insurance companies are not playing their full role in lending money to solve the housing
DEBATES	2525
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert crisis in Canada. In the month of August he summoned to Ottawa representatives of the banking and insurance institutions and pleaded with them to put more money into housing. He also spoke to them about condominium housing. The answer by the banks and insurance companies was that this field had not been tested and therefore they were not prepared to invest in it. This has resulted in the Minister of Transport having to use part of the $170 million to finance condominium housing in Canada. Condominium housing provides part of the answer to the crisis because it not only creates more housing units but also gives the people an opportunity to have ownership in an apartment building and a share in all the other facilities. Many people who rent apartments and who pay high prices for them have no feeling about them and no right of ownership in the building.
Fifth, we ask the government to establish immediately a land bank for the acquisition by the federal, provincial and municipal governments of land and for the provision of services. There is nothing new about this; the city of Toronto and many other cities now purchase lands for industrial purposes. By so doing they get the money back in the form of taxes at a later date. I should like to see the immediate establishment of a land bank so that the provincial and federal governments could participate in land acquisition.
As I look across the way I think of the hon. member who represents one of the Yorks and who is a former mayor of the city of Toronto. I also think of the hon. gentleman from Davenport who at present is a councillor of the city of Toronto. If these gentlemen were to take an active role with the city of Toronto to have the city acquire land in co-operation with the federal government, then the Toronto Daily Star could not criticize the members from Toronto for their lack of initiative and lack of ideas concerning the housing shortage in Toronto.
In order to reduce the high cost of homes we also ask that the government implement the recommendation of the Carter report with regard to imposing a capital gains tax on real estate speculation. This has been needed for many months. When one thinks of the profits that are creamed off by the speculators, is it any wonder that people are becoming annoyed at the lazy attitude of the government with regard to implementing a capital gains tax? I was most happy when the hon. member for Scarborough East scorched his government and urged it to impose a form of capital gains tax.
2526	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Gilbert
The next recommendation is that the interest rate be fixed at 6 per cent. We should realize that the interest rates are determined by the flow of money. Many spokesmen on behalf of the government say that we cannot fix interest rates at 6 per cent because it is necessary to go to the market to borrow money and that in this regard it is necessary to go to the United States. I should like the Minister of Transport to tell the house how much money we get from the United States for the construction of homes in Canada. We get very little. The flow of money is determined by the lending institutions. They hold back until they can obtain the highest interest rate possible. They also invest in luxury apartments and shopping centres to the detriment of public and private housing in Canada.
It has been suggested many times that a further recommendation should be the removal of the federal sales tax of 11 per cent on building materials. We in the New Democratic party would add the stipulation that the removal of the federal sales tax should apply only to homes costing less than $25,000. It could also be suggested that this might be connected with the idea used in the province of British Columbia where they use their sales tax as part of the down payment by a purchaser of a new home. It is very easy to assess the amount of sales tax that goes into a building. The combined provincial and federal grants would provide many Canadians, especially young people, with the required down payment for a new home today.
We would also recommend the imposition of rent controls where a city or town requests rent controls. In Ottawa the board of control passed a resolution that rent control be imposed in the city. There has been no action in this regard by the provincial government. No assistance has been given by the federal government. The federal government has had wide experience in implementing rent controls. Yesterday we heard the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown) recommend that rent controls be imposed in Brantford. I ask that rent controls be implemented with regard to Toronto. Toronto has one of the highest rental rates in Canada. There the landlords through associations agree among themselves on the rents they will apply to their apartments while the tenants are left to the four winds of heaven in negotiating with the landlords. It is high time the city of Toronto, with the assistance of the federal government, imposed rent controls.
The problem of implementing a national building code is very important because if
[Mr. Gilbert.)
DEBATES	November 7, 1968
housing is to get off the ground there is need for such a code to cut through the red tape that prevents many municipalities embarking on a housing program.
These are the short term recommendations of the New Democratic party. We have long term proposals with regard to satellite towns, transportation problems, the location of industry, recreational facilities, land use control and the ever present problem of pollution. I recommend that the task force on housing direct its attention to these long term problems and that the government take action on the short term.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Canadians are demanding action on housing now. Two weeks ago I attended a conference on housing sponsored by the Canadian Welfare Council at which 550 representatives from across the country expressed a concern about housing that can only be met by action. Perhaps the Minister of Transport should adopt the dictum of the late President Kennedy and think of what we as Canadians can give to Canada rather than what we as Canadians can take from our country. The minister has taken from Canada the privilege of becoming a millionaire-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John Gilbert: I have just one more sentence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Gilbert: My sentence is this. The late President Kennedy said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, Jean Rostand said that one should neither be respectful of old errors nor get tired of old truths. If one applies this French saying to the budget presented a week ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), one must admit that the same old errors endure and that some are afraid to face the economic truth.
November 7, 1968	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, before coming to the heart of the matter, I should like to draw the attention of the house on the answer I received to question No. 513 I put on the order paper some time ago, and which reads as follows:
For the period October 10 to 15, 1968, inclusive, how much time was alloted by the CBC to (a) the Parti Quebecois (b) the Ralliement Creditiste, during information programs and during free programs?
The period October 10 to 15 is the one during which the Parti Quebecois held its convention in Quebec City while the Ralliement Creditiste was holding one in Sherbrooke.
Now, a Montreal newspaper, the Journal de Montreal-it is its name-wrote that we got twice as much broadcasting time as the Parti Quebecois, while gathering five times fewer people; I do not know what inspired journalist of his Montreal newspaper.


An hon. Member:: It is Gilles Gregoire.


David Réal Caouette: It may be Gilles Gregoire; I do not know.
At all events, I have before me the answer given by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who informs me that the Parti Quebecois got approximately five hours and forty-one minutes on the French networks-not only forty minutes, but five hours and forty-one minutes-and approximately three hours and five minutes on the English networks.
The Ralliement Creditiste, which held its convention in Sherbrooke at the same time, was given about one and a half hours on the C.B.C. French network, or four hours and eleven minutes less than the Levesque group. We were given about seven minutes on the English network, as compared to the three hours and five minutes given to the Parti Quebecois. In other words, the Parti Quebecois was given three hours more than we were, in order to make itself known.
Mr. Speaker, I see nothing wrong with the C.B.C. giving five hours and again three hours and five minutes of broadcasting time to the Parti Quebecois. But I do object to the fact that it only gave one hour and thirty minutes on the French network and seven minutes on the English network to the Ralliement Creditiste, a national movement with 14 representatives in the House of Commons. Our members are here this afternoon. They won their seats fairly, and the C.B.C. does not seem to take this fact into account.
It is said that Mr. Levesque's Parti Quebecois is new. And so, we spend millions of
DEBATES	2527
The Budget-Mr. Caouette dollars in order to practice partisanship in the backrooms and perhaps in the offices of the C.B.C., a crown corporation which asks us to vote fabulous sums each year to maintain its impartial services for the benefit of the population.
Mr. Speaker, I have said for some years now and I will repeat that there exists notorious discrimination in the C.B.C. and the authorities should see to it that the situation is rectified. I repeat that we have no objection to periods of time being allotted, but we must not forget that they are paid by all the Canadian citizens. We French Canadians pay our share just like English Canadians, and at our national convention, where there were representatives from four Canadian provinces, the C.B.C. granted us one hour and thirty minutes on the French network, and seven minutes on the English. That is discrimination.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I wanted to discuss the matter in the house this afternoon, to call the attention of C.B.C. authorities on those conditions. The C.B.C. officials do not support us, but we do support them and these people-as I have said and repeated on several occasions-like to encourage those who want to destroy Canada instead of stating, in all fairness, the situation and position of those who aspire to comprehension and mutual understanding in Canada. I note that the C.B.C. is not only destroying national unity but the whole foundations of Canada.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Pelletier: I wish to ask him a question and I am not trying to contradict him. I would like to know if, according to him, the following view should be taken into account, to wit, that news are important or are not, whether they are good or bad, but that there are some criteria to judge the importance of news or events. Such is the meaning of my question to the hon. member.
Since one case dealt with the creation of a new party and the other with a routine meeting of an existing party, would the hon. member take such facts into consideration in his representations?
November 7, 1968

The Budget


Mr.   CaouetteMr. Caouette@: Mr. Speaker, I will say yes to the Secretary of State. However, if we consider the past actions of the C.B.C., we can ask ourselves why it did not do the same when the Ralliement creditiste was founded, for example. Was it not a new party? Why did the C.B.C. ignore the fact that, six months before the convention of the Ralliement Creditiste, we phoned their officials from my office to tell them that some delegates from all the provinces were expected in Sherbrooke in order to expand our structures. It was something new, was it not, but the C.B.C. did not take that into account. How much time have we been granted by the C.B.C. when the Ralliement Creditiste was founded? Just about fifteen minutes in Quebec. Under these circumstances, I say that the C.B.C. is practising discrimination.
Although I did say that I do not object to Mr. Levesque's movement being granted some television time, we had heard about his new party for the last six months. Incidentally, over the past six months, the Secretary of State had almost every evening seen Mr. Levesque on both the French and the English networks of the C.B.C.
At the time of the amalgamation of Mr. Levesque's and Mr. Gregoire's groups, it was reported that few Creditistes from the other provinces were present at the Sherbrooke convention. Did the Secretary of State not read in the newspapers and hear that, on the occasion of the founding of the Parti Que-becois, there were only 70 members of the Gregoire group attending? Why then is the C.B.C. treating the Ralliement Creditiste differently from the Levesque separatist movement? The Secretary of State is aware of this situation. This is discrimination.
Again, I repeat that I do not object to the covering of conventions. In the case of Levesque, the C.B.C had three cameras, one in colour, circulating around the hall of the small Quebec Coliseum that were accompanied by a crowd of C.B.C. employees. Who is paying for it? Everybody. I submit to the Secretary of State that this is not helping Canada nor is it contributing to national unity to see constantly on TV people who are aiming at the destruction of Canada instead of trying to unite it.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: It is all very well to report news, but it should not take three hours or five hours and fifty one minutes. At one time,

it lasted three hours and five minutes in English.
I will now leave that subject, but I want to remind the Secretary of State, who is now in the house, that he is the minister responsible for the C.BC., and it is not the C.B.C. which is responsible to the Secretary of State.
When I appealed to the Secretary of State, he answered somewhat on the same lines as a while ago: Does the member not accept the fact that an event may be considered by C.B.C. experts as suitable for producing a program? The experts, they are the ones who decide whether it is logical not that mention be made of the founding of a new party

that is only logical-but I do not think that millions of dollars of our tax money should be spent by the C.B.C. for the sole pleasure of having our mind poisoned through our national television and radio network.
Mr. Speaker, I think things will change one day, and that more importance will be given to those who advocate understanding and cooperation between the various elements in Canada rather than to those who only seek to divide, destroy, break up and crush, as is now the case.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some remarks on another point, which does not concern the Secretary of State and on which I would like to draw the attention of the government. It is about the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, another federal agency. I wish to point out that there also, there is discrimination against the province of Quebec.
We made a great many requests. There are at the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation people who spare no trouble in order to study every request and give an answer.
However, let us take question No. 427 which I put on the order paper and which reads as follows:
1. How many loans were requested from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, by province during 1967?
How many loans were subsequently granted in each province?
What is the total amount, for each province, of the loans thus granted?
Mr. Speaker, although the other provinces filed some applications, I will only speak about Quebec and Ontario, the two neighbouring and largest provinces of Canada.
Quebec filed 11,108 applications and Ontario 10,274. Loans granted by the C.M.H.C.
November 7, 1968

amounted to 8,149 in Quebec to 9,653 in Ontario, that is a difference of about 500 additional loans granted to Ontario. But this is not the point.
The amount of those loans was $148,619,000 for Quebec compared with $301,725,000 for Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I do not object, because loans amounting to $300 million have been granted to Ontario. However, I object, because it is so difficult in Quebec to have loans approved by the C.M.H.C.
When assessments are asked, not much enthusiasm is shown. When a large loan is asked in Quebec, there is a certain hesitation, while in Ontario the amount of the loans are twice higher than in Quebec.
I am therefore drawing the attention of the minister responsible for the C.M.H.C. on that situation, so that the officials may be advised to be slightly more tolerant and speedy when loans of the corporation are to be granted in the province of Quebec. I do not ask that Quebecers be favoured to the detriment of others, but that they be treated on the same footing as the people of other provinces, especially Ontario.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to talk about the part of the budget dealing with social development.
Nowadays, when the government invents a new tax, it does not call it a federal tax, but a social development tax. It sounds better. People complain a bit at first, but they soon become accustomed to it.
That is what I tried to illustrate when I told the house one day about the reactions of a frog. When a frog is thrown into a pail of boiling water, it cannot stand the heat and tries to jump out. You have to be canny and put the frog in a pail of cold water, then slowly allow the water to come to the boiling point. The frog, by that time, is so used to the temperature that it is completely cooked and does not even have time to think of jumping out of the boiling water. The same goes for the Canadian people.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, a letter from a labourer living in Drummondville. Any labourer could have written the same thing and there are many more across the country who share the same opinion. This letter is addressed to the right honourable Prime Minister, Parliament of Canada, Ottawa and it is dated October 25, 1968. This man is not afraid to sign his name: A. Lafontaine, 570,
The Budget-Mr. Caouette 105th avenue, Drummondville. This is in the constituency of the hon. Minister of Industry and Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I quote.
I am writing about this new so-called "social development" 2 per cent tax. I was deeply interested in your election campaign and I had thought that a newly elected government would endeavour to straighten out the injustices that have prevailed for a number of years in the income tax system.
I am referring in particular to the income tax rates affecting those families with dependants, where there is only one wage-earner. At present, my monthly salary is $440 and I have been an employee of the Canadian Pacific for 20 years. Nevertheless, sometime within the next three months, I will have to move to another locality that is unknown to me at the present time, because of technological changes by the Canadian Pacific (CSC) with the approval of the Transport Commission-
I do not know where he is moving.
This amounts to saying that this year, besides disruption in my work, your government is putting another 2 per cent increase in my income tax, which means I will have to pay $44 more. It would appear that in my case and that of others-
Every working man.
-we are a cause of inflation in the country. Did you or your Mr. Benson ever figure out the minimum of money required to raise and educate three growing children? And how about the money left over at the end of the year after earning an inflationary monthly salary of $440? The answer to this is that for some years my savings amount to a large ZERO even with driving to work in a 1959 Volkswagen.
Can you explain how the so-called experts in your government arrive at the conclusion that I am a cause of inflation across the country, as I can hardly make ends meet, and that a limit of $120 should be established on all earnings, whatever may be the amount, in the case of the additional 2 per cent tax.
Mr. Prime Minister, is this your "just society" and is it in agreement with the Carter commission report?
Mr. Trudeau, I would like you to refer to Le Devoir of October 23, 1968, on page 15, where it is reported that Imperial Oil has realized net profits of $70 million over nine months.
Kindly let me know what surtax those corporations will have to pay. And why I am, at $440 per month, a cause of inflation in this country, and why should I pay a surtax?
Thanks for having read me.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has read this letter, but I read it to the house to make sure that people would know. All Quebec workers could write the same thing.
During the election campaign, the right hon. Prime Minister said nothing about increasing the taxes of Canadians. No minister ever mentioned that taxes would be
2530	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Caouette increased. In addition, the Prime Minister always said that in the achievement of a just society in Canada, there would be no tax increases.
Mr. Speaker, social development means, first of all, that an attempt will be made to decrease, or avoid, or eliminate the estimated deficit of $675 million, and here I should like to point out to the house that the interest on the national debt, for this year only, will cost $1.5 billion, that means $75 per citizen. That means that a family of five, husband and wife and three children, will pay $375 in interest on the national debt.
That is why we ask the government to change not only its tax policy, but the fundamental policy, the financial policy.
The financial system is wrong. It is a system of indebtedness and this year, the government carved into the interest on the debt. Do you know that if we did not have to pay that interest, there would be a surplus of almost $1 billion, instead of a deficit of $675 million? When we suggest that the government use the services of the Bank of Canada to finance the development of our natural resources, when we suggest that on the national, provincial, municipal and school levels, everything be financed through the Bank of Canada, without interest, for periods of time varying according to the things that are being created or build, there are some who fear inflation.
Mr. Speaker, has anyone ever heard a Liberal or a Conservative member say, when the government goes to the United States to borrow $500 or $700 million that this is not Canadian money but American credit? It is not a question of American dollars or printed bills being sent to Canada. No. These are cheques sent to us by Americans, new figures entering Canada. In exchange, we have contracted obligations or undertaken to reimburse capital and interest after a certain time.
Did you ever consider that those amounts coming from the United States represent money newly created and as such responsible for inflation? No. We do not hear a single economist on the government side referring to inflation on that occasion. Neither do we hear a single economist on the opposition side referring to inflation when we are contracting debts in the United States. However, as soon as someone suggests resorting to the services of the Bank of Canada, at once inflation is mentioned. If the Bank of Canada should make available the same amount of credit, this would be inflation. When credit is made

