1968-10-31

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House, Ottawa.
31 October, 1968
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. J. R. Cartwright, P.C., M.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 31st October at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be. Sir,
Your obedient servant, Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General.



RESEARCH


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the house the fact that Dr. G. H. Kharana has been awarded the Nobel prize in medicine. Dr. Kharana is an Indian by birth. He was educated in India and at Oxford University. He came to Canada in 1952 and worked at research in the British Columbia Research Council until 1957, when he went to the University of Wisconsin and, as I have said, has won the Nobel prize for his outstanding work in the field of nucleic acid in the genetic code.
I am sure all Canadians will have a great sense of pride in the accomplishments of a doctor who worked for seven years in our scientific research centres and then went on to win the coveted Nobel prize in medicine. This is an indication of the high level of research that can be carried on in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should perhaps mention that the hon. member's statement does not qualify as a question of privilege, but I am sure hon. members were pleased to hear the hon. member's statement.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the question asked by myself in the house yesterday and the answers given by the Prime Minister. First of all I definitely recall, as do other members sitting in this vicinity, my original question. I quote only the latter part in order to draw attention to the very important words that have been left out, in which the Minister of Justice referred to the Solicitor General as the senior member, while being questioned on matters of patronage in and around Ottawa. The way it is reported in Hansard is "the senior member in matters of patronage in and around Ottawa." I would refer also to the remarks of the Prime Minister when he said he was misquoted by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Mr. Trudeau:: What page?


Donald MacInnis: It is page 2216 of Hansard, the first column. The Prime Minister said he was misquoted by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. Then the Prime Minister said:
The reason I did not answer right away was that I suspected there might be a misquote coming from the hon. member.
The Prime Minister further referred to my record of asking questions in this house. I regret very much that I cannot allude to the answers that are provided. In addition the Prime Minister went on more or less-and of course this is open to interpretation-to say that he had not witnessed the program about which I was speaking. Then, as is reported in Hansard on the same page, that is page 2216, I referred to the use of the word "probably" by the Prime Minister in this connection.
The question originally arose because of statements made by the Prime Minister in Halifax when he alluded to practices carried on in Nova Scotia, and I think it was absolutely necessary to make this statement. I would say, further, that there is now public
October 31, 1968

Postal Facilities in St. John's knowledge of the support of the statement made by the Minister of Justice when he was being questioned on the matter of patronage in Ottawa. I say this is public knowledge because the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday quoted the Minister of Justice answering a question. For the benefit of the minister and the Prime Minister I would repeat the question that was put to the minister while on a television program:
During a CJOH interview, Doug Fisher, with his tongue practically sticking through his cheek suggested gently that since Turner was in the senior government spot of Ottawa M.P.'s, wouldn't he now be the one in charge of government patronage and handouts?
Said Turner, after maybe a half-second delay: "Whatever happens, I shall always consider George Mcllraith the senior Ottawa M.P."
I call Your Honour's attention to the fact that the question put to the Prime Minister, despite the rules, was answered by the Minister of Justice. I take no exception to his answer, but it is clearly indicated in press reports that the direct question to the Minister of Justice was on the matter of patronage and no other question.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
His answer, although he did not use the word "patronage"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if I have to put up with this cheering-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that the hon. member should be given the opportunity to complete his statement.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to remark, it is very difficult to get a point across when the group on my right which acts as nothing more than a cheer leading group in this house continues to interrupt. In finalizing my question of privilege in this regard I would refer hon. members, especially the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Justice to the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a statement. He rose on a question of privilege, but it would seem to me it is more in the nature of a clarifying statement. I doubt very much whether anything

could be gained by pursuing the matter further. Yesterday we had a very interesting exchange on this subject. I hesitate to do anything at this moment which might precipitate a further debate of the nature we had yesterday. There are a number of other questions of privilege of which I have received notice. If we are to proceed with the business of the house this afternoon we might go on with the next one.



MR. MCGRATH-POSTAL FACILITIES IN ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is as follows. On September 26 I wrote to the Postmaster General pointing out to him that while the city of St. John's had almost doubled its population in the past 20 years, postal service had not kept pace with this population growth and that we still have the same number of postal stations we had 20 years ago. Specifically I asked the minister to have his department examine the possibility of a new post office in the northeast area of St. John's.
My letter was sent on September 26. Today is October 31 and I still have not had a reply even by way of acknowledgement. My question of privilege does not relate to the obvious administrative inefficiency of the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: -although I may say in passing that if this is the way he ran the Montreal stock exchange


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member to co-operate by stating his question of privilege.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, as I just said my question of privilege does not relate to the administrative inefficiency of the minister. Rather it relates to a situation which arose in St. John's yesterday. A private citizen and well known Liberal said he was authorized to announce on behalf of the Minister of Defence Production that the government intends to improve existing postal facilities and to build a new post office to cover the northern part of the city.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: My question of privilege is that as an hon. member of this house I am entitled to information concerning the administrative plans of the government, and am entitled to this information specifically
October 31, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	2243
when it refers to my constituency; more especially am I entitled to it when I have requested it in writing.
In the past several months we have heard from the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General a great many hollow words about the ending of patronage and undue partisanship. It is evident from the facts of the case I have stated that the minister is allowing his department to be used as a tool for a propaganda campaign by the Liberal party rather than as a public service-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: -in the operation of which all hon. members of this house have a legitimate interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member had given me notice of his proposed question of privilege. It is the duty of the Chair, after having heard the statement by the hon. member, to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege and whether he should be allowed to make a motion for further action by the house based on the question he has raised.
No such motion was advanced. In any event I doubt very much whether there is more than a grievance, legitimate or otherwise. I doubt very much whether it is the type of grievance which should be considered by the house as a proper question of privilege, and I would have to rule along those lines. This ruling having been made, I suggest to hon. members that there should be no further debate on the question but rather that I should be allowed to call the next hon. member who has a question of privilege.