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
available in Canada, we speak of inflation, but it is not when we get it in the United States in order to bring it into Canada. And the national administration of this country is said to be intelligent. Yet, what is the role of the Bank of Canada? According to page 1032 of the 1965 Canada Year Book,
The Bank may make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to chartered banks, or to banks to which the Quebec Savings Bank Act applies, on the pledge or hypothecation of certain classes of securities.
The Bank of Canada-
-may make loans or advances on the pledge or hypothecation of readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province to the Government of Canada or the government of any province for periods not exceeding six months. Other loans may be made to the Government of Canada or the government of any province in amounts not exceeding a fixed proportion of such government's revenue; such loans must be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of the borrower.
We should never have amended the Bank Act last year in order to enable the banks to lend another $4 billion without having a single cent more in the reserves of the Bank of Canada.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Why did the government not suggest to amend this paragraph of the Bank of Canada Act by deleting the words "six months" so that the Bank of Canada could grant advances and loans to provinces, municipalities, school boards, to set up a branch of the Bank of Canada in each of the Canadian provinces, formally instructed to grant the necessary credit for the development of these provinces, municipalities and school boards. However, an inflationary danger would be involved. Then we say to Quebec: "Go and borrow in Washington, in France, anywhere in the world." And the same thing is said to Ontario. That is why-the Minister of Finance was made aware of this fact a few days ago-the provinces are dissatisfied with the central government. It is because of the monetary question, not the fiscal question. The taxation of the Minister of Finance is the crowning achievement of the tax system which is ours.
We levy taxes then we distribute them by paying the bureaucracy and all the Grits in the administration. We take away $10, we put back $8, and one considers oneself generous. Mr. Speaker, these are the facts.
Before my time expires, on behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste, seconded by the hon.
November 7, 1968	COMMONS
member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), I should like to move the following sub-amendment:
That the period following the word "country" be replaced by a comma and that the following words be included:
"and the House regrets that, in particular; 2% increase for income tax be imposed and moreover, that the Government had not made any provision to replace this income tax with a 20% discount on the retail prices, compensated by the Bank of Canada, in view to fight against the inflation and taxes, and restore the economy so that the production will attain its proper function: the consumer".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I must point out to the hon. member and to this House that, under our standing orders it is not permitted at this stage of the debate on the budget to move another subamendment. I ask the hon. members to refer to standing order No. 45 which reads as follows:
Only one amendment and one subamendment may be made to a motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the House to go into committee of supply or ways and means.
Therefore, I must declare this subamendment out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we will move the subamendment as an amendment if we have the opportunity, after others have spoken and the amendment is put to a vote this evening.
I therefore thank you for having enlightened us on this matter to which we will come back anyway.
Mr. Speaker, using the Bank of Canada in the public sector of the Canadian economy would be a reform, not only fiscal but monetary; it would be fundamental, and this is what we need. A while ago, I said the provinces were displeased with the offers made by Ottawa. Yes, because Ottawa has nothing to offer. Ottawa tells them: Go ahead and levy taxes. That is a good way of getting rid of someone.
Mr. Speaker, if the provinces are not satisfied, they will have to increase their taxes within their respective jurisdictions and we will witness tax increases at the provincial level. That will lead in turn to increases at the municipal level, at the school level, in short on every level.
Still, the Canadian people cannot pay more. They cannot pay more than now. I feel the time has come for the government to act according to the needs of the Canadian people if, economically speaking, it wants to save
DEBATES	2531
The Budget-Mr. Caouette what we can save and achieve what we can achieve.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired unless the house agrees to have him continue his remarks. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no unanimous agreement.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on a point of order.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I would not object to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) continuing, as he is a party leader, provided he does not take another 30 or 45 minutes or even an hour, to the detriment of other members who will participate in the debate, which is limited. I have no objection to his continuing, not in the least.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. When I asked if there was unanimous agreement, I heard some "nos", unfortunately for the hon. member for Temiscamingue. That is why I recognized another member. Does the house wish to allow the hon. member for Temiscamingue to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: 


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There
is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Abitibi on a point of order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the house that, at the beginning of the debate on the budget, we agreed to let other members of the Conservative party as well as from the Liberal party to continue their remarks after the time allowed to them had expired. I want to let the house know that we will remember this in the future.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.
2532	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mahoney


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, to return to the unkind remarks of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), I find that it is not at all boring when the leader of the Ral-liement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) speaks-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There are no grounds for a question of privilege.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to withdraw what he has just said. I do not think I said anything disrespectful about his leader; to the contrary, I said I agreed entirely to let him go on with his speech. Therefore, I think he did not mean what he said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no question of privilege in either case.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) on a question of privilege.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to interrupt again the member who has just spoken and what I want to say has nothing to do with whether he should be entitled to conclude his speech, but 1 would like to correct a fact.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said that the C.B.C. was responsible to the Secretary of State and it is not true. If he studies the Broadcasting Act, he will realize that the C.B.C. is not responsible to the Secretary of State but to parliament.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that this speech has been worth waiting for because there seems to be a great deal of difficulty in proceeding with it. Apparently there are a few traditions here which I should follow, I suppose, one of which seems to have fallen into disuse. I refer to the practice of congratulating Your Honour on your elevation to your high office. I should like to join in those felicitations. Another tradition seems to be that of saying a few words in French. Unfortunately my mastery of that language is rather limited to "l'addition s'il vous plait" and such other
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
DEBATES	November 7, 1968
phrases as permit me to get by in the restaurants of Montreal. I can only say that I shall count myself a failure if four years from now I cannot do better.
It is also, customary, I believe, on the occasion of one's maiden speech to eulogize one's riding, particularly if there is some hope of the home press printing the remarks verbatim and with approbation. Fortunately for all present, I can forgo that pleasant exercise since nothing I could say here, even though I were speaking from the treasury benches rather than this lofty perch, could significantly enhance the existing renown of the city of Calgary. We have our majestic mountains to the west, our rolling foothills and our prolific grain fields which cause so much heartburn to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). We also have clear running water or had, at least, until pollution. There is one aspect of our life which is unique and bears comment. I refer to the meteorological phenomenon known as the Chinook. This is an unseasonably hot west wind. Its visitations have been associated by the unscientific with sittings of the British Columbia legislature.
I feel I must also take this opportunity to set the record straight with regard to the speech in this house on October 24 by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams). I must hasten to assure the house that I am not deliberately associating the hon. member and the unseasonably hot west winds. The proximity of the two subjects is purely coincidental. The comment, "You already have the facts", attributed to me at page 2016 of Hansard, and which was taken by the hon. member for Calgary North to have been made by me was, in fact, made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) who sits immediately in front of me. I had considered asking that the record be corrected, but listening to the balance of the hon. member's speech made me realize that such correction would, in the eyes of posterity at least, destroy much of the cogency, pertinence and indeed beauty of his oratorical pyrotechnics. Since much of what is said by hon. members opposite is evidently for posterity, as it relates but little to the present, I decided, with characteristic charity, not to ask for a correction. I do hope, though, that future generations perusing the Hansard volumes in whose authorship we are all at present collaborating will not be so emotionally drained by the eloquence of the hon. member that all else seems anti-climatic and this correction is never noted.
November 7, 1968
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Canada's petroleum industry, based in Calgary, is of vital importance to out country measured by any standard. It is at present subject to a number of very serious pressures which are giving rise to grave and legitimate concern in the industry.
One of the parameters relative to which the industry has operated since 1960 has been the national oil policy-a voluntary policy agreed to by the industry and sanctified by government. The basic provision is that petroleum products marketed west of the Ottawa river shall be manufactured from domestic crude oil, while products marketed east of the Ottawa river may be manufactured from imported crude oil. It is a voluntary policy enforced by persuasion by the National Energy Board. The board has no sanctions available if it is breached.
One of the pressures on the policy has been the recent expansion of refinery facilities east of the Ottawa at a rate far in excess of market requirements, coupled with a practical hiatus in refinery expansion west of the Ottawa. A second pressure has been the request of the United States oil administrators, disclosed on September 28, that United States importers of Canadian crude cut back their purchases during the last quarter of this year. There is apprehension that this cut-back may be extended into 1969.
A third pressure is the implication of the Prudhoe bay strike in Alaska. Bearing in mind recent policies enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States relative to public companies, for example, the Texas Gulf Sulphur and Douglas Aircraft cases, it is probable that the extent of the Alaska discovery has been understated by the companies concerned. Nevertheless, the announcement indicates a discovery which could well be larger than east Texas, now the biggest field on this continent, and larger than present total reserves of all the known oil fields in Canada, excepting only the Athabasca tar sands.
The concern of our petroleum industry is real and it is well founded. It is, therefore, gratifying to note that clause 15 of the income tax resolution will assist significantly in eliminating the unfair competition implicit in certain prospective artificial crown corporation arrangements between provincial authorities and promoters. Clauses 13 and 14 will also be welcomed by everyone with a bona fide concern about the well-being of
The Budget-Mr. Mahoney Canada, the Canadian petroleum industry, and the people employed in it.
The Alaska discovery gives rise to another matter which I would urge the government to regard as top priority. It is only a matter of hours, days, perhaps months but certainly not years, until a major oil strike will occur in the Canadian Arctic. The Canadian government will find itself, overnight, in the oil business in a very big way. By the very nature of the business initial decisions and policies will have very long range effects. It is imperative that they be right. Let us formulate these policies now. Let us formulate them in consultation with every element of the industry and not merely in consultation with the public service. The right hon. Prime Minister is on record as wanting to recruit talent from business and other environments for special assignments in government. This is an opportunity; indeed, I might suggest, a necessity.
A third consequence of the Prudhoe bay discovery is the necessity of transporting this oil to its markets in the United States. An all-United States routing would probably traverse by pipeline the Brooks range, which separates the north slope from the rest of Alaska, to the vicinity of Anchorage and then involve shipment by tanker to various ports on the Pacific Coast. In addition to extremely difficult construction problems through the Brooks range, this route offers serious seasonal shipping hazards in the north Pacific and a rather obvious strategic exposure. A more desirable all-pipeline route may be found along the Arctic shore to the Mackenzie delta and then south to connect with existing Canadian systems. The strategic and climatic problems would be eliminated by such a routing.
I would urge that the government actively press for the second routing; it is most desirable from the United States point of view and they should be prepared to pay a fair price for it, including elimination of present duties on Canadian crude oil, establishment of fair prorations of the Canadian and Alaskan crude to be transported through such system and a substantial Canadian share in its ownership.
Speaking in this debate a few days ago then hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) read the following words from the study commissioned by the Toronto Stock Exchange on the supply of, and demand for, Canadian equities:
The total average annual demand for additional equities in Canada in the immediate years ahead is likely to be almost double the supply provided through net new Canadian issues.

2534	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mahoney
It has been proven in the case of Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company Limited, Great Canadian Oil Sands Company Limited and companies of this nature that Canadian investors wish to participate in the establishment of a Canadian route, I urge the government to give our investors an opportunity to participate.
From Canada's own point of view, the first alternative, the trans-Alaska line coupled with tanker shipment, does nothing to prepare for the marketing of our own anticipated Arctic production. The Arctic Coast-Maeken-zie river route would provide a basic part of the system we will need some day soon in any case.
The rejection in the budget speech of the basic premise of the Carter report that "a buck is a buck is a buck" must be greeted with relief by all thinking Canadians. While acknowledging the desirability of further, even extensive, tax reforms we cannot afford the luxury of a tax system which, however appealing to the theorist, is totally incompatible with those of our trading partners in the free world.
As long as Canada finds it desirable to develop its resources and productive capacity at a rate faster than its own savings permit- and this is a situation likely to exist for the foreseeable future-Canada must maintain fiscal policies calculated to attract foreign investment. If we are to reduce the need for foreign investment in the foreseeable future while still providing a standard of living acceptable to Canadians we must maintain fiscal policies calculated to encourage the formation of investment capital within Canada. Carter ignored these realities; the budget accepts them.
The Company of Young Canadians is a controversial creation of parliament. It is probably the target of as many brickbats from editorial writers and provincial premiers as any federal agency. Yet it is a noble and, I submit, successful experiment. The Company of Young Canadians was created not to supplant existing social agencies but rather to catalyse social change. It is precisely for its success that it is criticized.
The community of Faust on Lesser Slave lake in northern Alberta is populated mainly by Metis, Indians, and white mink ranchers. There are five homes in the community with running water-the rectory, the school principal's home and three homes owned by mink ranchers. Various public agencies working in