Walter C. Carter: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I am speaking to the same question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat, please? I just made a ruling that there is no question of privilege; therefore there cannot be further discussion of the matter. I am sure the hon. member will want to accept the ruling of the Chair at this point.
Insufficient Staff for Committee Work [Translation]



INSUFFICIENT STAFF AND FACILITIES FOR COMMITTEE WORK

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege which concerns all hon. members in this house, not only the French-speaking members.
On several occasions since the beginning of this session, I have noticed the lack of interest shown about the committees with regard to the simultaneous translation and the translation of the proceedings into French. A quick inquiry showed me that there were not enough translators and interpreters available to meet at the same time the needs of the House of Commons, the Senate and the committees.
Again this morning, and that is the last straw, when the committee on external affairs and national defence met in camera to prepare its second report, the only interpreter in attendance could not do his work properly because the sound system was not working well.
Mr. Speaker, I am by no means blaming the interpretation service which does a very good job; I merely say that they are too few to meet the requirements of this parliament.
Consequently, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault), that the house adjourn the business of the committees as long as an adequate number of people has not been hired to ensure the efficient operation of the committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thank the hon. member for having given me, as required by the standing orders, notice of his question of privilege, which gave me time to start inquiring into his grievance. I think the member is right in complaining about the situation to which he refers in his motion and in rising on the question of privilege.
I would ask him to wait a few days to give me the opportunity to study the situation a little more closely and then I may be in a position to make a statement in the house or, if it is satisfactory, directly to the hon. member, in order to improve the situation about which he rightly complains.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull) presented the first report of the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs and moved by leave that the report be concurred in.
October 31, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Health, Welfare and Social Affairs [English]
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, early in the session the house established its list of committees, and today three committees are reporting to the house asking for leave to sit while the house is sitting. I am sure Your Honour is aware of the difficulty that has arisen as a result of the number of committees that are sitting each day. For example, for today there was a pretty full slate. I suggest that if each of these committees is going to report to the house and ask for leave to sit while the house is sitting, the situation will become impossible.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
May I recall the incidents that arose earlier this week, when on two occasions a quorum was called in this chamber. Since on two occasions there has been difficulty in obtaining a quorum in this house, the situation might well become aggravated. I therefore oppose the adoption of this report. I ask Your Honour and the house leaders to reconsider the advisability of allowing a number of committees the indiscriminate right to sit while the house is sitting, since we have already experienced difficulties in having hon. members attend the house.
Committees ought to meet on specific days. Naturally, if delegations are brought to Ottawa from some distance away and are to appear before a committee, I concede there is a legitimate reason for that committee to sit while the house sits, and I might have no objection to allowing such a committee to sit for eight, ten or 12 hours in one day though normally I should be opposed to the idea of committees sitting while the house is sitting. Committee work has become exhausting for hon. members rather than edifying. The time hon. members spend in committee work represents a great part of the time they have available for all work, the result being that the operation of the house is interfered with.
If rules are to be changed in such a way that hon. members have no say in the changes, it seems to me no one will give credence to the proposition that hon. members must, as a primary duty, be in attendance in this house. Changes ought to be brought up in the committee on procedure and should be applicable to all committees; otherwise we might see an abuse of privileges enjoyed by committees.

For that reason I am opposed to the adoption of this report today.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might address a few remarks to the house on this matter. The hon. member may not be aware of this, but there is in operation a consultative system among all parties of the house which is carried on by way of a coordinating committee set up for the purpose of co-ordinating the business before the committees. The hon. gentleman's party, in common with all other parties here, is represented on that committee. It is the express purpose of that committee to so regulate the business before the standing committee of the house that the situation he is concerned about will not arise.
I agree that if committees are indiscriminately called to sit at the same time, either before the house sits or while the house is sitting, difficulties may be created. To avoid that risk there is this co-operative arrangement to co-ordinate the work of the committees.
The purpose of the motion moved on behalf of the standing committee on privileges and elections is specifically as a result of that effort to regulate our business generally, so that our committees can sit. In other words the work is to be carried on as suggested by the co-ordinating committee, in which it is decided how our committee work can most effectively be carried out.
I hope the hon. member withdraws his opposition to this matter, since it is a co-operative arrangement that has been worked out among the various groups here.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the question
before us has nothing to do with the committee on privileges and elections. It seems to me that the health and welfare committee has jumped the gun, and I am suggesting that this matter be held up until it can be decided by the house.


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


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The house must give unanimous consent before a motion can be made for concurrence in the report. Since there is obviously not unanimous agreement I suggest that we do not proceed further.
October 31. 1968	COMMONS



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS-FIRST AND SECOND REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on privileges and elections and moved that the first report be concurred in.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have the same objection.



JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS-FIRST REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland) presented the first report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have the same objection.
[Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF OLYMPIC BRONZE MEDAL WINNER

['I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this bill. The section of the Criminal Code referred to presently reads as follows:\nEveryone who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.\nObviously suicide itself is not an offence, and it therefore seems ludicrous that attempted suicide should be considered an offence. The purpose of this bill is to remove an attempt to commit suicide from the category of ofEences mentioned in the Criminal Code and to restrict it to the field of medicine, its rightful place.\nMotion agreed to and bill read the first time.']
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the house the fact that we have today in the Speaker's gallery Miss Angela Coughlan of the bronze medal winning women's free style relay team. I think we should extend a hearty round of congratulations to her as representative of the great achievements of all our medallists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the excellent young athletes who have just finished representing Canada at the Mexico Olympic Games. They are the finest young athletes our country has produced and they have taken the time and trouble to carry the name of Canada before the eyes of the world, often at great personal expense.

They are all too often unsung heroes, their efforts unnoticed or even belittled unless they win, and this notwithstanding the fact that in most cases they have arrived at world standards of competition entirely through
DEBATES	2245
Presence in Gallery of Olympic Winner their own efforts, unlike the athletes of other countries who have the benefit of massive state support.
For their achievements all Canada applauds them, and I and my government join in the applause. I should like to take particular notice of our fine teams of swimmers and equestrians, who produced five medals for us including one gold. To these athletes go our special thanks for an outstanding job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I ask leave of the house to table an exchange of correspondence between the ambassador and permanent representatives of Canada to the United Nations and the ambassador and permanent representatives of Nigeria to the United Nations dated October 24, relating to the question whether the Nigerian government would or would not oppose flights into rebel-held areas from Sao Tome by churches using Hercules aircraft.


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


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Could I suggest that this be made part of the Hansard record today so we might all have the benefit of reading this material?


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Would the minister indicate whether this is the total correspondence?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. This correspondence arises out of a question directed to me by the hon. member for Greenwood. I passed the question on through our permanent representative at the United Nations to the permanent representative of Nigeria. This is the ambassador's letter, and the reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this correspondence form part of today's record in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents referred to, see appendix.]

October 31, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-123, to amend the Criminal Code (attempted suicide).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Kenneth Robinson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this bill. The section of the Criminal Code referred to presently reads as follows:
Everyone who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Obviously suicide itself is not an offence, and it therefore seems ludicrous that attempted suicide should be considered an offence. The purpose of this bill is to remove an attempt to commit suicide from the category of ofEences mentioned in the Criminal Code and to restrict it to the field of medicine, its rightful place.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him to inform the house as to the basis of Canada's abstention from a vote last night in the trusteeship committee of the United Nations general assembly. The motion before the committee would have enforced economic sanctions against South Africa and Portugal, and would have called on Britain to use force in Rhodesia.


Mitchell William Sharp: Canada's abstention in connection with the resolution voted upon on October 30 in the trusteeship committee, which as the hon. gentleman knows is the fourth committee of the general assembly, arose from the fact that the resolution contained a number of unacceptable paragraphs, including calls for the use of force to which the government is opposed. We did not vote against the resolution because, despite some of its injudicious provisions, its objective was to express dissatisfaction with the present situation in Rhodesia.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I gather from the minister that the government was opposed to armed
[Mr. Speaker.)
intervention in Rhodesia. But what is the position of the government of Canada with regard to the call for sanctions against South Africa and Portugal?


Mitchell William Sharp: We doubt whether this is a practical proposition at the present time.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The government was
awfully hopeful of success two years ago.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: My
question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. On October 29 the minister informed the house that after full consultation with the United States, as he put it, he was able to announce a base price of $1.05 for U.S. corn entering Canada. In view of the statement appearing in the press today by Mr. Orville Freeman, United States secretary for agriculture, indicating that no agreement at all had been reached in connection with the Canadian move, can the minister tell the house with whom, in fact, the agreement he spoke of was reached?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I did not say we had reached agreement with the United States. I said we had held negotiations and discussions with the United States.


William Arnold Peters: Can the minister tell us with whom his officials negotiated, if the discussions were not brought to the attention of the secretary for agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think there is some distinction, at least, to be drawn between discussion and agreement. I said we had held discussions, not that we had reached agreement. The discussions took place between officials of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Trade and Commerce and other government departments concerned, and officials of the United States government.


William Arnold Peters: In view of the statement by Mr. Freeman that the United States would consider retaliation or demands for compensation, will the minister stick by his commitment to the house to maintain the United States import level at $1.05?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We are prepared to continue the discussion with the United States officials
October 31, 1968

covering such questions as compensation or whatever they wish to discuss. I do not think it would be proper for me to give any indication of what we intend to stick by. The announcement made in this house represented government policy, and until we decide otherwise it will remain government policy.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Can the minister assure the house he will make the same arrangements in the case of vegetable oils imported into this country?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. gentleman knows that the subject of vegetable oils and the possibility that such oils have been dumped into this country is now under active investigation by the Department of National Revenue.



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the presence in the galleries of the brilliant athletes who represented Canada at the recent Mexico Olympic Games, does he intend to introduce, during the current session, legislation to help Canadian athletes in general who represent Canada at various international competitions at their own expense, as several athletes did in the recent Mexico Olympic Games?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Perhaps I might answer that question. The government does not contemplate legislation until it has had a chance to study the report of the task force.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliefte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Would h.s government consider instead creating a sports department?


John Carr Munro: That would be a matter of policy to be announced in due course if a decision of that kind were made.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the minister answered that the matter would have to be taken under consideration. Could I ask him to do that?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the pertinent and effective words of the Prime Minister in drawing attention to the presence of Canadian athletes in the gallery and the fact that Canada, represented by them, has done as well under the circumstances as was to have been expected.
In view of the fact that international prestige is measured to a greater degree than ever by success at Olympics, and considering the number of members in this house who have been outstanding athletes, including the Prime Minister-we had wins in the swimming events; we didn't do so well in the diving-would the Prime Minister give consideration to setting up a committee of the house at the earliest possible date so that, as a result of recommendations made by it, young men and women across Canada may be placed in a position that by the time the next Olympics come around they will have had adequate opportunities for training and assistance which will enable Canadian athletes to multiply the number of awards secured by Canada during the Olympics just ended?


Righi Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare just indicated there is a task force dealing with this matter. Its precise purpose is to go about the country and get information of this type. After it has been reported to the minister he will raise the question in cabinet and we will examine the most effective way of dealing with the problem.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is this task force to be chaired by the minister himself?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition should know that the task force has been in operation for three months under the chairmanship of Dr. Harold Rea. The other members are Miss Nancy Greene and Dr. Paul D'esRuisseaux.
[Translation]	*



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.

October 31, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the serious troubles which developed yesterday in Montreal, does the minister intend to take steps to settle the conflict between the Montreal taxi drivers and the Murray Hill company concerning the transportation of passengers to Dorval airport?
I would also ask the minister to tell us whether he intends to appoint a mediator immediately, in order to end the monopoly of the Murray Hill company in Dorval, which is detrimental to the Montreal taxi drivers and contrary to the principle of free competition?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very long answer to this question, and I suggest that I either be given permission to revert to motions to read it or that the house agree to have it taken as read at this stage and included in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister has leave to revert to motions for the purpose of reading his statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, departmental policy in ground transportation at airports is founded on long experience in Canada and abroad. If adequate service to airline passengers is to be provided, ground transportation arrangements must be carefully controlled and planned to ensure service to meet fluctuating and peak demands and availability regardless of weather, or time of day or night.
Quite apart from the lack of availability, over-all higher costs can result to travellers unless the transportation is controlled and regulated in accordance with contractual arrangements, since an uncontrolled open door policy leads to skimming of the cream at busy times, with resultant inadequacy of service and over-all higher costs at other times. Also, services must operate in accordance with provincial and municipal laws relating to licensing and rate regulation.
Within the limits of these objectives it is departmental policy to provide the various types of commercial ground transportation that the public require by one or more concession or contractual arrangements, usually by a single concession. The four main categories are airline bus service, special limousine zone service, meter taxi service and common carrier public transportation service by bus.
(Mr. Valade.]
The concession arrangements at Montreal airport cover the airline bus and limousine service. The concessionaire also experimented with the provision of meter taxi service at the airport, but demand was slight and this particular service has been discontinued, although the matter is again under review. It should be noted in this connection that the bus and limousine service are properly licensed by provincial authorities. Further, any meter taxi service would require to be licensed by Dorval municipal authorities, and the taxi drivers from the city of Montreal who have been involved in the protest apparently do not hold municipal authorization for service at the airport. Common carrier bus service is not available to and from the airport but it is hoped that a responsible common carrier will, at some stage, demonstrate an interest in providing service on a normal commercial basis, as is already done at Toronto airport.
As regards the demonstrations at Dorval it is understood that these were organized by taxi drivers from the city of Montreal. With this group were associated a substantial number of students, whose interest in this subject is less clearly understood, particularly since as far as can be ascertained they do not understand and have not made any attempt to ascertain the facts regarding the nature of and reasons for present policy relating to airport ground transportation.
The demonstrations in the main took place on the road system approaching the airport rather than on airport property. Some violence developed on the part of demonstrators. There was no substantial damage to airport property, but there was some damage to vehicles of the company providing the ground transportation service to and from the airport.
The excellent co-operation and restrained conduct of municipal, provincial and federal police forces assisted materially in keeping the situation under control and preventing it from becoming worse. It is also understood that following the episode at the airport the demonstrators, or at least some of them, turned their attention to other objects in the metropolitan area having nothing to do with aviation.