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
the community were at odds. For example, the school nurse and the public health nurse were engaged in a jurisdictional dispute over who was responsible for delousing the children. School children were missing as much as 20 per cent of their class time because they were lousy.
Volunteers of the Company of Young Canadians moved in among them and taught them to use the democratic processes available to them-taught them, in fact, that those democratic processes existed. The mink ranchers were furious. They called for withdrawal of the Company of Young Canadians. The full provincial	cabinet met with
representatives of the Metis and Indians. The Company of Young Canadians did not withdraw and there are now seven volunteers working in a number of communities on the lake. Today these people are benefiting from programs under ARDA and two provincial agencies, the human resources development commission and department of youth. There are still only five houses with running water, but the Indians and Metis see hope for change, and the louse count is down. All this was accomplished without disorder or riot, the frustration gap was bridged by the C.Y.C. and the Indians and Metis of the Lesser Slave Lake area are progressing via the democratic process.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The self-assertion of the Indians at Armstrong, Ontario, is another conspicuous success of the C.Y.C. Never mind the embarrassment occasioned to this government, the Ontario government, the Armstrong school board, or any other authority. These are irrelevant considerations. Think rather of what the Armstrong Indians are accomplishing for themselves. That is the test. The day the C.Y.C. stops embarrassing public authorities and stops jolting the status quo will be the day it will have exhausted its usefulness.
In my own riding there is a district known as Victoria Park. A C.Y.C. volunteer, Bernie Muzeen, worked for two years in the south half of this area. The results of his efforts and, more important, the attitudes which were cultivated among the residents, are a dramatic tribute to the work of the C.Y.C. Crossing 12th Avenue is, in some ways, like passing through Checkpoint Charlie. In the north part of the district blinds are down, the residents withdrawn and apathetic. In the south they are articulate and confident, ready to take on city hall. They will have a brief for
November 7, 1968

the housing task force and any other instrument of authority which presents itself. Their community leaders are among the most effective in Calgary.
The C.Y.C. is to operate on a budget of $1.9 million, some 25 per cent less than its first budget. There are 16 people in its head office and 17 field supervisors. One hundred and eighty-five volunteers in seven of the ten provinces are engaged in 34 projects. These volunteers are living with the negroes of Halifax and the Indians on the tip of Vancouver Island, as well as the hippies of Yorkville.
These young people are fulfilling a vital function in our society-the function of bridging the gap existing between the mainstream of our society and some of its alienated elements. They are doing it for the munificent remuneration of $185 per month, found. And notwithstanding that meagre reward, applications are coming in from young people anxious to serve, at the rate of five a day. There are at present over 500 approved applications for service on file, but they cannot be activated because the company's budget will not permit expansion of its services.
The function of the C.Y.C. is to hook people up with society's mainstream, to show them that a useful democratic process exists and how to use it and then leave them alone to use it themselves. The measure of its success in a given project is the amount of ongoing community leadership it leaves behind. It is, within the limits we have permitted, attacking with success the same festering problem, the alienation gap, as is exploding into riot, pillage and tragedy in other parts of the free world. The government should give serious consideration to whether simply from a dollar and cents point of view the C.Y.C. should not, in fact, be more generously supported. It may very well find that a dime spent on preventive maintenance will save a dollar in repairs.
We are engaged in our regular quadrennial self-reproach at our lack of athletic prowess in international competition. We are also awaiting the report of a task force on amateur sport. We have again underwhelmed the world at the Olympics, trailing not only the obvious giants of international competition such as Russia and the U.S. but some of the less obvious such as Bulgaria and Kenya.
We are, as a nation, at the point where we must decide whether or not we really care. As a matter of fact, we have been at that point for several decades, and we have known it. As another matter of fact, it may
The Budget-Mr. Mahoney not much matter whether we make the decision. Perhaps the exercise of self-reproach and embarrassment on a periodic basis is something to be preserved as character-building and in consequence we should continue to avoid the issue.
We do have some bona fide problems which many other nations do not share. For example, the climate in most parts of the country simply does not permit year-round training in many sports, particularly the track and field events which comprise such an important part of the summer Olympics program. This is not an insoluble problem. Many of the most outstanding American track and field performers come from the northern states. But, of course, they have fieldhouses- large, simple, hangar-like structures-usually with dirt floors where most outdoor activities can be continued in bad weather.
Today there are more than 60 universities and colleges in Canada. Only one, the University of Alberta at Edmonton, has a field-house. That university also has the only full faculty of physical education in Canada. It may be a pure coincidence that the University of Alberta is currently national intercollegiate champion in both hockey and football. It may also be a pure coincidence that the University of Alberta is an institution very little troubled with student unrest. Then, again, it may not be.
Another problem is the very subsidiary position in which competitive sports are generally placed in our public school systems. I am prepared to admit that there may be conspicuous exceptions to this generalization, but it is largely true.
No program which starts working with athletes in their late teens will produce any significant number of medal winners. Such a program is bound to fail unless it is founded on a broad participation in competitive athletics at the elementary school level. Considering the other demands on our educational systems it is appropriate to inquire: what relative priority do we give athletics in terms not only of dollars but of time? From the point of view of national prestige, it should unquestionably be given a high priority. So the question really becomes: what priority should be given by Canadians to measures which will give each of us individually, and the nation as a whole, great pride and satisfaction?
One of the primary objectives of the Olympic movement is to substitute competition on
2536	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mahoney the playing fields for competition on the battlefield. It is an objective in which we can readily concur. But can we expect the concurrence of persons immediately affected in the proposition that athletic facilities and participation be given a priority ranking with student parking facilities and participation in a good healthy riot?
I am tremendously impressed by the public statements recently made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) on the reorientation of programs within the purview of his department. A brief passage from his speech on October 24 to the national seminar on the planning and construction of health sciences centres merits repetition:
This is the value basic to our way of life, that society exists to foster the growth of the individual person.
This is the end to which our policies must be directed. This is the objective which the C.Y.C. is helping to achieve in many areas. It is the end which achievement in international athletic competition would serve. It is also an objective which is becoming harder to achieve ini an increasingly urban environment.
Calgarians share, sometimes to a greater and sometimes to a lesser extent, the problems of all the great cities of this country, this continent and, indeed, this planet. After all, while it is estimated that Calgary's population will reach a million by the turn of the century, Bombay's will reach 30 million. We share the good and the bad. New buildings are going up at a record rate, and so are traffic fatalities. The population which was responsible for the country's greatest relative participation in "Miles for Millions"-34,118 took part last Sunday and over $400,000 was earned-also contains the sick minds which on Hallowe'en hand out apples with razor blades inside, and licorice sticks with needles concealed in them. We also share much of the self-delusion to be found among Canadians. For instance, we have a beautiful neon sign over our airport which proclaims it as an international airport. But it is not an international airport at all.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The fourth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, published just over a year ago, points up forcefully the inevitable trend to urbanization. It would not be useful to recite the report's conclusions. They boil down to increasing urban affluence, increasing urban population. It would be tragic not

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
to recognize the report's implications. Within a generation four out of every five Canadians will live in a major city. This knowledge establishes the terms of reference within which all our major domestic problems, economic, social and constitutional, must be solved.
Within the next generation our cities will have to be rebuilt almost completely, twice as big and, I hope, twice as good. Within the next generation we will have to build and find the money for more new homes, business buildings and other urban facilities than we have built and paid for since Jacques Cartier set foot in Canada.
One of the greatest handicaps to the possibility of our successfully meeting this challenge is the very simple truth that we are on our own. We have no precedents because, unfortunately, no one alive today has ever experienced a really good city, a city that comes even close to measuring up to the potential of today's technology, a city, for example, whose busy streets are not clogged with parked and moving cars, whose air is fit to breathe, and whose water is fit to swim in.
The malaise of our cities could be cured a lot faster if the public could be given a better understanding, a clearer vision, of what kind of city to demand. We must close the communications gap between the planners whose eyes are fixed on the future and the public whose understanding is fixed in the past. What we need and what the government can give is a fresh vision of what tomorrow's city and tomorrow's city living can and should be. The announcement yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) of the establishment of an urban transportation and development unit in his department is an example of the things that can be done at this level to encourage this vision.
The challenge is not merely one of getting a necessary job done. By the end of the century our large city population will have doubled. Hence, one way or another we are going to have to build new cities and rebuild old ones. The real challenge is not whether but how we build. We may build well or we may build carelessly, but one way or another we will build.
I do not subscribe to the theory that Canada can solve all the world's problems. I do suggest that we can solve our own problems in a way that will serve as a worth-while example to the world.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, since coming to parliament I have
November 7, 1968

been engaged in numerous discussions concerning welfare problems. Like all members I have become involved in the problems of my constituents relating to inadequate, unjust, or seemingly unjust, treatment of welfare recipients. At the same time I have become increasingly aware of the enormous economic pressures on this and other levels of government, much of it due to the proliferation of welfare programs. Many, if not most, of these are good and necessary. Most were implemented to meet genuine needs. Some were simply election bait or sops to pressure groups. Many were well intentioned and well designed for their particular purpose and time. Times, however, have changed. The welfare needs of today are not the needs of a decade or more ago.
Our problems today are largely problems of affluence. We have developed a society where the luxuries of yesterday are the necessities of today. At the same time we are saddled with programs which provide services to those who do not require them, while at the same time inadequately serving those who need them desperately. And we are doing this voluntarily, at enormous cost and with tragic inefficiency. The bills are coming in for payment and the overdraft can be crippling- crippling to the taxpayer, crippling to the economy, and crippling to those in genuine need, particularly the physically handicapped and the aged, the aged without resources and those on fixed incomes. We cannot and dare not let this situation continue. It is both stupid and inhumane.
In seeking alternatives I cannot help but be attracted by what I choose to call a guaranteed incentive income. My initial instincts, Mr. Speaker, oppose a guaranteed annual wage. I have not found that things come easily in life and I believe it unrealistic to expect something for nothing. I consider it downright immoral to expect those willing to work to support those who will not.
On the other hand we do have an obligation to those who, for quite legitimate reasons, cannot support themselves. Because we, as Canadians, accept our obligations to this latter group we have built up a system of social welfare that is wasteful, inefficient, inconsistent, discourages initiative and is often demeaning. We have an ever-expanding bureaucracy and we end up, in many cases, paying money to those who do not need it, while frequently not adequately helping those who do.
The Budget-Mr. Danson
It is apparent to me that our entire welfare system needs close examination and revision. In this process we should explore every approach, including the negative income tax which in effect is what some call a guaranteed minimum income or guaranteed annual wage. Properly structured it can save the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. One recent estimate indicated the amount would be $200 million yearly in Canada today. This does not include the vast savings in administrative costs and the massive reduction in our bureaucracy.
At this juncture I should like to say that I am not criticizing the civil servants who form the bureaucracy, but the expanding bureaucracy itself. Since coming here I have gained a renewed respect for our public servants. There is a wealth of talented and dedicated men and women who do this nation proud and, incidentally, keep it operating on an ethical level unsurpassed anywhere. I am impressed and we should be grateful even if at times they speak in a jargon that is forcing many of the uninitiated to become trilingual rather than simply seeking the enrichment of bilingualism. Certainly there are exceptions, and the vast majority of skilled and devoted civil servants are the first to spot and acknowledge them, but the same applies to any big business and, unlikely as it may seem, to politicians. The same applies also to welfare recipients.
To get back to my basic theme, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should determine what income is necessary to provide the fundamental necessities of food, clothing and shelter. To this we should add the cost of health insurance and education, and enough discretionary money to maintain one's dignity. This would have to be scaled according to the size of the family unit.
Let us for now assume that for a married couple with two school age children this worked ut to $3,000 yearly or roughly $60 per week-hardly a princely sum. With an income of $3,000 they would not pay income tax. As the family produced additional income they would pay income tax on a graduated scale so that they would have the incentive to work and better their lot. This tax would therefore have to be quite small on the initial income increases. Should their income fall below $3,000 they would receive payments to make it up.
Certainly there will always be those who would be satisfied to live on the minimum
2538	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Danson income, just as there are those who are content to live off our existing welfare programs. These people are not unemployed but are kept busy running from office to office filling out forms in quadruplicate. The difference is that much of our present welfare discourages those who want to work and are capable of supplementing their income. In many cases it encourages people to lie and cheat, and requires a large force of civil servants to administer and police it.
With the negative income tax combined with the guaranteed base we could eliminate all or most of our existing systems-unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age pensions, mothers' allowances, rent subsidies and a myriad of other benefits available from federal, provincial, municipal and some private agencies. We would in effect eliminate the means test while actually making need the only criterion.
Of necessity this is an oversimplified version of the scheme. We would have to utilize our existing computer technology to react quickly to immediate needs. A man suddenly out of work cannot wait until tax time to get the money to feed and clothe his family. This might be done by interim loans repayable at tax time if his yearly income exceeds the base. This might be done also through special arrangements with our banks, with the government guaranteeing the loans. The base itself, and the tax on the income above it, would have to be sensitively gauged.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There is the further question of regional disparities in living costs, but under present federal schemes payments are equal in all parts of the country, as are federal taxes. Rather than present a problem, this scheme could solve many. Currently welfare recipients are inclined to relocate in the provinces or municipalities with the most generous welfare schemes, placing an undue burden on those jurisdictions and their taxpayers. If these people remained in their own localities they would create consumer markets in depressed areas which would then require business and industry to service them. This plan could help solve part of our problems in regional development and prevent the uprooting of family units.
With these potential advantages we should not reject the minimum income principle out of hand, while still exploring all other avenues. It could be the greatest true social and economic reform in our country's history. It

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
could give greater equality, opportunity, prosperity and dignity, while at the same time saving taxpayers untold millions of dollars. In my view this might well be the ultimate rationalization of our present outdated welfare programs and it should be acceptable to the whole range of our political spectrum, as well as all levels of government.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to give a serious discourse on the report of the task force on the structure of Canadian industry, commonly known as the Watkins report. The subject is a serious one but it also is detailed and I have decided not to bore you or other hon. members with it at this time, not because it is unimportant-on the contrary, it is extremely important-but because I shall save it for another occasion, probably before the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. I put it aside at this time because of a 15J year old girl named Deb Shallhorn from Markham, Ontario. Deb wrote to me because I am her member of parliament, not her father's member of parliament, not her mother's nor her neighbour's, but hers. She makes me proud to be so.
Deb had heard about the speech by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) in Montreal a week ago Monday in which he suggested the concept of a non-military draft as a way in which our youth can truly be part of this country and its future. This year she is going on a student exchange to Quebec, and that is great; but Deb is doing that for herself and I commend her for it. She also wants to do things for other people and for her country. Are we to deny her that opportunity? Deb's letter is typical of many letters I received prior to the Secretary of State's speech and reflects the response I have seen in the letters to the editor columns of newspapers across this country. It reflects the aspirations which were apparent by the participation of our youth in the June election-happy, enthusiastic, a little mad, but stimulating to us all.
If we dampen that spirit, that idealism, that outrageous and at the same time delightful naivety, we will be doing a tragic disservice to all the Deb Shallhorns and their brothers across this land. If we overconcern ourselves with our problems and neglect them, if we neglect to look into their hearts and minds and fail to see the beauty and the truths that are their hopes, we will see their disillusionment, and even bitterness, that will not be without justification.
November 7, 1968	COMMONS
You might ask what this has to do with the budget. In my opinion it has a good deal to do with the budget because it will cost us money, not in expenditure but in investment. If we are able to achieve the basic welfare structure I have just outlined or, perhaps better, if we can determine our true national needs and national goals, the real ones, the ones that really count, we can go ahead with a spirit and purpose that befit this great nation, a nation we all love deeply and a nation which offers opportunities that make most of the world respectfully envious.
We sometimes become so preoccupied with our problems that we fail to see what we really have going for us. Certainly we have problems which we must attack immediately, intelligently and vigorously. But we will not solve them all, and when some are solved there will be new ones we never suspected, with or without computers, which would appear. But that is the way life is and it is not going to change. Without making light of these problems, let us also look at the bright side because it is just as real as the dark side, and much more hopeful.
I suspect, and my mail tends to confirm this, that is it not really taxes people are complaining about, but rather stupid taxing methods and stupid expenditures. If we tell people we intend to balance budgets and do not, or do not honestly explain the errors which we make because we happen to be human, they will not trust us. If we were to tell people that we intend to spend less, provide more services and lower taxes, we would be bigger fools than the few gullible people who would believe us.
On the other hand, if we do those things that, to a reasonable degree, fulfill the needs of our people and do those things that help fulfil the potential of this land and of the Canadian people, I am confident that the people will go along or, perhaps more accurately, join with us and pay their share, if not happily at least with understanding and even satisfaction. We should not do things to excite; we should do exciting things. We need not capture the imagination of others but should use our imagination to do imaginative things. If we do not do this, then we will be away behind the vast majority of Canadians, and light years behind our youth with whom we will never be able to communicate.
I should like to offer a challenge. It is a challenge to all the Deb Shallhorns across Canada. I want them to talk to their parents about a year's service to their country, or
DEBATES	2539
The Budget-Mr. Moores perhaps a series of three or four summers' service, not necessarily on a compulsory basis but even on a voluntary basis. It need not necessarily be on a non-military basis either, because I would think there might even be many young men who would want to spend part of their service in our armed services so that they could get some insight into the possibility of serving in what is our likely role, that of a peacekeeping nation, or perhaps in our coastguard or the R.C.M.P., all very challenging careers. I suggest that they talk to their parents and then write to me indicating that they have their parents' approval even though they know it will cost them more in taxes. I challenge their parents to explain what this means in cost and perhaps encourage their children to take paper routes, become baby sitters, or engage in any other job that will produce money which they must save in order to help their parents pay these extra taxes, because with opportunity goes responsibility. If they respond responsibly we will find ways to make certain that they will indeed have the opportunity, including the opportunity to have all the education they can absorb.
I tell these youth that if they do these things and if they and their parents write to me, I will go to the Secretary of State and to my Prime Minister and fight for these things on their behalf. I am sure I will receive a sympathetic response. But that is not the end of my challenge. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I challenge all hon. members of this house to react to the challenge of our times, to the challenge of our youth whom we are here to serve. We do not dare let them down. I do not mean by that that we will fulfil all their dreams, but they will know we are working in their interest and that of our country's future. We must not look only at the difficulties because that route would stop us cold. We must not be afraid of failure, for there is no disgrace in failure. The disgrace is in not trying.