Georges-J. Valade: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the statement just made by the hon. Minister of Transport does not at all answer my previous questions when I asked him if the government intended to obtain the services of a
October 31, 1968
mediator in order to try avoiding the serious troubles that have developed and are apparently continuing at the Dorval airport?
I am more worried about the fact that the hon. minister does not at all seem to realize the seriousness of a situation which did not develop suddenly and which, on many occasions, was a cause for grievances and correspondence between his department and the Montreal taxi drivers' association.
Furthermore, the hon. minister, in his statement, is trying to minimize the basic problem which is, on the whole, unfair competition against the taxi drivers in the field of free enterprise. Taxi drivers are obviously entitled to protest, Mr. Speaker, that there is at Dorval a monopoly being enjoyed by a firm called Murray Hill. This is the only such situation existing at air terminals all over the world. According to the information I have been able to obtain, no other air terminal in the world has been granted by the governmental or any other authority an exclusive franchise in the matter of transportation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I cannot understand why the hon. minister has not shown a more conciliatory attitude and why he would not try to understand the basic problem which is, in fact, a monopoly enjoyed at the expense of other private interests, free enterprise and taxi drivers, many of whom have a family to support and must earn a living.
Mr. Speaker, I think this matter was brought to the attention of the federal authorities last year. The situation was not so serious then, because a great number of tourists were going to Expo '67. Now that the situation is normal again, I believe that the taxi drivers are in a position where they are unable to do their work and earn a decent living. This problem is basically human and it comes under the federal authorities.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister should immediately appoint a mediator to try to reconcile the parties, in order to find formulas which would enable the two interested parties to agree.
The statement of the hon. minister does not satisfy me; certainly, it will not satisfy the interested parties and I am afraid the situation might worsen.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I would like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that we are on motions, and the
2249
Inquiries of the Ministry members of the opposition parties can make comments on the statement of the hon. minister. If there are no more comments we will revert to questions and I shall give the hon member for Shefford the opportunity to put his question.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make comments at this stage, since the question is often raised in the house and, as we can see, will come up again.
It seems to me that we should ask the interested parties, namely the Murray Hill company and the Association des proprie-taires de taxis de la ville de Montreal, to appear before the committee on transport and communications, so that we might be informed on the two aspects of the question. After that we might make a better decision on the advisability of having a mediator appointed by the federal government in the present case.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development who curiously enough, it seems to me, is the minister reporting for the national capital. Having in mind the reported controversy between the Ontario officials and officials of the city of Ottawa respecting construction of buildings adjacent to the parliament buildings and the planning of the national capital downtown area, when will the minister make a decision as to the setting up of the parliamentary committee to consider all matters concerning the national capital? This committee was approved during the last parliament.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the slightest idea as to when this committee will be established, but it will certainly be done at the appropriate time and I hope it will be soon.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre);: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Pending the setting up of the committee, will he find an appropriate opportunity to make a statement on behalf of the government and the people of



October 31, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada indicating the interest of all the people of Canada in this capital city?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker ,as far as the national capital problem is concerned, it is well known that there is a commission with representatives from the government of Ontario, the federal government and the government of Quebec. It is expected that this committee will report, and we shall then certainly be able to set forth the general policies concerning the national capital.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaiel:
Mr. Speaker, may I preface my supplementary question by congratulating the minister on his very fine statement to the Atlantic provinces' council yesterday. In view of the fact that the provincial governments are co-operating in developing the economies of the Atlantic region has the minister received any representation or blueprint from the Newfoundland government in respect of the development in that area?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that this question is supplementary to the previous question. However, the question has been asked and I will allow the minister to reply.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, I have not received any general plan concerning the development of Newfoundland.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that he is going to need the cooperation of the provinces in developing this plan. Has the minister contacted the province in respect of the development which is planned for the next 15 years?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, before going as far as suggested, the department should at least be set up officially and the minister informed exactly of the powers to be conferred on him by the house.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has visited the city of Sydney and witnessed the wonderful job done by the government of Nova Scotia, is he now in a position to release the Devco report?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the most promising minister on the government benches, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Was the minister announcing the government's list of priorities for regional development in the Atlantic provinces when he stated in Halifax that the big push may call for a multi-million dollar deep water terminal, for faster highway links to central Canada, for cheaper power-perhaps tidal power-and if so when may we expect to see a start made on these necessary and worthwhile projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member knows, he must ask a question directly. He cannot ask the minister to confirm a statement made outside the house.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week I asked the Minister of Labour a question regarding the regulations under the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. I also asked him a question regarding the operation of this legislation in the province of Manitoba. He promised to answer on Wednesday, but yesterday things were pretty crowded and he did not get a chance to do so. I hope he has an answer today.


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker the hon. member asked a question in two parts. The first was whether the regulations in respect of our safety code had been completed. The answer is no. On the other hand, the hon. gentleman will be pleased to know that we are working quite effectively in the province of Manitoba where
October 31, 1968

we have visited 125 industries under federal jurisdiction. I have given priority to the establishment of regulations recognizing the dangers in the mining industry. We are working very assiduously in the Cape Breton area at the present time to complete all the regulations pertaining to mines in that area.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question.
At the beginning of October 1968, at a meeting of the United Nations, he met the foreign minister of France regarding the cooperation of France and Quebec in the field of satellite telecommunication. He then promised to present a statement to the house on that matter. Therefore, I ask the hon. minister whether such negotiations are under way between the representative of France and those of Canada, in the field of satellite telecommunication.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has made direct representations to the government of France on this subject.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether a charge has been laid against anyone in reference to the passport issued to Mr. Ray and, if a charge has been laid, what court is it before and what is the nature of the charge?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add at the moment to what the Solicitor General said to the hon. member in reply to his question on Tuesday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask this question of the Solicitor General. With the greatest respect, I understand the Minister of Justice is looking after the administration of justice in this country. Has a charge been laid against the person recommending
29180-142^
Inquiries of the Ministry the application of Mr. Ray and, if so, what kind of a charge and what court is it before?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add to what has already been said by the Solicitor General.


Donald MacInnis: You couldn't find Hal Banks either.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. gentleman is not going to ask the same question a third time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, let me put it this way. Is the Minister of Justice on some ground of federal policy refusing to answer the question?


John Napier Turner: On the same ground already advanced by the Solicitor General on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should think the hon. member would agree that this is becoming a debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on a point of order. I know about the rule in relation to ten o'clock, but it does seem to me that this kind of question has been asked on several occasions and ministers of justice have always given information. I am not asking about the court procedure, and I did not ask the question of the Solicitor General but rather of the Minister of Justice. I can only suggest with the greatest respect that this minister has something to hide.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in respect of a matter of long standing. What steps if any has the minister taken to deal with the complaint from Calgary lodged some months ago that fudgsicles-ice cream bars-made by the Woodland Dairy of Edmonton are half an ounce less than the quantity printed on the label, and the public is thereby being defrauded?
October 31. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that we all return here at ten o'clock to discuss iudgsicles.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I say with respect that this matter has already been worked on, worked on and worked on through correspondence with no result, and this is the only place I know of where I can now refer to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully recognize the situation and appreciate that the matter is of some importance and of some urgency. If the hon. member wishes to have the matter considered later on at the time of adjournment she might give me the appropriate notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that some Canadian subsidiaries of American parent companies are refusing to put into operation the payroll deduction plan for employees to buy Canada savings bonds?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: This, of course, is a voluntary matter, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of the particular circumstances raised by my hon. friend but I would be very pleased to receive information from him in this regard.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will supply the minister with the name of the company. Would the minister ask all these companies to put into operation the guide lines which the government announced some time ago in order that they may be good, corporate Canadian citizens?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to receive more information from my hon. friend. I do not think the guide lines dealt with Canada savings bonds, but I would like to encourage all companies in Canada to allow their employees to purchase Canada savings bonds through payroll deductions and, indeed, I have written a good many letters in this regard.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. I express some concern and surprise in this regard and ask the minister whether he is prepared to seek the consent of the house to revert to motions at this time in order to make a statement concerning current reports involving himself, certain video recording equipment and Mr. Jeffrey Sterling, a Canadian with a substantial interest in the broadcasting industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that I must have some reservation about the question he is now asking. I would advise him that an hon. member has proposed, by way of a written question, a question along the same lines as the one now asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. I could not find my way clear to accept the question as asked because it is a well known rule of this house that questions cannot be asked which imply accusations of misconduct against any other hon. member. The only way this can be done is by putting the question directly by way of a question of privilege and, as the hon. member knows, along the lines of the precedents which are well known to the house, to make a specific charge. I am afraid that is the only way this kind of question can be asked.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with your ruling. I just wanted to clarify something and I certainly did not intend to imply any misconduct whatsoever on the part of the minister. I am simply asking the minister whether he would not wish to revert to motions in order to clear his own name. I did not impugn it; he impugned it himself.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to what Your Honour has just said I find it a little difficult to see how under the circumstances it would be possible for the minister himself to be impugned as suggested. Perhaps Your Honour has not seen nor heard of these things, but I would ask you to take judicial notice of them. There are some rumours or stories circulating in connection with the Minister of Transport in his position as Minister of Transport. The hon. member is merely asking whether the
October 31, 19G8	COMMONS DEBATES	2253
minister will make a statement. The minister may quite possibly clear himself completely, and in the interest of the discharge of his duties to the house I think this should be done. There is no possibility of making a charge.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has risen on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 have been given to understand that questions of this nature were accepted if they were written questions. For some reason or another these questions have been refused. The question now arises, what is the difference between this scandal and the past furniture scandal?



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been made aware of the wildcat walkout yesterday by longshoremen in Montreal, and would he advise the house whether anything has been done to correct the grievances complained of and to guarantee that the port will remain in operation until the end of the shipping season?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware of the fact that this was not a wildcat strike but a study session in the true sense of the word in that the members met to discuss unusual suggestions of the employers to clean up the heavy backlog of cargo in the port of Montreal. This is the first work stoppage this year, which is a pretty good record. Further, the Minister of Labour does not consider his role to be such that he should be interfering every day in day to day disputes between management and labour.


William Warren Allmand: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has been assured that the port will continue to operate and there will be no further study sessions until the end of the season.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot assure the hon. member of that, Mr. Speaker. That is not my responsibility, but I can reassure the hon. member that labour-management relations have never been as promising as they are this year, which I think is something to consider.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My understanding was that when the minister opened the washroom facilities on the Montreal waterfront last month everything was in order. Is this not the case?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there were other sections of the rest room that needed opening and I should have invited the hon. member to open them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Next time I hope the minister will.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In connection with the federal-provincial conference on consumer affairs, will the minister advise the house whether a consensus has been reached with the provinces on the proposed federal securities legislation?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the officials met for a one day conference and the discussions they had were extremely useful. I think progress can be reported on developing a consensus between federal and provincial officials.


William Marvin Howe: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it still the intention of the government to proceed with the securities legislation this session and, if so, will the government now take parliament into its confidence, as it has the provinces, and let us see the proposed bill?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we do not at the moment have a bill to show hon. members.



ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES BUILDING HOMES FOR AGED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the

October 31, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the cessation of the winter works program will create a real hardship on municipalities which had planned on building homes for the aged with the help of these funds, does the government have any plans whereby they can assist in these worthy and urgent projects?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have no additional plans except the additional funds that we are putting into training and retraining programs this winter.


James Aloysius McGrath: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of, and is he doing anything about, the very serious and rising rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, we welcomed the statement by the minister on Monday that large amounts of money would be spent by his department in the coming winter. Could the minister tell us whether he is willing to make a statement in the house as to the nature of the expenditures and, if so, when this statement will be forthcoming?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to provide that information, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the promise made during the election campaign that the new Digby-Saint John ferry service would come into operation soon. Could the minister now tell us whether we are to receive this service soon?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the C.P.R. has received tenders for the new ship but a contract has not yet been entered into. As my hon. friend knows, the arrangement that is being worked out with the water transportation committee of the Canadian Transport Commission is that the C.P.R. will acquire and provide a ship and the government will assist in arriving at an arrangement between the two parties. As far as

I know everything is proceeding quite satisfactorily. I can reassure my hon. friend that the long-awaited service will not be delayed further.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Will the minister tell us how much longer we have to wait?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As long as it takes to build the ship and the terminal, approximately.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).
With regard to the Minister's statement as to the establishment of a federal educational broadcasting agency, would the Minister tell the house whether he received representations from the province of Quebec or from other provinces?


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, we did receive representations. As far as I know, we did not get any from the province of Quebec but we received some from a few other provinces.


André-Gilles Fortin: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State not table the text of those representations for the future guidance of the members?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this would be somewhat difficult. As a matter of fact, this concerns two provinces, represented by groups of officials from the Department of Education. They came to make verbal representations and discuss the matter with us, by word of mouth, so there are really no documents I could table in the house.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: I intended to put a question to the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Mcllraith), but in view of his absence I shall direct it to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Turner).
We are told that the persons responsible for the school integration movement at Saint-Leonard have been for some time under the
October 31. 1968

constant surveillance of the R.C.M.P. I should like the minister to tell us whether the services of the R.C.M.P. have been requested by the municipal authorities of Saint-Leonard or by the Quebec provincial authorities. If so, can he tell us the purpose of this surveillance?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice and discuss it with the Solicitor General.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister give the house a detailed report in reply to this question within the next few days?