Mr. Frank Moores (Bonavisia-Trinity-Con-ception):: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that in a member's initial speech to this house it is customary to take his fellow members on somewhat of a tour of his constituency. I do not intend to do this because the constituency of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception was represented in this house for some 20 years by well known Liberal members. While I am sure they eulogized on many occasions the rugged beauty of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, at
2540	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Moores the same time they were leading its people up the garden path.
After listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) outline the terms of his budget many people in Newfoundland must have questioned whether Ottawa has really ever admitted that our province was taken into the Canadian federation in 1949. Certainly the philosophy and policies of this government as revealed so starkly in this budget give no indication of any concern for the special problems of Newfoundland or any intention to do anything to solve them.
Like Canadians in every part of our country, Newfoundlanders are being squeezed to the brink and in many cases over the brink of poverty by the pincers of taxation and inflation. It has been estimated that almost 40 per cent of the people of Newfoundland receive some government aid in some form. On this basis it may be argued that not too many people in my province will be affected by a tax increase for the simple reason that most of them do not make enough income to be taxed. But even those who are on direct relief will experience the pinch exerted by the Minister of Finance here in Ottawa. His budgetary measures will affect the lives and prospects of every Canadian whether he pays direct taxes or not.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The trouble is that everything is multiplied in shock effect in Newfoundland. The economy is more basic than in any other province; the wages are lower, the opportunities fewer and prices higher. Living is tough in Newfoundland and getting tougher. This budget is just one more blow below the belt. One of the shortest and best descriptions of it that I have read appeared in that staunch Liberal mouthpiece, the Winnipeg Free Press. On October 23 an editorial appeared headed simply "Dismal". Naturally it was a comment on the Minister's budget. I quote in part:
Finance Minister Benson's budget is a confession of grievous financial miscalculation on the part of the federal government, coupled with a pious promise to do better next year. There is in it little cause for cheer.
Later it goes on to say:
It is beyond comprehension how Mr. Benson can in one breath be warning people that his government intends to increase its spending by more than $1 billion, and in another be expressing anxiety about the continuation of an inflationary upward spiral of prices and costs. A substantial factor in present inflationary pressures is the amount of money being spent by government at all levels.

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
This strikes at the very heart of Atlantic Canada's problem and the current disillusionment of Atlantic Canadians with the present government. This government is squandering money on a wide variety of inconsequential things, money desperately needed by the provinces of Atlantic Canada. One has only to think of the thousands of dollars being poured into the redecoration of ministerial offices and the building up of personal retinues, including that of the Prime Minister. One cannot help but think too of the expensive ministerial junket to South American countries which has just been embarked upon by a considerable segment of the cabinet.
There are many other expensive items such as the millions being sunk in commissions and task forces that could be curtailed and the money used for critical development work in the battle to overcome regional disparity and poverty. This government appears to be able to find ample funds for its own hobbies and enjoyment. The minister pours tax dollars into his colleagues' spending plans as though they came from an inexhaustible cornucopia.
The federal government does not realize that the most important obligation it had and has to its newest and tenth province. Rather than providing the people with opportunities to get ahead, rather than creating a long term plan whereby Newfoundlanders could earn a decent living, it takes the attitude that handouts will suffice.
The federal government has disbursed funds on a basis that could be compared to the well known concept of the American foreign aid program whereby if enough money is given, even at the cost of human decency and self-respect the recipients should still be thankful. A great deal of federal money has come to Newfoundland since 1949. Most of it has been spent at the whim of a fiscally irresponsible provincial leader, completely unused to economic planning. The victims of this irresponsibility have been the people of Newfoundland, who today enjoy the lowest per capita income and the highest cost of living, resulting in the lowest standard of living in Canada.
After 20 years of squandering, the result is only now being fully realized. Since confederation, the premier of Newfoundland should be commended for advances in health, education and social services. However, he should be brought to task for his completely irresponsible fiscal policies. A gentleman who likes to be referred to as the only living father of
November 7, 1968

confederation, with his proven ability to squander money on grandiose deals, to cook up promotions with people of the Doyle, Sha-heen ilk, should not be referred to as the only living father of confederation but rather as the only living "Daddy-O" of confederation.
At the same time as personal ministerial kingdoms are being financed, the Prime Minister tells the provinces bluntly: The till is empty, look after yourselves; you cannot have any of my 2 per cent surtax because it is not really an income tax but a social development tax. I only wish this statement were true. There would then be some hope that the urgent social needs of my province would get support here in Ottawa.
The tragic part of the budgetary policies of this government is that they are seeking to give the impression of economizing, not by cutting down frivolous and unnecessary spending but by cutting out vital and necessary programs of national and regional development. The time has come when the federal government must make positive long term plans whereby the fishery sector of our economy will be developed. When one realizes how important the fish industry is to eastern Canada one must also realize how important this industry could be if properly developed. At the present time fish and fish products represent close to 3 per cent of Canada's gross export value. In Newfoundland at the present time there are approximately 30,000 people involved in the fish industry; together with their dependants they represent some 120,000 people, which in turn represents approximately one-quarter of our population.
This industry today, through neglect and lack of planning, is very near collapse and, Mr. Speaker, this is not an exaggeration. Many fishing companies in Newfoundland have been family affairs, and with the limited resources and fluctuations in managerial ability, which are factors in hereditary businesses, the industry has failed to keep up with international marketing techniques and the technological advances that are so necessary in today's world. To survive, the industry needs federal development funds on the scale provided by European countries to their fisheries.
When one considers that Newfoundland has the nearest proximity to the greatest ground fish resources in the world, it is very upsetting to see the huge government sponsored developments, of European countries in particular, fishing in what are commonly
The Budget-Mr. Moores referred to as Canadian waters while we in Canada are neglecting this industry.
When one realizes that the Canadian deep sea fleet consists of approximately 40,000 tons of shipping while the European fleet fishing in the northwest Atlantic represents in excess of 2,800,000 tons, it makes one stop to think. I will repeat the ratio in a slightly different manner. For every ton of deep sea fishing craft leaving Canada's ports there are approximately 80 tons of deep sea fishing craft from Europe operating off our coast. If all the fish presently caught in the northwest Atlantic were processed in Canada the value would be several times the total contribution of all agricultural products combined.
The fishing industry off the east coast of Canada should be playing a much more prominent part than is the case today. However, if we are going to bridge the disparity which is so prevalent in eastern Canada we must come up with a long term plan for fishery development, together with a short term plan to make sure that there is an industry left when all the task forces and study groups have finally reached their conclusions. I have repeatedly mentioned that the fishing industry has been neglected in Newfoundland. There is danger of it becoming extinct. This must not be allowed to happen.
Yet our government is cutting expenditure, cutting in the wrong places, cutting out a just society rather than creating one. Every member of the government from the Prime Minister down has served notice on the provinces that these are lean years and they should expect nothing but cut-backs. What this means to Atlantic Canada literally, Mr. Speaker, is disaster. This government has made a big thing of regional disparity. They have even set up a new department to administer its affairs. But nowhere, least of all in this budget, is there any sign that the government knows the dimensions of regional disparity or where in fact it exists, let alone that it has any answers to the problem.
Let me say right now that the worst area of regional disparity in the provinces and territories that make up Canada is in the province of Newfoundland. If it were not so pathetic one could laugh at recent statements made by a Newfoundlander, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson), speaking last month at Grand Falls. He referred to the 20 years of notorious mistakes on the part of the provincial government as merely "mistakes of the heart". He said that "slide-rule theorists" and "hard-hearted administrators"
2542	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Moores would not raise the standard of living in Newfoundland. I agree with him entirely, but I wonder whether he was thinking of his cabinet colleagues or some of the senior civil servants he ostensibly controls as a minister of the crown.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
He advocated that we "abandon the conventional kind of approach to our problems" and use "a sound head and reasonable approach". With all this I agree wholeheartedly, and the minister undoubtedly would have been listened to closely if he had not made one further statement to the effect that the Prime Minister recognized Newfoundland's problems and endorsed unconventional methods of solving them. This is just too much to swallow. If the Prime Minister felt this way about Newfoundland and her problems, he would never have had placed before us such a despairing and barren document as this budget.
The truth of the matter is that no purposeful, co-ordinated attack has been mounted on Newfoundland's problems. I might suggest to our new government that even though the premier of Newfoundland was so obviously friendly to the right hon. Prime Minister at the Liberal leadership convention, it would be wise for the government of Canada, when making funds available to Newfoundland, to have the terms well thought out, to have well planned economic policies which will have a lasting effect on our people, and not provide funds for merely political reasons to continue the one-man distribution system that has been in vogue for the last 20 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Duff Moores: One would hope the observations of one columnist will not have any resemblance to the truth when he referred to some of the premier's comments, wherein that gentleman described himself as having very much in common with the Prime Minister and said they were knee to knee, heart to heart, brain to brain-they were spiritually united. As the columnist so succinctly said:
What we cannot afford is to see these two spiritually united gentlemen walk over the Newfoundland countryside into the sunset, knee to knee, heart to heart, brain to brain, hand in hand, with God walking a respectful ten paces behind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Duff Moores: Because of its centuries of isolation, its rugged and detached geography and its dependence upon one or two basic

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
resource industries, Newfoundland has been in a special category and has presented a special challenge. Let me stress right here, Mr. Speaker, that solving this problem, meeting this challenge, is not a question of charity to the needy or helping the less fortunate in society. This is a truly national problem and a truly national emergency.
The halfhearted imposition of the 12-mile limit is another example of too little too late. It is now imperative that the government come to the defence of our east coast fishery in a positive and courageous manner, not in the pussyfooting manner in which the Biafran situation was handled but with the firm purpose that is mandatory when a part of the Canadian body is withering away.
Nothing short of taking over the management of our marine resources on the continental shelf, and taking that step now, will save our offshore fishery from going into the decline that the delay in the implementation of the 12-mile limit effected in our inshore fishery. I know all about the delicate international feelings this government is so long-windedly careful not to ruffle; but if Peru can make a unilateral definition of its territorial waters, surely the great nation of Canada can do no less. No nation such as Canada can afford to let any part of its economy atrophy without endangering the whole body. Newfoundland's prosperity is as much in the interest of the other provinces as it is of the people of Newfoundland.
This brings me to the main failure of this budget as seen through the eyes of Newfoundlanders. The federal government has overspent recklessly and thoughtlessly. It now tells the provinces of Canada to cut spending, to live tight. It is high time the federal authorities realized that Canada is composed of regions vastly different in their economic life, moving at varying economic speeds and requiring different and often opposed economic policies.
The old expression, "What is good for General Motors is good for the United States," does not apply to Ottawa and the ten provinces. What may be good at this moment for Newfoundland may not necessarily be what is good for Ontario, for British Columbia or even Ottawa. In a confederation such as ours it is a question of to each his own when we are looking at the disparate regional economies. Today Ottawa is like the spendthrift heir of the Victorian novels who dissipated his inheritance in riotous living. The Atlantic
November 7, 1968

region and, again, Newfoundland in particular, are like the poverty-stricken nineteenth century coal miner trying to get on his feet and find enough food and clothing for his children. Ottawa's plight is not Newfoundland's plight. Ottawa's needs are not Newfoundland's needs. The answers to Ottawa's current problems are quite different from the answers that must be found for those of Newfoundland.
I have said that the basic need of Newfoundland is to bring her economy in balance up to a respectable level. To do this we must start at the bottom. We must provide large scale, long term development of such things as power facilities, highways, resources and education as the foundation for an integrated and co-ordinated economy capable of steady and orderly expansion and capable, too, of providing the standard of living, social amenities and opportunities that are our people's due. We need this foundation upon which to build the secondary and service industries that are so necessary to a well-rounded and healthy regional economy. We need all this to provide the new wealth and the new tax base that alone can ensure that Newfoundland can cease to be a national economic liability and play its rightful role as an equal partner in the community of provinces that is Canada.
To undertake even the preliminary steps in this great enterprise will require federal and provincial government spending on a large scale. It will be necessary at any time, but in times such as these even more so. That is why I say that this budget, the pleas for cut-backs and economy by the Minister of Finance, the whole direction of Liberal policy, are out of step with Newfoundland's and Canada's true needs.
The minister has said the provinces cannot expect any portion of his social development tax revenue. He has said, in effect: the federal till is empty, the federal establishment is near bankruptcy. This is bad for all provinces. It will be a disaster for Newfoundland. The brutal economic fact of Newfoundland life today is that the provincial government is broke too. The provincial debt has almost doubled since 1965. In that year it stood at $502 per capita; today it stands at nearly $1,000 per capita.
Newfoundland cannot do what it must for itself without outside help. The only source for such help is the federal government. But the terms of this budget and the attitude of the minister have given in advance a callous
The Budget-Mr. Moores and unfeeling "no" to any request for financial assistance. The economic crisis in the life of my province has been made more acute by developments in the only two great resource industries already developed to a reasonable degree of productivity, those of fisheries and forestry. Both these basic industries face tougher competition and lower prices in the world market.
The old established inshore fisheries are dwindling both in the number engaged and the revenue taken in. The offshore fisheries have increased in number and volume, but here lower world prices have all but destroyed the advance in productivity. With her few traditional industries in a chaotic state, and new industrial and commercial complexes not yet established, this is a year of desperate prospects for Newfoundlanders.
Last January Mr. Ewart Pratt, president of the Newfoundland board of trade and a member of the advisory board of the institute of social and economic research of Memorial University, stated that Newfoundland needed special incentives and special attention if it was ever to reach economic parity with the rest of the nation. "We all realize that the federal, as well as the provincial government, must exercise a much greater degree of restraint in its spending," he said in the Globe and Mail of January 3. Then he said:
But we do feel that in the Atlantic provinces, and particularly in Newfoundland, we have so far to go to catch up with the rest of Canada that any restraint imposed by the federal government should not apply to us. In Newfoundland we are still well below prevailing economic standards in the other maritime provinces, to say nothing of the wealthier parts of the country.
In times of financial restraint, the emphasis should be on productive projects, enterprises which will benefit the economy of a region and create wealth. To do this, area incentives already exist. But they will have to be further expanded.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Here in a nutshell is our problem. Here in a nutshell is the great failing of this budget. What kind of a business is our Minister of Finance running anyway? In May he forecast a budgetary deficit of $40 million or less. Today the projected deficit stands at an appalling $675 million. I can easily understand the minister being wrong, but what about his army of expert advisers? How long could a man in private business avoid bankruptcy if he ran an operation on that basis? This is the government and this the minister who have the colossal gall to counsel belt tightening and the practice of economy.
2544	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Moores
Estimated federal spending now stands at $10.76 billion or $480 million more than they said they would spend last spring and $190 million more than they thought they would spend as late as last month. If a private concern had a comptroller who was as wide of the mark in his forecasts they would fire him on the spot. The Prime Minister claims he is running a business-like government, and he may take that as some kind of hint or advice.
On October 24 the Montreal Gazette referred to the "grim" budget. This is a mild term to use. The Gazette at that time said:
How serious the situation is may be seen in Mr. Benson's admission that the budget could not be balanced for the current fiscal year, whether the government wished to do so or not. . . This is a grave admission for it amounts to saying that the rate of government spending is now so far out of control that a balanced budget is also out of the government's reach, even supposing that a balanced budget had been its aim.
In other words, this government is floundering out of its economic depth, with no prospect of finding bottom in the next few years.
This is tragic for Canada, and it is doubly tragic for Newfoundland. I can only express the hope that in the months ahead, the time still remaining before federal and provincial governments sit down to discuss shared cost programs, tax apportionment and other similar subjects, the Minister of Finance and his colleagues will give some thought to the special needs of Newfoundland.
I hope this government will recall the pledges made in 1949 at the time of confederation. I hope they will acknowledge the political and moral obligations assumed by Ottawa at that time. I hope they will abandon the makeshift emergency approach to Newfoundland's problem and tackle the question at its roots. It has been mentioned ad nauseam that we are going to have a just society with fair sharing, a society that will look after the regional disparity which Newfoundland, I would think, typifies.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we want a just society. I will support a just society. The one thing I will not support, the one thing I will fight, will be the attitude of the previous administration and this administration of the past three months of a just a little longer society. The people of Atlantic Canada require action and not philosophical platitudes. They want a plan with the objectives clearly defined. They want to make the rest of Canada proud not only of their being fellow Canadians but of their being contributing Canadians.
The popular conception of Newfoundland today is that it is a liability to the rest of

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
Canada. But I would ask the rest of Canada to give Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders the opportunity to be an asset to this great country of which we are all so justly proud.


Mr. Richard J. J. Durante (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the budget debate I take cognizance of the fact that this is my first major address in these very auspicious surroundings. There is, however, one other first related to my rising here this afternoon, and I am very conscious of it. I am very proud to be able to draw it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of this house. This first I refer to is that I have the privilege of being the first Liberal member of parliament to represent Comox-Alberni in this House of Commons.
Although I am the first Liberal member of parliament from my riding, we of Comox-Alberni have been fortunate in having been represented by independent liberals for many years, and at this time I would like to pay tribute to one of those members, the late Mr. A. W. Neill who for many years served his country and his constitutents exceedingly well by his admirable contributions in this house. I hope that my representation on behalf of my constituents will be as effective as Mr. Neill's.
May I now pay tribute and offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on the contents and presentation of his first budget. His budget is realistic and objective and is directed toward relating the trends of the past to those of the future. Close scrutiny by rational individuals of the budget will result in an appreciation of what the finance minister expects to achieve now and in the year 1969-70. The confidence he exuded in his presentation is reflected in his budget after objective perusal of it by rational individuals.
I am confident that the Canadian people have accepted this budget because they are rational and appreciate the necessity for measures taken in this budget. The public is rational, which is more than can be said for many honourable members on the opposite side of the house, excluding the rump section, of course. The Canadian people realize that services provided by this or any other government must be paid for by the public through one means of taxation or another.
There are those opposite me who would, on the one hand, offer all Canadians a guaranteed annual income, would build a tunnel to Newfoundland, and in brief would create a Utopia for all Canadians, while on the other hand they would decrease the present rate of
November 7, 1968

taxation. These two positions are simply not compatible, and those who take such a stand must surely be classified as irrational and irresponsible, and must have reconciled themselves to accepting the fact that their cries and pleas are going unheard and that they will not be in the position for many, many years to incorporate their absurd, contradictory policies.
As individuals, certainly we begrudge tax increases. I know I do and so do my constituents, but when a government is faced with the necessity of raising substantial additional revenues, as this government is, in order to place its accounts in good order, as Canadians we must endeavour to accept the methods used to raise those revenues.
I must confess I would have preferred, and I know my constituents would have preferred, the 2 per cent social development tax to be graded or graduated with a much higher ceiling so that a much higher proportion of revenues received would have come from individuals in the higher income brackets. As an alternative it may well have been more acceptable, in order to achieve the same purpose, to have had a smaller basic percentage without gradations and limitations.
Tax increase amounts, as well as the amount of taxes we pay, are relative. They are relative to whatever amount is left and to what can be accomplished with the amount that is left. Let me illustrate by reiterating what I as a Canadian taxpayer have often maintained, that under our present tax structure I would have no reluctance in paying $100,000 annual tax because in paying that amount I would be assured of putting a sizeable amount in my pocket. In other words, the amount of tax I pay is of no significance; it is the amount I have left after paying my taxes that is relevant.
I am concerned about the old age pensioner who must pay tax if he has a superannuation supplement because a $20 tax increase related to his net income places him in a much more difficult position than the individual who must pay a $120 tax increase or, if there were no limits on the 2 per cent social development tax, a $240 or a $480 tax increase. I do not sympathize with those who are paying high income taxes nearly as much as I do with those who are paying little or no income tax.
May I now turn to the howling, screaming provincial finance ministers, of whom my own is certainly no exception. These same provincial ministers of finance grope toward Ottawa with long reaching arms seeking
The Budget-Mr. Durante handouts from this government. If I may diverge and draw an analogy for a moment, let me say that they remind me of young pre-school age children at the local fail-reaching out for a grab bag that only costs a pittance but which may contain a prize of inestimable value. These ministers are prepared to take any offering from the federal government, utilize it to their political advantage, pat themselves on the back and, rather than give Ottawa the credit which is due, retaliate by criticizing our fiscal policies.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I should like now to refer to the province of British Columbia and to its finance minister who has gathered together a fleet of ferries of which he is extremely proud, and rightly so. But does he tell the people of his province or the people of Comox-Alberni who must use his ferries in travelling between their homes on Vancouver Island and the mainland of British Columbia, that a good portion of the capital cost of those ferries was paid by this government? I should say he does not. They are his ferries and yet as my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), has repeatedly said, if you were to remove the federal plates from Mr. Bennett's ferries they would sink like stone. Not one would remain afloat.
I do not, however, completely exonerate the federal government from all blame for failing to draw their financial contributions to the provinces to the attention of the Canadian public. A much more thorough job of informing our people of our participation in federal-provincial programs is essential. For example, federal contributions to the province of British Columbia to assist in the construction of the ferries to which I have just referred amounted to $38,486,920.99 from 1961 to 1967. Contributions to technical and vocational training in 1967 to the province of British Columbia amounted to $16,560,000. In the same year, just under $2 million was paid for highways and transportation. Contributions and payments to universities and the National Research Council amounted to $14,450,000 in 1967. I could elaborate further, but suffice to say at this time that the grand total for the year 1967 of federal contributions to British Columbia provincial and municipal governments and of payments to universities, other institutions and individuals amounts to $399,640,000.
From the amounts to which I have referred, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that my
November 7, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Durante constituents in Comox-Alberni received fair consideration, and so they should. May I now take this opportunity to indicate to the house the value of my constituency to the economy of the province in which it is situated and to our country.
Comox-Alberni is an area rich in natural resources. We have lumbering of a nature unprecedented anywhere in our country, commercial fishing with productive fishing grounds on both its west and east coasts, untapped mineral resources in the northern regions, pockets of ideal agricultural land and tourist enticement in every corner. Each of these industries, major in scope, is a vital cog in the Canadian economy and must not be underestimated. As a matter of fact, I accept as my responsibility the importance of keeping this area of our country, Comox-Alberni, well in the minds of our government. In recent years especially there has been a feeling that we in Comox-Alberni have been overlooked by the federal government and its development programs. I serve notice that now and in the future I will expect this government to give special consideration to the development of Comox-Alberni, and other areas of Vancouver Island, and to the development of its resources, including tourism, so that it will progress as rapidly as its potential would indicate.
The development of a west coast national marine park in the Tofino-Ucluelet-Barkley Sound area is a necessity and is to receive my highest priority as well, I hope, as the highest priority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). In excess of ten miles of white sandy beach which makes Long Beach, California, look like the beach here on the Ottawa river it is not too appealing to me-will be the focus of attention along with the beautiful islands, bays, fjords and inlets of Barkley Sound. An abundance of marine life of every description is prevalent throughout the area. Tourism within the park will be of inestimable value. One half of Vancouver island lies north of the Gold river extending into Port Alice, Alert Bay and Port Hardy. This area abounds in natural resources. Its development is curtailed only because of the lack of an access road. A road must be constructed to provide access to the present 10,000 residents and to make the resources of the north island available to corporations and individuals prepared to develop them. This road to resources must be constructed, and it must be constructed as


soon as possible. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Richard John Joseph Durante: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the supper recess I was expounding on the many attributes of my riding, Comox-Alberni, and unfortunately sufficient time does not remain to me to allow me to expound further on the attributes of my riding. I had referred to the Tofino-Ucluelet-Barkley Sound area where, high on the list of priorities, is the proposal for a national marine park. Then I had referred to part of the Vancouver Island area, and I should like to continue with my references to that same area.
Although this area lies as close as 150 to 200 miles from the heavily populated lower mainland of British Columbia, it does not receive benefits from our own Canadian Broadcasting Corporation relay, and transmitter stations must be provided to give the people of the area the service they deserve, the service for which they are paying and not receiving. I make reference to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation intentionally at this time.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, with the premise that we need a more meaningful accounting of our economy; that we need to bring expenditures more in line with revenues; that we need to tie benefits to costs. I repeat, we must tie benefits to our costs at a reasonable ratio. Are the benefits we receive from the C.B.C. worth the costs? According to the estimates for the current year, C.B.C. expenditures will be in the neighbourhood of $140,147,000, an increase of $28\ million over 1966-67. Is the benefit we are receiving from this corporation worth this expenditure? The answer is no- certainly not to those people in Comox-Alberni who can receive it, and certainly not to those people who receive it with such poor reception that it makes the production even worse than it was in its original form. In my opinion this large corporation is wasteful, reckless and not conversant with the desires of its listening or viewing audience. What did it cost the C.B.C. to cover the recent Olympic
November 7, 1968

games, and where were the personnel responsible when our winning equestrian team received their gold medal?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard John Joseph Durante: To my constituents in the north island, a few of the million dollars budgeted for this corporation could well be used in developing an access road, so that they and the rest of Canada could derive benefits related to costs. On the east coast of Comox-Alberni two major centres, Campbell River and the three cities of Courtenay, Comox and Cumberland are to be found. Campbell River, the sports fishing capital of British Columbia and Canada, is one of the fastest growing cities in the riding and in the country. Courtenay, Comox and Cumberland lack the industrial development they should have, and ought to receive, with the assistance of this government. Cumberland, in its earlier days, was a thriving mining community, but now there is little progress in that area. I am of the firm opinion it should become a designated area so as to receive federal assistance.
The Courtenay-Comox area is too dependent on the Department of National Defence air base situated in Comox. The department, by the way, has title to valuable recreational land which it uses very infrequently; yet the use of the land is forbidden to the residents of the Comox valley. I refer to the Comox Goose Spit, a natural recreational area which is presently retained for naval cadet training during the two summer months. This is a most worth-while project, but I am convinced that cadets and residents should be able to use this natural park together.
Port Alberni, in the centre of my riding, is a progressive industrial seaport city, the only city of its size without a public airfield, and the only port which must transport much of its product to another seaport on the opposite coast of the island, for export by vessels. This latter condition exists because Port Alberni's harbour and wharfing facilities have grown obsolete and too small to cope with the exports of paper, plywood and lumber which are increasing at an encouraging rate annually. The proposed new and enlarged wharfing and storing facilities must be approved by the Department of Transport so that once again benefits will be tied to and supersede costs. This is a progressive community, and in fact a progressive constituency, and its progress cannot be hindered or prevented; rather it should be complemented by our federal government.
The Budget-Mr. Durante
I have reviewed my constituency in this fashion, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that there are sections of this country that, while productive, are not as productive as their potential in resources would permit. I hope the government will include in its programs adjustment assistance to help presently established industries, and help the employees in those industries by creating new and additional jobs.
There is a danger, a very real danger, in Comox-Alberni, and in fact throughout the whole of Canada, that we tend to be obsessed with today, and not with tomorrow and the future. We tend not to plan programs, not to establish guide lines, not to project social outcomes which will result from present trends. The budget indicates some insight into the future; the rate of inflation must be curtailed.
Although I tend to agree with a one or two per cent inflationary annual economy, certainly the astronomically high rate of inflation which has existed in recent years must be corrected. Yet it must not be corrected to the extent that unemployment figures will soar. We must strive for a median between the two. Which is the lesser of the two evils? I am not sure, and would therefore take a mugwump's position in this regard and advocate a happy medium, if one exists.
Our lack of foresight is indicated in Canada today by the way in which the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, are tossing a major problem back and forth. I refer of course to our problem of pollution. While our governments expediently relay this problem from one to another, the pollution of our water and air continues at an alarming rate. We are permitting this pollution to continue because we are procrastinating; and while we procrastinate our lakes, rivers and streams are being destroyed because industrial, commercial and domestic effluence continues to be poured into our water systems. If this continues in the future the inevitable will not be pleasant.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This government, this senior government, must lead the way in solving the problem. We must increase expenditures on scientific research, we must co-ordinate the research being conducted by industrial corporations, and tax concessions must be permitted if cost is the only deterrent to the correction of air and water pollution. Whatever the solution may be, let this government indicate immediately that it intends to correct the appalling
2548	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Paproski destruction of our water resources, even if other levels of government are content to sit back and permit this atrocity to continue.
I look forward to a taxation reform bill which will provide greater equity in taxation. As things stand, certain people are permitted to make tax deductions in some categories which, I submit, amount to getting away with murder, while too many people in the low income bracket, including pensioners and the disabled, are being murdered by taxation.
In conclusion, I support this budget, which appears to be a first step in setting our accounts straight. I hope it will be the precursor of tax reforms which are so essential.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be repetitious of the compliments which have been paid to Your Honour, but like all other members of this house, I wish to take this opportunity on my first occasion of rising in this chamber to congratulate you on your election to your present high office. I would also like to congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the staff who are always so very cordial with their assistance.
Upon my arrival here in Ottawa, I took a stroll on Parliament Hill and, viewing the historic statues and gracious buildings, I felt what I am sure many other visitors to this great capital feel-that it is a privilege to live in a free country, a country free from the thought of tanks being flown in and parked on Sparks Street, a country free from bombings, a country free from the anguish and pain of hunger, a country in which all citizens are free to practise their religion. As one born in Poland, who emigrated to Canada with his Polish father and Ukrainian mother, I wish to thank the people of Canada and the people of Edmonton Centre for this great opportunity.
I am glad to be part of a society called Canadian and am glad that it is run by Canadians-by wheat farmers, cattle breeders, oil producers, fishermen, contractors, businessmen big and small. It has its defects, but if you think the brand the Kremlin has is any better, go ask the Czechs.
I felt, Your Honour, on hearing that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had taken off for Spain after the election, that he had consulted with his guru and would start immediately, bubbling with enthusiasm, to work out new approaches and new programs which would concentrate on regional development in order to end regional disparities. All that has

DEBATES	November 7, 1968
really happened is what I told people in my constituency: You will see increases in taxes, you will see unemployment, you will see more cutbacks of construction jobs; but you will not see national policies and programs implemented to counteract our national problems, because the group on the other side is too busy programming this new just age, and listening to McLuhanism. Hon. gentlemen opposite have no time for war veterans who are looking for long-overdue pension increases. They have no time to amend legislation by bringing in an escalation clause so that the pensions of the old could be increased in proportion to the cost of living.
The federal government has been allocated a substantial role in programming and meeting the costs of urban renewal. As Canada's fourth largest city, Edmonton is faced with this major problem. The major portion of the money required to carry out the urbanization program will be spent in the city centre, the part of Edmonton most affected. But what can we do, if the task force keeps rolling along? We require the relocation of housing complexes and the development of new ones as a necessary and integral part of plans to modify and revitalize our downtown urban complex. And this applies not only to my great city but to all the major cities in Canada. We on this side of the house do not require a task force to tell us that before feasible and immediate step can be taken to implement our urban renewal program, certain features are essential, among them the availability of money to encourage relocation of housing with due regard to the need for multiple housing units. Money must be made available at reasonable rates of interest and there must be confidence in the value of the dollar in order that property may be acquired at a proper price, and that property owners may receive real value for what they sell.
A revitalized housing program can only be produced when housing, urban renewal and pollution have been placed within the responsibility of a full time minister. Such a minister would have time to lower interest rates, phase out the current sales tax on building materials and bring in other attractive and essential features which are required in the remaking of urban Canada. We can no longer neglect young couples who lack housing, nor farmers who have to pay higher interest rates, nor the effect of our postal rates. When the Southam Press spends more than $3.50 to send its member of parliament a telegram complaining about what it will have to do in
November 7, 1968

order to meet the rising postal rates, I suggest that hon. members on the other side had better start looking very carefully at the type of legislation they are trying to ram through.