John Napier Turner: I shall convey the suggestion of the hon. member to the Solicitor General.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation report just released which shows an alarming drop in housing starts during September. Will the minister say whether there has been a change in the government's position as stated by the minister last August that Canada will achieve 185,000 housing starts in 1968? Is this still the government's objective and expectation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will recall that the government took steps a month or so ago to make moneys available so that an additional 10,000 units could be started this year. At that time, as I recall it, the announcement was rather cynically received on the other side of the house. However, I am still hopeful that the moneys which are currently being made available by the chartered banks and other lending institutions, in addition to that which is made available directly by C.M.H.C., will allow us to achieve the very high figure which I had indicated earlier.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to be unnecessarily persistent, but the minister stated he is hopeful. Is this still his expectation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Sometimes there is a very fine line between hope and expectation. It is difficult to estimate because of the uncertainty
Inquiries of the Ministry in respect of the capital markets. I cannot guarantee what the results will be. I hope, however, that we will achieve the high figure previously indicated. If not, I can assure my hon. friend that if he will allow me to carry on with the housing inquiry that is now under way in the interests of the Canadian people, we will try to bring forward remedial measures which will allow us to reach an even higher figure next year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am not a particularly combative individual and I am sure I do not need to remind the minister that he need not seek my permission to engage in his present sojourn.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I had understood some of your followers were disapproving.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, might I take this opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the minister and arises from a statement made in Vancouver to the effect that more research is needed into Canada's housing problems because the most important thing learned by the task force to date is how little we really know about the subject. Is it still the intention of the government to table the task force report within 30 days of the completion of hearings and to bring in housing legislation very shortly thereafter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the annual rate of housing starts fell to 155,000 in the month of September, can the minister indicate whether the government is prepared to make more money available for housing if this becomes necessary in order to meet his objective of 185,000 units this year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope this will not be
necessary.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question asked

October 31, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry yesterday by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). The hon. member inquired about the extension of the season at Churchill. The answer is that the firm of Hedlin-Menzies of Winnipeg was engaged by the Department of Transport to conduct a study concerning the possibility of extending the season at the port of Churchill, Manitoba. It is expected that this report will be completed by mid-November. The report was not intended as a public document but when it is available further consideration will be given to the hon. member's request.



AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
VAL D'OR, QUE.-INQUIRY AS TO OPENING On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday notice was taken of a question asked by the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Tetrault) requesting information concerning when the inauguration of Val D'Or airport will take place. The answer is that the airport has been operational since October 1, 1968. Some details, such as a concession agreement, have to be settled before the official opening. It is expected that these agreements will be completed in the near future.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Does the government plan to upgrade Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments to realistic levels in view of the severe loss of income in areas where there has been crop failure and inasmuch as the present farm legislation does not in any way remedy the situation or help the farmers who do not have crops?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are no amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act under consideration to deal with the 1968 crop season.
SASKATCHEWAN-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a communication from the council of the city of Saskatoon requesting the federal

government to take such action as is necessary to minimize the serious economic consequences of the existing harvest conditions in the province of Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is neither in order nor acceptable from a procedural standpoint to ask whether or not a communication has been received.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received an urgent communication protesting the imminent lay-off of 30 per cent of the C.N.R. security police in the Atlantic region? If so, what action is the government taking to preserve the jobs of these people and to ensure adequate protection of public property?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, a communication has been received. I have not yet had time to refer it to the officials of the Canadian National Railways for their comments.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Would the Minister of Transport confer with the proper officials of the C.N.R. and ask them to reconsider their position?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister use his good offices to get in touch with the presidents of both our Canadian railways in an effort to ensure that railway passenger service is restored immediately between the city of Toronto and the city of New York? I ask this question in view of the fact that all passenger service has been discontinued between these two major cities and in view of the conditions at Kennedy airport, New York, both administrative and weather-wise.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation rather than asked a question. I can only assume that it has been noted.
October 31, 1968



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since the area between Drummondville and Saint-Hyacinthe would be an ideal place for an international airport and as he has received some briefs about the matter, could the minister tell the house if he intends to make a thorough study on the possibility of establishing such an airport in that area?


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



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Some time ago I asked him to look into an allegation of discrimination apparently indicated by a young lady regarding Eskimos. Is he now prepared to make a statement in that regard inasmuch as he did undertake to look into the matter?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having raised the problem of discrimination. I think all hon. members of the house would applaud his efforts. Since my answer is rather lengthy I would prefer to read it on motions on Monday. In the meantime, I will send a copy to the hon. member so he can be prepared. I want to assure the house that there is no evidence of discrimination but on the contrary there seems to have been a sincere attempt on the part of the previous and present Ministers of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make sure that just the opposite is true.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the parliamentary secretary to the Postmaster General. Is he aware of an announcement made yesterday in St. John's by a private citizen to the effect that a new post office is to be built in that city? Was the private citizen in question authorized by the department to make this announcement? This private citizen, sir, was supposed to have been speaking on behalf of the Minister of Defence Production.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point or order, Mr. Speaker.


Walter C. Carter: I would address my question to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, the hon. member has asked a question.


Some hon. Members:: There was no answer.


Righi Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The Postmaster General is not here today.


Walter C. Carter: I rise on a point of order, sir. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of his government to have private citizens with no official status make announcements of this nature? This has happened twice in as many months in my riding. I ask the Prime Minister, is he responsible for the policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have asked the Postmaster General to ensure that questions relating to his department will be answered tomorrow.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so. Earlier this afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs obtained from the house leave to table correspondence between the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations and the Nigerian ambassador to the United Nations. This correspondence contains a reference to myself by name and contains an implication that I have misstated questions of fact to this house when I made a reference to an interview with Dr. Arikpo in New York. The fact is, as Hansard will show, that the letter from the Canadian ambassador does not correctly refer to the statement made by me and the answer by the Nigerian ambassador



October 31, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry is therefore meaningless. His answer in no way constitutes a denial of my statement.
The letter from our Canadian ambassador is dated October 24, 1968 and is addressed to His Excellency the ambassador and permanent representative of the mission of Nigeria to the United Nations. Perhaps I had better read it since it is quite brief:
Dear Ambassador:
My minister, the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, has asked me to enquire urgently about the role of the churches in respect of relief supplies. One of the leading critics of the government, Mr. Brewin, whom you will recall came to New York and met with Dr. Arikpo, claims that he was told that the federal government would not oppose flights into rebel held areas from Sao Tome by churches using Canadian Hercules aircraft. This statement does not appear to have been made to Mr. Sharp himself but may have been made during the visit of certain Canadian parliamentarians when they met the commissioner for external affairs.
Mr. Sharp would be very grateful if you could let him know, as a matter of urgency, whether in fact such a statement has been made or whether the federal Nigerian government would be likely to permit such an arrangement.
I do not need to read the reply which in effect says that the statement was not made at all by the Nigerian commissioner or any other member of the Nigerian delegation. The statement attributed to me in this matter is completely inaccurate as could well have been ascertained by reference to Hansard. I made this statement publicly in this house and it is contained in Hansard. First of all, I should like to refer to page 1650 of Hansard, and quote the statement:
Mr. Speaker, this supplementary question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the difficulty in obtaining permission in respect of the airlift from Fernando Po, has the minister consulted with the Red Cross concerning the statement made by the foreign minister of Nigeria that there would be no opposition to flights in from Sao Tome by the churches using Canadian planes if the Red Cross would supervise or at least look into the operation?
I point out to the house and to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is quite different from the statement attributed to me in the letter I have read. This is a conditional statement. This matter was referred to again, by me as reported on page 1939 of Hansard for October 23:
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs confirm a statement made by Dr. Arikpo in New York on October 8, in the presence of the minister's parliamentary secretary and several other members of parliament including the hon. member for Egmont and myself, to the effect that there would be no objection on the part of the Nigerian government to mercy flights from Sao Tome to Biafra provided the Red Cross inspected the cargo?

Again, the matter was referred to as reported on page 2032 of Hansard for October 25:
Would the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not a determined effort is being made to check the statement I have made on a number of occasions, and which has also been made by the hon. member for Egmont, that on Tuesday, October 8, the High Commissioner for Nigeria agreed to the supplies being flown in from Sao Tomfe with one condition only, that they be inspected by the Red Cross? Why is further consent needed? Will the Prime Minister tell us that?
On the three occasions on which I referred to this subject I made it quite clear that the statement made by Dr. Arikpo was a conditional statement based on agreement that the Red Cross would supervise the operation. I do not at all blame the ambassador, who happens to be a personal friend of mine, but the statement made in the letter made no reference whatever to the condition which I mentioned on each occasion that the flights be supervised by the Red Cross. I say to this house that so far as I am concerned, and there are plenty of witnesses who are ready to support this statement as reported by me and not as contained in the letter, the statement was in fact made in answer to a question by me to Dr. Arikpo publicly. I repeat the statement here. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that unless he is ready to accept my word on this matter I will ask that the matter be referred to the standing committee on external affairs where evidence can be received and sworn to, not only by me but by his own parliamentary secretary and others. I suggest that in future, when letters are sent out on matters as important as this, some effort should be made to make them accurate and fair.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the question was put by our ambassador in New York in the way it was in the letter. However, I should like to say to the hon. gentleman and to the house that if the question had been put in the other form, as it was put orally by me yesterday to Dr. Arikpo when I met him in New York, the answer would have been the same. He said he did not make any such statement. I have spoken to my parliamentary secretary about it and he denies that any statement in that form was made. If it would be of any value to the hon. member and to the house, I would be glad to put the question more precisely, quoting the words from Hansard. I did use them on the telephone to Mr. Ignatieff, but when he put
October 31, 1968

the question in the letter he did not add those words.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I can assure the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that it would make no difference which way they are put, but I would be very happy to have another letter sent quoting him directly on the question. Therefore I hope there is no question of privilege involved. It was not done on purpose. It was not a question put to Mr. Arikpo with any intention of deceiving him. He understood the connotation perfectly.
May I just add that the fundamental reason that objection was taken to the flight from Sao Tome is that the Portuguese government does not object to arms shipments going from that port, whereas Equatorial Guinea and the previous Spanish authorities permitted only food to be flown from Fernando Po.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this question of privilege to make one other point very briefly. What is involved here is not merely an innocent misrepresentation-I accept the minister's statement-of what was said by the hon. member for Greenwood. What is involved here is a very important point of policy of concern both to the members of this house and to the people of Canada. What is involved is whether or not the planes could have been used in a way other than the way they are being used.
When the minister rises and says that even if he had asked in another way the answer would have been the same, he is making certain that he is getting the answer that he wants. That is not the way in which this kind of negotiation can be carried on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether hon. members wish to pursue this matter further. The hon. member for Greenwood has made his point on the question of privilege. He himself has stated what was the situation and according to the rules of the house all hon. members are bound to accept the statement that has been made by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to pass over the matter, but it seems to me that the statement that has been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs only compounds the matter. He now directly states that the statement that I made in this house several times and that I repeated today is not a correct statement of fact. He is accepting
Inquiries of the Ministry the word of these other gentlemen from Nigeria.
Because I think that my credibility and the credibility of other members of this house, including that of the hon. member for Egmont, is in question, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the question of the statements attributed to Andrew Brewin, M.P., and referred to in correspondence tabled this day by the Secretary of State for External Affairs be referred to the standing committee on external affairs and national defence.
I move that motion, Mr. Speaker, subject, of course, to Your Honour ruling that there is a prima facie case of privilege involved here.


Mr. Speaker:: I have before me the
proposed motion of the hon. member for Greenwood. I have some doubt that it is a motion of privilege; it appears to be more in the nature of a substantive motion. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to have a look at the matter a little more closely and to seek guidance. I would then be in a position later to give a ruling on the point raised by the hon. member by way of a question of privilege.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house is willing to have the government house leader indicate the nature of the business for the ensuing week so that we can be guided by this information.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the intention would be that on Monday next we would call the committee of supply and refer to it the estimates with respect to supply and services. If they are dealt with that day then the estimates of the Department of Public Works would be called.
On Tuesday the budget debate will resume, and that debate will be called the following three days, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. If the budget debate is not disposed of by then, the final day for the budget debate will be Tuesday, November 12.
I thought it might be helpful to hon. members if I gave them an indication of the work that remains to be done between now and the end of 1968. Including both today and Friday,

October 31, 1968
Division
December 20, there are 36 sitting days before Christmas. Two additional days will be gained if we continue over into the first part of Christmas week. Of this total, 16 days will be required to complete the business of supply. The maximum time provided for the budget debate is 6 days. Time must be made available for consideration by the house of the report of the special committee on procedure set up on September 24.
It is impossible to state conclusively all the bills that will require passage before the end of 1968. However, if the program for the January to July, 1969, part of this session is not to be badly jeopardized, before the end of 1968 we should deal with the following items: No. 2 on today's order paper, the budget resolutions and bills relating to changes in the customs tariff and anti-dumping; No. 4 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-120 relating to the official languages act; No. 6 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-110 relating to the Farm Credit Act; No. 7 on today's order paper, BUI No. C-112 relating to the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act; No. 13 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-102 relating to the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act; and No. 24 on today's order paper relating to C.N.R. financing.
It would be our hope, Mr. Speaker, that we could call the resolution stage only of item No. 30 on the order paper with respect to the freshwater fisheries so that the terms of the proposed marketing scheme would be available to provincial governments and other interested persons.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will be bringing forward the bill to amend the Criminal Code, and we should like to make as much progress on that item as possible before the end of the year.