An hon. Member:: We are.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I say this because people like the friendly publisher and editor of the Edmonton Journal do not forget easily.
As one who has played professional football, I feel the latest budget has to be the greatest squeeze play of all time, as far as the taxpayer is concerned. The latest budget performance is a source of disappointment to Canadians, who were subjected to a 10 per cent tax increase in 1966 and a 3 per cent surcharge in 1968. Now they are faced with a further 2 per cent increase called a social development tax, in addition to the raising of the old age security ceiling to $240, and increased taxes on cigarettes and liquor.
Western Canada, already suffering economically as a result of failure to dispose of a large wheat surplus, will be hurt further by the move to restrict the depletion allowances granted to petroleum and mining companies. It should be remembered that these companies are risking their shareholders' money to bring in new resource development, and that if they are hamstrung by restrictive regulations they will, naturally, be less inclined to take risks. This will mean that a development which benefits every Canadian is slowed down.
Apart from the higher income tax bite, and the restrictions on development, the only new feature in the budget is the inclusion of life insurance companies in the corporation tax area.
Removal of the exemption in connection with medical bills paid by provincial plans exposes the individual taxpayer to a further hike in personal payments. The government has now revealed that medicare could go as high as $370 million. Last year we were promised a balanced budget. Now we are told it will be next year. The budget reveals a seasonal unemployment rate above 5 per cent during the summer months, a mild recession in 1967, with rising inventories and overcapacity in some manufacturing industries, in spite of the stimulating effect of Expo and high tourist spending, which have now largely worn off. Inflation has gone on unchecked.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Recessive factors have remained in the economy and the government has done little
The Budget-Mr. Paproski to deal with them. We can look forward to growing economic uncertainty and increased unemployment, at least on a regional basis.
The government produced one set of estimates last spring and followed them with a revised set of estimates in the fall, the only difference being an increase of $400 million. It is spending $10.7 billion with revenues of $10 billion, leaving a deficit between income and outgo of nearly $700 million.
If a businessman or corporate manager were to run his business in the same way I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, he would not be in the president's chair for long. The government has engaged in massive commitments through the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, and now medicare, while at the same time regrettably falling short in stimulating the expansive and productive sector of the economy at a rate sufficient to support the social welfare expansion.
Let us look at defence. It is interesting to note that defence expenditures have gone up 18 per cent over 1967, and on that ground the economic argument for unification is a complete failure.
The budget fails to cope with high and growing interest rates, high taxes and growing inflation. It does not cope with the problem of increasing real per capita output at a rate to ensure full realization of economic potential. Instead of moving to reduce interest rates, the government created the situation in the first place by removing the ceiling on interest rates. The recent action in amending farm credit and fishermen's credit legislation, to remove the limitation on interest rates, has added to the problem.
In the past two years prices and costs in Canada have risen more rapidly than prices and costs in the United States, in spite of the fact that Canada has not had to contend with the inflationary impact of Viet Nam. There; has been no indication, in the way the government has managed its finances, of a real capacity to manage the economic growth of the nation. We had a 10 per cent tax increase in 1966, an increase in sales and indirect taxes in 1967, and a further 3 per cent surtax on incomes in 1968. In its latest budget the government had to grapple with the problem of closing the $700 million gap between spending and revenues. It had the choice of making a serious attempt to control its spending or come back to the people once again for further revenues. It chose the latter, like the pitcher that went once too often to the well.
November 7, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain
In his minibudget a year ago the former finance minister promised to keep the increase within a range of 4.5 per cent, or a total of $10.3 billion. This the government did not succeed in doing. A continuing rate of increases in both costs and consumer prices of approximately 4 per cent has added to our economic problems. The Economic Council report describes the increase in real per capita output in 1967 as only about 1 per cent, well below potential.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the government, although in office only a Short time, already stands indicted by its own record. Canadians are being asked to pay higher and higher taxes to support a record of extravagance unequalled in peacetime history.
Where are the great plans and schemes of the just society? There is nothing in the budget for young Canadians, nothing offering them a challenge, nor is there any outline of the goals and objectives they seek. What of the great frontiers of science, the challenge of the north, the untapped resources of Canada? There is nothing here to challenge the imagination, nothing to inspire, to stimulate or to give hope.
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that the throne speech, in the uninspired pedestrianism of its prose, was a true reflection of the government's lack of policy, lack of planning and lack of imagination. The budget is an expression of failure; it expresses the government's lack of confidence in itself. It is a vote of non-confidence by the government in its own policies. The government, having so expressed itself, how can this house do less?


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, the present debate on the budget gives us the opportunity to discuss many things which would normally be discussed only when we study the estimates of each department.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make tonight a prelimary remark which has little to do with the present budget debate, but which I think is necessary -because it has some importance with regard to the Canadian declaration of human rights which, I think, all hon. members hold in high respect.
I have twice intervened in this house, Mr. Speaker. Once I rose on a question of privilege, and another time, during the debate on the estimates of a department, I pointed out that there was a time when certain members

of this house had taken a sort of pleasure in digging up scandals, in making unfounded accusations right and left. This had led certain people outside the house to take pleasure in insinuating that certain members of the House of Commons could engage in activities that are dishonest and in violation of their oath of office.
Mr. Speaker, we witnessed a whole series of scandals concerning furniture and all sorts of other things. However, at one point a former member of the legislature of the province of Quebec, a former federal minister and member of the Privy Council, was accused of wrongdoing and dishonest dealings with regard to a race track. This lasted for some two or three years, Mr. Speaker. The representative in question appeared before the court of appeal and was unanimously acquitted. He then appeared before the superior court and was again acquitted.
It is not for me to judge the conscience of everyone, but in our democracy, if the human rights exist, our courts should also exist and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I am moved by the sympathy of the honourable member, but I think that he should confine his remarks to the present discussion, which is quite broad, and I do not think that it is time in this debate to dwell upon certain things which happened outside the house.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling with great deference. I would be embarrassed to be a member of a Liberal party if what you have just said really was not in order. It seems to me that when discussing the budget, this has an incidence on this basic concern which is called "human rights".
If we have a budget and if each member of the community is assured of getting what it needs, in short if public taxes are levied upon him, it is also because we are conscious of the existence of human rights. If the rights of the hon. members or the ministers of Her Majesty cannot be claimed on this occasion, I wonder how it can be done. I am tempted to rise on a question of privilege, because when I mentioned it the first time, Mr. Speaker, the opposition objected and did not let me finish my remarks.
I raised the matter another time and I was able to complete my remarks; however, I have not exhausted the subject. To-night- and I need hardly three or four seconds-I want to blame the press, which is not represented here to-night, despite the fact that its
November 7, 1968

135 members should be in the house, for having made head-lines which might have been written for any member of any party. If an irresponsible person charged them with anything, they would make the head-lines in the whole country; however, when the victim and his family who suffered from the head-lines are exonerated, they still are not exonerated by the press.
I conclude my remarks on that matter, Mr. Speaker. It is more important tonight to speak of the budget than to say that the press does not play its part as it should and that it is ill-advised to tell members of parliament that their attendance and their objectiveness are not always as they should be.
Mr. Speaker, we are speaking about the budget, and I am coming to that. I have listened to the speeches made since the beginning of the budget debate probably more carefully than most members.
Certain members have taken pleasure in attacking the government. It was a perfect opportunity to criticize the government, because we can talk about anything at all during the budget debate. However, I must say one becomes used to these things, just as one becomes used to someone who is always shouting "fire" or crying "wolf". There comes a time when one no longer believes that there is a fire or that wolves are coming.
We are often told that the role of the opposition is to oppose, to criticize, and I see my hon. friends on the other side of the house who are extremely intelligent men and extremely honest from the intellectual point of view-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I take pleasure in repeating that they are extremely intelligent. They look intelligent, honest, but they strike me as being shy at times about making certain assertions, because they have been told repeatedly that they must oppose, because they are in the opposition. They do so to the extent where their features sometimes express obvious displeasure.
The opposition did not muff this opportunity; besides, it was quite an opportunity, in that the government having just been elected with a majority that has not been seen for quite some time, it decided to take its responsibilities with frankness, which also had not been seen for quite some time. This government did not make empty promises. On the contrary, it decided to assume its responsibilities and with unusual frankness to tell us
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain that we are going through an international financial crisis which our own finances reflect. And that, of course, hurts the whole opposition. Obviously, some sympathy goes to the members of the opposition, because they are still numb from the monumental threshing they got during the last elections. That is no fun, and I sympathize with them because I too have known cruel defeats. I know that nobody is happy the morning after a defeat. So, I understand why they have this kind of complex that compels them to blame the government for all human ills. It is as good a way as any to let off steam. This is only natural, Mr. Speaker, since they have been under pressure since June 24. It is only normal, and we expect that sort of thing.
People in the gallery who are unaccustomed to follow our debates must think, after having listened to the members of the opposition-who are about the only ones to participate in this debate-that the end of the world is at hand, that the government and Canada are bankrupt. Well, no. It is merely misrepresentation.
I heard the members of the opposition say, for instance, that the budget was a catastrophe, that it was made for the rich against the poor, in brief that it demonstrated poor administration and waste. The just society, Mr. Speaker, has been derided. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who has the knack for make-believe and scandal, went so far as to say that the government was robbing the taxpayers.
Some said that the government was unfair to the provinces, that it had failed to provide anything for the eastern areas and that it was misleading the people.
My hon. friend from Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming) said, and I quote him in English to make sure I am accurate:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

"Inflationary result of inflation is excesses of the government."

And the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said, and I quote:

"The federal government must return to fiscal responsibility."
fTranslation]
Mr. Speaker, it is easy, when it is raining in one's house, to say that it is raining everywhere else. But this does not prove at all that
November 7, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Mongrain it is actually raining everywhere. I understand that the opposition should be carping at government's faults. This is only normal. Ever since there are opposition parties, things have always been done that way. Nevertheless, you will not make the Canadian people believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Proof of what has been said does not lie only in the fact that the opposition said so. We know that its role is to object and to try to find all kinds of reasons for doing so. It is even its function to find fictional reasons and to cover up the facts under an appearance of scandal so that the Canadian people may rise against the government-for election purposes, of course-and favour the opposition.
But the opposition should keep in mind that the Canadian people gave an unequivocal confidence vote to the party now in office and that this party should be given the opportunity to prove itself.
The just society has been ridiculed, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to make fun of the most sacred things, but we should recognize that even the Creator of this universe in which we live does not really require a just society. He could have it immediately if He wanted. He could see to it that no human being should suffer from illness, physical disability, poverty or any other evil. He decided to leave a measure of freedom to human initiatives and rulers.
We cannot expect two, three or four months after the election, with the filibusters of the hon. members opposite which prevent us from passing the necessary legislation, that we will soon be in a position to establish the just society. I know that my hon. friends opposite understand that.
Indeed, when they rise to intervene, I look at them and I realize that several among them are embarrassed because they have to object in some fields where they know that a certain period of time must elapse before the suggested formulas can be applied.


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; would the hon. member be so kind as to define "just society"? What is it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no point of order.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is no just society.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain my point to my hon. friend. I hope to goodness my friend does not expect me to

allow my speech to be inspired by the opposition. I have a speech here that has been prepared. If my hon. friend does not understand the just society now he will never understand it, because it has been explained many times. Another proof of what I am asserting now is that most Canadians understood it, because they voted for 155 members of this house.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have an austerity budget, and that I dislike the $120 social development tax. I admit quite frankly that I do not understand the reasons for it, if only to prove to my hon. friend the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caou-ette) that we are not really sheep in this house. However, I will say that in view of the international financial crisis which we are going through, we needed an austerity budget, and we had to accept some unsavoury measures. The Progressive Conservatives or any other party in power would also have to accept them, because this is an international crisis. Therefore, I say it is better to accept what the government asks us to accept than whatever an irresponsible opposition could suggest.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that IBM computers can make mistakes; then, one can readily imagine how much human beings are liable to be wrong, which is normal. Can the opposition tell me that, being in office, it would have avoided such mistakes? Besides, past experience shows that it made mistakes far more serious. It is only too human to make mistakes, but the clever human being has enough courage to correct them, to take bold and honest steps to establish an economy preventing more evil.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this budget is courageous and not an election budget. It aims mainly at consolidating the Canadian dollar and at strengthening confidence among those who would invest in Canadian enterprise.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) mentioned the credibility gap at one time. He and the hon. member for Yukon have both said the same thing, that there is a credibility gap. I am trying hard, because I am French-speaking and I may get mixed up in my English words. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the credibility gap. I have a great deal of respect for him. In fact, I respect him so much that I have a notion to advise him not to listen to
November 7, 1968	COMMONS
some of his back-benchers who are leading him along paths he is not used to following, because he is so much of a statesman and an honest man. I, for one, believe this.
He spoke about this credibility gap, but he forgot to say this credibility gap does not concern the government but rather the Canadian dollar. He also said that the Canadian dollar was facing a credibility gap, on account of international circumstances and, Mr. Speaker, I can show you evidence of that.
I have here the speech delivered by Mr. Louis Rasminsky, Governor of the Bank of Canada in Victoria, before a joint meeting of the Canadian Club of Victoria and the Federated Council of Sales Finance Companies. Now, Mr. Rasminsky is not, after all, a man to play politics, and here is what he said:
My last public review of the activities of the Bank was on February 29-
The pressure on the Canadian dollar that developed last winter was still very severe. The turning point in the defence of our currency, which was in serious danger, had not yet been reached-
That particular episode, I am glad to say, has had a happy ending.
Fortunately, it is Mr. Rasminsky who says this. And that speech, Mr. Speaker, was delivered on October 17, not six months ago, it is quite recent.
I continue:
-now that it is possible to breathe easier-
Mr. Rasminsky is saying this, not me.
Now that it is possible to breathe easier-and I can assure you that we passed through some anxious moments-I would like to take time to look back on that period . . . Some explanation is appropriate since the defence, although very much worthwhile, was by no means easy or without cost for the Canadian economy.
And so, I should like to remind our friends who are complaining about this budget that- precisely because it is a crisis budget-the international financial situation must bring to mind the devaluation of the pound sterling in England, the 10 per cent surcharge on income tax the President of the United States had an awful time levying, the crisis of the gold standard in France when General de Gaulle felt all powerful to control gold, as well as the steps taken by other countries of lesser importance. Canada managed to go through the crisis, to strengthen the dollar. If there is any doubt about it, once again I shall call upon Mr. Rasminsky, governor of the Bank of Canada. What he said about it proves-and I suggest my friends read what they probably all received, that is a summary of his speech
DEBATES	2553
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain on October 17 last with supporting figures- that the situation of the Canadian dollar has been strengthened and that it was imperative that the confidence in the Canadian dollar be strengthened. That is not the confidence in the Canadian government; if it were, I could quote Mr. Rasminsky again when he said that the Canadian policy fortunately helped to strengthen the Canadian dollar.
In this area the skies are brighter now.
The skies are brighter; this is no prophet of gloom and doom who speaks, no spokesman of the opposition. "The skies are brighter now." Nor is Mr. Rasminsky a politician.
I have recently returned from the annual meeting of the International Monetary fund where I was encouraged by the evidence of much greater international financial stability-
Mr. Speaker, what does all this criticism from the opposition amount to, if not merely to the normal complaints of a team that was beaten in the last election and is trying to restore the fortune of its house by launching all sorts of attacks, justified and unjustified, hither and thither, to discredit this government.
Rather, we would need to form a sacred union, because the crisis is not essentially Canadian. There is no lack of confidence in the government, but this is an international crisis, and it is suggested to each taxpayer to ask himself what he can do for his country and not what the country can do for him in order to overcome the difficulties, because if the Canadian dollar is devaluated for lack of confidence of foreign countries, this would entail the ruin of a lot of Canadian enterprises and would bring unemployment for thousands of taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, this is no mystery and all the economists will tell you so.


Some hon. Members:: We doubt it.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: You doubt it? I have here before me-and I think my hon. friends have it also-the report of a press conference given the the Minister of Finance when he made his budget speech.
Mr. Muhn, an economist, wrote this, and I quote:

Today Mr. Benson has presented a budget which would be balanced next year by raising the taxes notably. If we consider the importance of inflation in the economy, I think that this budget is reasonable-
2554	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Mongrain
He did not say remarkable, but reasonable. To continue:
-it's a good step to put some better order in federal finance.

We must put better order in federal finance. I know what my hon. friends will say: if we must put order, it means that there was none. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a little disorder, because our hon. friends required the government to make investments of millions or billions of dollars, and the government wanted to do its share, following the requests of the opposition, to try to maintain the economy. At one point, it realized that things were going too far-because we cannot spend more than we can reasonably collect- and the government decided to adopt a healthy financial policy, inspired by the best economists and financial experts, not only in Canada but also abroad. It dared face the electorate and say: This is what we will do. We shall increase taxes. Such an increase hurts, obviously. And it hurts me probably more than some of my colleagues in a better position to afford it. However, if each and every one in a country such as ours is not prepared to make the sacrifices that sometimes prove necessary, we are on the way to bankruptcy. The opposition utters shallow and irresponsible criticism, since it has no concern but to blame. It could eventually lead this country to bankruptcy, were it not for the intervention, at a given time, of someone with a sense of responsibility.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) touched on various subjects which I do not wish to cover again, because other members will have an opportunity to do so.
I would have liked at a certain time to challenge some statements made by the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) who travels throughout the province condemning the financial policy of this government. I will speak with a little more restraint than I had thought I would. In fact, I feel that this afternoon he was the object of some unintentional discourtesy, if you like, but he was probably slightly to blame because he exceeded the time allotted to him, but he should have been granted a few minutes more to continue. By travelling throughout the province of Quebec to criticize the financial policy of the government the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste acts in an irresponsible way.

DEBATES	November 7, 19S8
He should realize that he makes statements- and I am pleased to see him coming in- which he knows are inaccurate, because he is intelligent.
This afternoon, however, I approved him when he protested against the C.B.C., because he was right. His delegate at the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts will tell him that I was the first one to suggest that the authorities of the C.B.C. be questioned and to say that I did not approve of the kind of discrimination referred to by the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste.
Moreover, I agree with the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste on many things, but I do not approve of his going around the poor areas of the province where he says to those who benefit from the social legislation of the federal government that the latter discharging its responsibilities towards them. He promises them some illusive things, he promises them-to use his own language-air-blown balloons with vivid colours, if you like, because our poor-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Temiscamingue on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: I just wanted to tell the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) that in my own constituency there are not less poor people than in his own constituency, but I want to defend them and he wants to sell them; that is not the same thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. There is no point of order.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste that in my own constituency, there are people who benefit from disability pensions, from family allowances, from unemployment insurance, free hospitalization, the Canada assistance plan, old age pensions, guaranteed minimum income, manpower retraining programs, war veterans' allowances, urban renewal programs, programs providing special services to municipalities, student loans, special grants for sports programs, research and marina installations. All these social measures were passed by my party and not by that of the hon. member. Moreover, these people have benefited from various projects commemorating the Canadian centennial. Those achievements, Mr. Speaker, are not vague promises
November 7, 1968

or mirages, but dollars which have been paid to the Canadian people out of the taxes paid by the Canadian people.
In fact, my hon. friend is trying to make the Canadian people believe that they can get by while doing nothing and benefit from those advantages which are provided out of inexistent funds. But I say to my hon. friend that he is making false representations, that he is smarter than he wants to show. Either he knows what he is talking about or he does not. If he knows what he is talking about, he is not honest and if he does not know, he should shut up. Because we cannot have colour dreams nowadays. We live with dollars and we must pay for everything in this world.
I have studied his financial system very carefully and I know that I am not as intelligent as my hon. friend, but I have noted a few of the statements he has been spreading around for the last 35 years. As far as I know, his philosophy has never been actually applied. This shows perhaps that it is not practical. But nevertheless, even if it is practical, Mr. Speaker, if it took another 100 years to succeed, the poor people in my constituency will have to eat to-morrow morning and they cannot wait. They will be able to manage because of the legislation passed here and not because of promises such as those my hon. friend makes here in the house or elsewhere. They cannot live on balloons any better than they can live on promises, Mr. Speaker.
We should, therefore, be realistic and I know my hon. friend is aware of that. Unfortunately, he has to sustain his reputation as the leader of this-


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I am afraid, I should remind all the hon. members of this house, especially the senior members, of the ruling forbidding any hon. member to interrupt a colleague once the latter has the floor.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how much time I still have?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The hon.
member has two minutes left.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I thank, you Mr. Speaker.
I have a great deal of respect for my honourable friend, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste for reasons which I do not have the time to list, because my time is running out.
29180-162i
The Budget-Mr. Monteith He is so intelligent and I respect him so much that I would not want to let him go astray, as he does now, following courses which solve nothing for his voters in matters which are deceptive and totally imaginary. I should like to point out to him that, with his intelligence and energies, he is quite able, to do much better than that, to do realistic things for people who live today, not for those who will live a hundred years after his death.
To come back to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I will say that it is a realistic budget, a courageous budget, a budget which hurts.
I will agree with all my honourable colleagues, that it is a budget which hurts. There are some things which I would not have done in that way, and I confess it. But if the opposition party had proposed another budget, I would have probably objected to two or three things. We have to arrive at a solution and it is that which is suggested by the honourable Minister of Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was considerably amused by some of the words uttered by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain). I do not want to comment in detail on what the hon. member said, but he intimated that the opposition seemed embarrassed in criticizing the budget. I think it is only fair to say that in the 15 years I have been in this House of Commons I do not believe I have ever known a budget that could be more readily criticized. The hon. member also had some entertaining things to say about the just society. I suggest that this budget is a poor excuse for a just society. I think the hon. member called it an austerity but courageous budget. I know he is a very amusing and entertaining speaker, and I enjoy listening to him. As a consequence, I can only assume that he was joking when he said those words.
There has been a singular lack of front bench, government members speaking in support of this budget. I cannot quite understand this. Several of the new private members have spoken, and I know this is an excellent time for them to speak; but I would have thought that when we were discussing a budget as lacking in substance for the people of Canada as this one, surely it would have received some support from the government benches.
November 7, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Monteith
I know that trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is always a fascinating exercise, and the minister's performance in the house on the night of October 22 last was certainly fascinating. Even more fascinating was his performance on television later that night when he was interviewed by Mr. Lynch and Mr. Collister. In that interview the minister was very quick to blame the provinces for the highest federal expenditures in our history. However, he did admit that he had been $600 million out in his calculations last year, because of a refusal to accept the warnings given to the federal government by the provincial governments.
One of the astonishing things in the minister's television performance on the night of October 22 was the revelation as to his taxation philosophy. It had to be seen to be believed. Referring to young Canadian married couples in the income class of $10,000 and over per year, he stated his philosophy in these words: You put as much as the traffic will bear on these people. That is the minister's philosophy, enunciated not once but twice on the national television, and he had the gall to blame the provinces for high levels of taxation. We all recall when the policy was to soak the rich. The present policy is to soak everybody. He went on to say:
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I do not think this is an easy budget at all and it is not the kind of budget I like to bring in as a new Minister of Finance.
Well, such frankness is always welcome and commendable, but I think most Canadians would agree wholeheartedly with that statement. They just do not like any part of the budget.
The minister went on to proclaim an impassioned justification of the completely indefensible 12 per cent sales tax on building materials, when he said:
If you have to pay 11 per cent sales tax, or 12 per cent, it is, I believe, for clothing for your children, for household furniture, for everything you buy, why should housing be exempted from that? ... Well, if you want to subsidize housing, subsidize housing.
The fact that the government's 12 per cent tax has, more than any other factor, placed housing out of the reach of a whole generation of young Canadians, the same people the minister wants to soak as much as the traffic will bear, disturbs him not in the least. With a philosophy as destructive and antisocial as this is it any wonder we have a budget-


Edgar John Benson: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Does he realize that

almost half of the tax revenue from taxes on building materials comes from commercial operations rather than from housing?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is perfectly all right, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned when this was brought in what it was going to do to the cost of living, and my prediction came true. It put housing beyond the reach of the average person.
The minister made one statement worth looking into when he said:
I said a little earlier tonight that, you know, if we go through another year and we're out six per cent which is very good for business, we'll probably end up with a new Minister of Finance.
Coming from a minister who guaranteed parliament that he would remain within an expenditure ceiling of $10.3 billion and that we would have a balanced budget this year, I think that suggestion merits active consideration by the government. The ceiling has become the floor, and the balanced budget another Liberal vanishing act.
The only really new feature in the budget is the inclusion of life insurance companies in the corporation tax area. The minister even included fraternal and benevolent societies. These are mainly non-profit organizations and many perform charitable functions for those members who are in dire need. Still they are included. I am going to suggest when we get to the budget resolutions that we examine this particular item very closely with a view possibly to amending it. About all that can be said in general about the budget is that it represents another tightening of the Liberal screw. The economy is being squeezed by the government for all the traffic will bear, and the taxpayer is being wrung dry.
The 2 per cent surcharge is described as a social development tax. It could as easily have been described as a medicare tax. Primarily it hits the little man below the belt. The minister now reveals what medicare is going to cost; but what about the previous minister's prediction of $1 billion for all of Canada? It appears to me there is a great credibility gap with regard to what medicare is going to cost. They have been wrong before and could easily be wrong again.
Now we have a $675 million deficit on top of last year's $792 million deficit. Once again we have the tired old Liberal ploy: Next year will be better. The government cannot go on living off next year's income. Last year we were promised a balanced budget this year; now we are told it will be next year. It is not only the budget which is unbalanced, it is the government.
November 7, 1968

In this connection, it is interesting to refer to the firm and high sounding declaration of intention made on February 13, 1968 by the minister, when he not only promised but guaranteed a balanced budget. This has been referred to before but I am going to repeat it. His words on that occasion could well be imprinted, if not on the walls of this chamber in letters of fire, at least on his brain. The following are his words as reported at page 6663 of Hansard for that date:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to guarantee to the house that after the supplementary estimates are introduced during the year and the year has ended, with the normal lapses that always occur, we will hit our $10.3 billion ceiling and will balance the budget this year.
What I am particularly interested in is this next line in Hansard:


Mr. Ricard:: You are whistling in the dark.
Nothing could have been truer; that statement is one of the classic misstatements of all time. The more it is analysed, the more it reveals the weaknesses of the present Minister of Finance, who was then president of the treasury board, but who was speaking as a member of the government responsible for keeping expenditures in line. He guaranteed, first, a ceiling of $10.3 billion and, second, a balanced budget, and he was 100 per cent out on both predictions. I should emphasize that they were more than predictions; he used the word "guarantee" and obviously was speaking as a responsible minister giving a commitment to parliament.
The $10.3 billion ceiling was shot to pieces long ago. Expenditures are now at $10,780 billion. The minister's successor in the Treasury Board portfolio tried to blame the provinces. Then we found that the provinces had warned the government, whose computerized brains were apparently only capable of ignoring what they learned.
I saw a headline in one of the papers the other day which read: Next Stop The Moon. I thought they were referring to the budget, but apparently it was a reference to the United States space program. These fiscal astronauts opposite, however, are in a class by themselves. I am only wondering what will happen when they try to get back into the earth's atmosphere. I am seriously worried that they will simply burn up, and take the economy with them.
This budget is a confession of the government's abysmal failure to keep expenses in line. On December 6, 1967, I spoke in this
The Budget-Mr. Monteith chamber on the minibudget which was presented that autumn, and I dealt in some detail with the government's expenditures since they assumed office in 1963. I set out the complete picture from the time they took office until the time when I spoke, pointing out that the expenditures had continued to increase, not too tremendously, in the first few years. Now, I want to emphasize what happened the last three or four years during that period.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
For instance, in 1966-67 expenditures rose 13.7 per cent. In 1967-68 they rose 12 per cent. The year in which we are now, and about which the minister so glibly said last winter he was going to hold the increase to 4.5 per cent, shows an increase of 9.5 per cent. The final supplementary estimates are not in yet. We heard today about a supplementary that will have to be added. The estimates for 196970 indicate a still further increase of slightly more than 8 per cent. When and where is this government going to call a halt to these escalating expenses? I claim they have been gradually developing these spendthrift ways since their very first days in power in 1963. There was a change of atmosphere in the last three years, and there has been a series of gross miscalculations. We recall how the government tried to fool the public during the discussion of the estimates last spring. The government rarely even mentions the need for restraining expenditures now. They have found a wonderful new method: We will do it next year.
Apparently this is the new approach: stick around a little longer and you will see that next year will be the big year of the balanced budget. This is known as the wait a little longer theory or, I would suggest, the Benson backward budget balancing plan. Prior to the turn of this century there was a man named Blondin who developed a balancing act over Niagara Falls. The present minister could give Blondin cards and spades, I suggest. Blondin won world acclaim when he walked over a yawning gulf with a man on his back, but the other night the minister walked over a yawning gulf with a whole government on his back.
What about the ordinary Canadian? I trust that it will not be considered a breach of etiquette if I mention the ordinary taxpayer in this chamber, or bring his plight to the attention of the government. Let us look at the tax tables to see what the government has done in two short years to a married taxpayer with two dependants. Let us remember
2558	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Monteith that within two short years, plus a few months, the tax of the average married taxpayer with two dependants and an income of $4,000 has increased from $97 to $210; with a $5,000 income, from $205 to $422; with a $10,000 income, from $987 to $1,764; with $15,000 income, from $2,141 to $3,415.
I can say that if the government continues in this fashion they will be getting the Nobel prize for physics because they will be the first people in history to squeeze blood out of a stone. What they are doing to the taxpayer is unbelievable. We have seen the cost of living increase considerably in the last two years. In December, 1965 the cost of living based on 1949 equalling 100 was 140.8. The last report I saw indicated it was 156.4, an increase of 15.6 points. This actually represents an increase of 11 per cent since December, 1965. During this same period personal income taxes have increased by the percentages I indicated. Where is the average person going to end up under this government? What consideration is the average older citizen receiving, who is living on a fixed income?
This budget has ended the suspense of how the government was going to raise its money. The question the taxpayer is asking now is, where is the money coming from? I suggest the unanswered question is, where is the money going? So far as taxes, direct and indirect are concerned, Canadians have about reached the end of the rope. Income taxes have never been higher. Indirect taxes have added to prices and costs, and the most evil indirect tax of all, inflation, has been fired by uncontrolled government spending. The minister has now given his prescription for how the government is going to go about raising its money in the coming fiscal year. I suggest that for many Canadians it will be bad medicine.
In the last two years we have had a succession of tax increases. As I mentioned, we had a 10 per cent tax increase in 1966; an increase in sales and indirect taxes in 1967 and a further 3 per cent surtax on income in 1968. Now, in the present budget, the government had to grapple with the problem of closing a $600 million gap between spending and revenues.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are increasing taxes twice a year now.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is a good average; they have done it before. The government had a
{Mr. Monteith.]
DEBATES	November 7, 1968
choice of making a serious attempt at controlling spending or coming back to the people for further revenues. In his minibudget of a year ago, the former minister of finance promised to keep the increase in expenditures within the range of 4-5 per cent or a total of $10.3 billion. This government came far from doing that. It is worth remembering also that the present minister, shortly after assuming the portfolio in May, said in Quebec City that inflation was the most serious problem facing the Canadian economy. He proposed a wage and prices review board. This promise has remained in the limbo of forgotten Liberal promises.
At that meeting, according to the Globe and Mail for May 21, 1968, the minister said:
We hope to have a balanced budget-
Let us remember this was before the election.
-and we should be able to attain this with minor fiscal adjustments.
I should like to recall also to the minister and the government the recent speech by the Governor of the Bank of Canada on October 17, in which he warned of the effects of the present high rate of federal spending. He called for prices and wages guide lines which have not been forthcoming. This is what he said:
Our recent exchange problems have shown how important it is to avoid any undermining of confidence by a further extended period of poor cost and price performance.
This warning will no doubt be put in the same category as the repeated warnings of Ontario officials that the government had seriously underestimated the cost of shared programs. As it turned out, they were right, but the warnings were ignored. Yesterday my leader spoke in this debate, paying particular attention to how this budget and the recent assertions by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are going to affect the provinces and federal-provincial relations generally. He dealt with the future of such relations from long years of experience; consequently, I will not go into the field of shared-cost programs tonight. I would say, however, that never have relations between the federal government and the provinces been at a lower ebb. On top of this the government is forcing its medicare plan on the provinces, with every intention of backing away from it in five years.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This budget, sir, has stunned people across Canada in every walk of life. The credibility
November 7, 1968	COMMONS
gap has continued to widen. Before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read the amendment we shall vote on this evening. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) moved that-
-this House regrets that the government has repeatedly deceived this House and the Canadian Public as to the extent and gravity of the. 1968-69 budgetary deficit and has destroyed its own credibility and that of the 1969-70 budgetary forecasts notwithstanding the heaviest peace time tax increases and consequently rejects the government's statement of the country's financial position.
Many hon. members on the government side have deplored the tax increases in this budget. Quite obviously they have spoken the way they have because they will not feel comfortable about the budget when they speak to the constituents in their ridings. I say that if one believes in what he says, how can he fail to support the amendment tonight, along with everybody else on this side of the house.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, there are three or four areas in the broad field of our financial affairs about which I would like to make some brief comments.
The first area concerns family allowances. When the original legislation pertaining to family allowances was first enacted almost 25 years ago, Canada had very little other social welfare legislation. We did not have old age security, the Canada Assistance Plan, the guaranteed income supplement, provincial hospitalization schemes, the Canada Pension Plan or many other municipal, provincial and federal programs which we now consider basic to the physical and financial well-being of Canadians. It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that the universal family allowance system as it is now constituted has in some ways outlived its usefulness, and that part of the funds which are now being expended on family allowance could be used more directly and significantly to help certain people in our society to whom we owe a greater measure of assistance. During the fiscal year, 1966-67, we spent more than $600 million on family and youth allowances. If these allowances were not paid for the first child in each family, we would save approximately $250 million each year.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that most families in our present economy can bear the burden of raising their first child without assistance from the government. This figure of $250 million is approximately the same amount as was
DEBATES	2559
The Budget-Mr. Buchanan spent upon the guaranteed income supplement last year. I would suggest that we would be filling a far greater need and discharging a more pressing responsibility to our Canadian citizens if we ceased paying for the first child in each family and instead doubled the guaranteed income supplement. This would mean that all single Canadians who are receiving the old age security pension would be guaranteed a minimum income of approximately $140 per month and that all couples would have a minimum income of $280 per month if they qualified for this supplement. These figures certainly do not provide for luxury living today, but they should much improve the present situation and guarantee our senior citizens a minimum level of dignity in their retirement years.
One nice thing about recommending a program of this type is that it is not a program where we are going to have constantly increasing costs since, over the next eight years, as the Canada and Quebec pension plans come to full maturity the requirement for the guaranteed income supplement may well be eliminated for a large percentage of our retirees.
If this line of thought seems reasonable, Mr. Speaker, and we also discontinued the payment for the second child, when there were only two children in the family, we would realize an additional $75 million. This would mean that in families which had only one or two children there would not be any family allowance paid. But all families which had three children or more would receive payment for all children but the first. Having found the funds, I would like to suggest a method whereby we could now dispose of them.
The fifth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada laid great emphasis on the fact that in Canada's second century the main basis for economic prosperity would be the maximum educational development of our people.
I believe there is one group of young men and young women in our society against whom our government-assisted universities unintentionally discriminate. Maybe this is an unhappy choice of words-I do not mean that they actually discriminate against them but, because of the physical location of our universities, the potential students who live beyond commuting distance from these universities have a far greater financial burden to bear in attending university than do the
November 1. 1968

The Budget-Mr. Buchanan potential students who live in or near university towns or cities. I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should have some system whereby these potential students who live beyond commuting distance are given a subsistance allowance if they are qualified and wish to attend university. Canada has a total population of approximately 20 million people. Of this figure, roughly 12 million Canadians live within commuting distance of universities. In other words 40 per cent live beyond commuting distance.
Applying these same figures to our present enrolment at universities we find that there would he roughly 100,000 out of a total university population of 250,000 whom we would have to assist. Assuming an average subsistance allowance of $100 per month for the 7J months at university, this would involve a total annual outlay of $75 million.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are genuine in our talk about equality of opportunity this is a mandatory step we should be taking to try to make certain that the young men and the young women who live in Goose Bay, or Peace River, or Owen Sound, are put on an equal footing with the students who live in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax or Edmonton.
The third area on which I would like to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, concerns the question of shared cost programs. A great deal of concern has been expressed by hon. members opposite about the unbalanced budget which we are going to have this year. I would like to quote from an editorial in last Tuesday's Montreal Gazette:
The disturbing fact is not that the federal government has unbalanced its own budget; it has had its budget unbalanced for it.
The main trouble has come from the shared-cost agreements it made with the provinces in such fields as hospital insurance and post-secondary education. These agreements were not for fixed amounts, such as would have made budgetary prediction possible. They were open-ended, with Ottawa paying a percentage of whatever the provinces spent. This has meant that the federal government has had to meet costs over which it had no direct control. It signed something not unlike blank cheques.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The whole system of shared cost programs violates a basic concept in a democratic system, which is that the government responsible for spending funds should also be the government responsible for raising these funds. This is how the elected representatives are made accountable to their electors and how, to a large degree, their electors measure their performance. It seems to me, Mr. 

Speaker, that this whole business of shared cost programs flies right in the face of this fundamental democratic principle and I think we should be doing our utmost to eliminate the shared cost programs in which we are presently participating. Mr. Speaker, I realize that this principle cannot operate to its theoretical perfection in a federal system such as ours where we have accepted the idea of striving to achieve equality amongst various regions. Because of this, the federal government must raise funds from the more prosperous regions and give them as grants to the less prosperous regions.
It is also argued that in order to maintain an adequate degree of control over fiscal policies it is necessary for the central government to raise a significant portion of the tax dollars so that the economy can, to some extent, be stimulated or cooled off. However, even if the federal government were to opt out of the shared cost programs, and turn over a certain number of equalized tax points to the provinces, it would still maintain and control approximately 80 per cent of its present tax levying and spending capacity. Therefore I would suggest the basic premise still applies. The government which is spending the money should be the government which is responsible to its electors for raising the money.
Prior to being elected to parliament I was a member of the board of education in my riding. Even there, Mr. Speaker, I discovered that the great concern, understandably, of the elected representatives was for the dollars for which they were directly accountable to their electors. The money that came from the other levels of governments, primarily in that case from the provincial governments, and to a very minor degree from the federal government, was "found money" from an unending horn of plenty. In our calculations, these funds did not concern us at all-we just calculated, assumed they were there and went on to worry and fuss about the dollars we had to raise from our own municipality, and the impact these would have on the mill rate. I was encouraged, Mr. Speaker, to note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) have in the past few days made comments supporting this point of view.
A couple of days ago the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) made reference to the final report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons studying the public service of Canada which was made
November 7, 1968	COMMONS
on May 8, 1967. He gave his wholehearted support to its proposal that we should be increasing the pensions paid to our retired civil servants. I would like to add my strong support to his plea. My reasoning here, Mr. Speaker, is precisely the same as it was when I earlier recommended the doubling of the guaranteed income supplement. Our retired citizens worked diligently during their more active years, when economic circumstances were far less attractive than they are today, to build the prosperous society which we all now enjoy. The least we can do now is make certain that these retired Canadians are able to participate fully in the society which they did so much to create.
My final area of comment concerns our athletic endeavours. In the last few weeks all of us have watched with great interest the efforts of our own and other athletes at the Olympics. We are proud of the achievement of our medal winners, but all of us, Mr. Speaker, have a feeling of malaise. We should have done better. Many countries far less well off than ourselves and far smaller in population, such as Czechoslovakia and Kenya, were far more successful. We know that our young athletes are dedicated and competent young people and I think all of us subconsciously feel that we have to dig deeper into the situation to find where we went wrong. Our training facilities are inadequate, we do not possess sufficiently qualified trainers and possibly our athletes did not train hard enough. There are many reasons for our lack of greater success, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me one area where we could be doing something which would encourage more support of amateur athletics is the relatively minor one of tax relief.
It is my understanding that the encouragement of a particular sport is not considered charitable within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. In my riding we have a vigorous amateur hockey organization and swim club. These groups are faced with fairly substantial on-going expenses for equipment, ice rental, transportation and the many other commitments which are incurred in keeping activities such as these going. We have all watched with admiration the outstanding performance of the United States in the swimming events.
If our young swimmers are going to develop competitively they must get over the border and compete against these young American athletes. There are many interested citizens who are willing to give generously of their time and funds to assist these efforts. I
DEBATES	2561
The Budget-Mr. Skoreyko believe the least we can do is to grant tax relief on the funds which they donate for the support of athletics. I have suggested to some of my friends in these groups that they organize themselves into bodies called "ice worshippers" or "water worshippers", and that part of their religious observances would be to stand around the rink or swimming pool watching their children participate. At least they might then be able to qualify for charitable exemption as a religious organization.
It is absolutely ridiculous that we should decry the lack of athletic achievement when we are not even prepared to permit the people who are willing and eager to support athletic endeavours to deduct their contributions for tax purposes. I urge that the appropriate section of the Income Tax Act be altered as quickly as possible to make such contributions eligible for deduction from taxable income.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Time this evening being limited, I intend to cover only a few points which I think should be dealt with. First of all, I wish to take the opportunity to commend some of the new members of this house who in my opinion have contributed some of the finest speeches we have heard in a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Skoreyko: I do not wish to put a list of names on record, but I do wish to commend the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) who spoke yesterday evening in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Skoreyko: That man had a great deal of courage, in my opinion. Some of his remarks were indeed constructive. They were critical of the government as they were critical of other areas of the administration, and I commend the hon. gentleman for what he said in this house.
Talking about constructive speeches, it amused me this afternoon to listen to the hon. member for Three Rivers.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to remind the hon. member that there is no city in my province which is called Three Rivers. In the English version of its incorporation it is called Trois-Rivieres.
2562	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Skoreyko [DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


William Skoreyko: Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, at least I was able to identify the hon. member who so eloquently talked about credibility-credibility of the opposition as he said. I wonder if I might be permitted to remind him of a credibility gap in a political party this summer. May I remind him one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the Canadian people was engineered this summer on June 25 last. They said nothing to the Canadian people; they promised nothing. In my riding all I heard was "Go Trudeau, go Shewchuk", who was my opponent. This went on all across the country; but indeed when I go back to my riding now I find that an awful lot of people wish he had gone.
I have only two or three minutes left tonight to talk about the budget, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot even begin to criticize it and do an adequate job in that time, and so I hope I have another opportunity to participate in this debate. I want to ask the Minister of Finance how he can justify a 2 per cent increase in personal income tax with a limit of $120? I suggest to him-and he is an accountant-that if he did a little mathematics on his own he could have achieved and indeed exceeded the goal he tried to achieve by charging everybody on earned income, every taxpayer and every wage earner in Canada, one quarter of 1 per cent on total earnings. He would get a lot more money if he had done so. In fact he would have more money than he needed.
I do not understand what justification there is in his concept of fairness or of a just society, when he taxes people who cannot afford to pay 2 per cent on earned income, and at the same time sets a limit of $120. This is something that he thinks fits into this new just society, but it is something that I as a Conservative think is not just. This spring the government promised the Canadian people that it was going to balance the budget in the fall of 1968. To come up with a budget like this is to me tantamount to outright, blatant dishonesty.
I happen to come from the west, Mr. Speaker, where considerable oil development has taken place. I think the minister should take another look at the depletion allowance factor in his budget. Has he realized what the depletion allowance, or the refusal to recognize the depletion allowance against write-offs before the costs of production are completely written off-
[Mr. Mongrain.1
DEBATES	November 7, 1968


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section (5) of standing order 58 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
This house stands adjourned until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.


[Stage Direction]
It being fourteen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, November 8, 1968