FARM CREDIT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson for the third reading of Bill No. C-110, to amend the Farm Credit Act, and the amendment (page 2238) thereto of Mr. Gleave.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.	
The house divided	on the main motion
(Mr. Olson) which was agreed to on the following division:	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Allmand	Comtois
Anderson	Corbin
Badanai	Cote (Richelieu)
Barrett	Crossman
Basford	Cullen
Bechard	Cyr
Benson	Davis
Blair	Deachman
Blouin	Deakon
Borrie	Douglas
Boulanger	Drury
Breau	Dube
Brown	Durante
Buchanan	Emard
Caccia	Ethier
Cadieux (Labelle)	Forest
Cafik	Forget
Cantin	Foster
Chappell	Francis
'Clermont	Gendron
Division
Gervais	Murphy
Gibson	O'Connell
Gillespie	Olson
Goode	Orange
Gray	Osier
Guay (St. Boniface)	Otto
Guilbault	Ouellet
Haidasz	Pelletier
Hellyer	Penner
Hogarth	Perrault
Honey	Pilon
Hopkins	Portelance
Howard (Okanagan	Pringle
Boundary)	Reid
Hymmen	Richard
Isabelle	Robinson
Jerome	Rock
Kierans	Roy (Timmins)
Laflamme	Roy (Laval)
Laing	Serre
Lang	Sharp
Langlois	Smerchanski
Laniel	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Leblanc (Laurier)	Stafford
LeBlanc (Rimouski)	Stanbury
Lefebvre	Stewart (Cochrane)
Legault	St-Pierre
Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean) Sullivan	
Lind	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Loiselle	Tolmie
Macdonald (Rosedale)	Trudeau
MacEachen	Trudel
MacGuigan	Turner (London East)
Mackasey	Turner (Ottawa-
McBride	Carleton)
Mcllraith	Wahn
McNulty	Watson
Mahoney	Weatherhead
Marceau	Whelan
Marchand (Langelier)	Whicher
Morison	Whiting
Munro	Yanakis-122.
 NAYS Messrs:
Asselin	Knowles (Winnipeg
Baldwin	North Centre)
Beaudoin	Lambert (Edmonton
Bell	West)
Bigg	Laprise
Brewin	Latulippe
Broadbent	La Salle
Burton	Lewis
Carter	Lundrigan
Coates	MacDonald (Egmont)
Comeau	MacEwan
Crouse	Maclnnis (Cape Breton-
Dionne	East Richmond)
Dumont	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Fairweather	(V ancouver-Kings way;
Flemming	MacLean
Forrestall	MacRae
Fortin	McCleave
Gauthier	McCutcheon
Gilbert	McGrath
Gleave	McIntosh
Godin	McKinley
Grills	McQuaid
Hales	Mather
Harding	Matte
Harkness	Mazankowski
Horner	Monteith
Howe	Moore
October 31. 1968

The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert
Moores	Scott
Muir (Lisgar)	Skoberg
Nesbitt	Skoreyko
Noble	Stanfield
Paproski	Stewart (Marquette)
Peddle	Tetrault
Peters	Thomas (Moncton)
Ricard	Thompson (Red Deer)
Ritchie	Thomson (Battleford-
Rondeau	Kindersley)
Rose	Valade
Rynard	Winch
Saltsman	Woolliams-78.
Schumacher


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been certain discussions among the various groups in the house and I think agreement might be found for a special order today dealing with the question of the budget, namely, that for the purposes of section 2 of standing order 58, upon the calling of government order No. 2, that is, the budget debate, as the second item of government business later this day this day's sitting shall be counted as the first of the six allotted days for the said debate, and that the provisions of standing order 15(4) shall apply to suspend the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business this day. If that is agreeable to the house generally I think we might make an order of the house to that effect, and after the order is made then call item No. 2 on today's order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 22, consideration of the motion (page 1677) 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.
[DOT] (4:40 pm.)
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on October 22 we listened for some considerable length of time to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) make what should be an annual analysis in the budget of
(Mr. Speaker.]
the financial state of the country. Usually this is made after careful preparation. We in the opposition merely get the opportunity of seeing the text of his remarks as he delivers it, and there is certain difficulty in replying to a budget speech. We can only comment on those features of it that are patently self-evident. For instance, the 2 per cent across the board increase in income tax with a ceiling of $120 is one of those features. Time has provided us with the opportunity of looking at the fine print of the budget and also to hear some of the minister's extra-curricular remarks in respect of the budget and the preparation thereof.
Let me say at the outset, having now examined the budget in detail and having heard some of the unofficial explanations, that I do not take back one word of what I have said about the budget. In fact, one should underline the criticisms that were advanced. As a matter of fact, I would not now be quite so generous with some of the complimentary remarks I made when dealing with the changes in the estate tax and the gift tax. We have now had an opportunity to see the fine print in this respect, and I must say the minister has dealt a very serious blow to a number of principles in relation to estate tax. He has now made generosity very onerous in so far as gifts are concerned.
I do not intend to deal with all the aspects of the budget. Many of my colleagues have undertaken a study of particular phases of it and in the next few days during the budget debate they will develop these criticisms.
The salient fact which came to light in the budget was the lack of credibility on the part of the government in respect of the financial position of the country. I must say now, after considering it for many days, that the government's position is no more credible than it was on budget night, and no degree of explanation can make it any better
We all know that the purpose of the budget is to present an analysis of the financial position of the country and the financial status of the government. It must be made after an analysis of the problems and the options open to the government to deal with such problems. The budget develops the means chosen by the government to deal with those problems and carry out government programs.
How does this budget measure up? I put it to hon. members that outside of imposing the heaviest increase in peacetime taxes in Canada, it will be a dismal failure. I would hazard a prediction at this time that within
October 31, 1968

six months we are likely to get another hard jolt to taxation or we will have to face a further deficit of alarming proportions. It is my conclusion that the government has no more control over expenditures than it did before the presentation of this budget. Any budgetary forecasts which have been made are just as credible as previous ones.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He said he would balance the budget.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And he guaranteed it
personally.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When we look at what was said it pays to go back to see what ministers of finance have said before as well as what the present Minister of Finance said about what the government was going to do to control expenditures and bring in revenue in order to balance the budget.
Let us go back to October 31 of 1967 to see what the present Minister of Finance said in reply to my former colleague who represented Carleton. This is recorded on page 3715 of Hansard for that day. He said:
The hon. member for Carleton spoke this afternoon about priorities and asked what are the government's priorities? Since we became the government we have instituted a system involving a five year forecast under which all departments are now submitting their objectives five years in advance.
Of what advantage is that, Mr. Speaker? These are just figures on paper, for what that is worth.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are only out $400 million.


Edgar John Benson: Four per cent; that is pretty good.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But 100 per cent wrong.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister then added:
Let me assure the hon. member that when it becomes necessary or when we deem it necessary or in the interests of the country to limit expenditures, this is not done in a haphazard method. I am sure he knows that, having had vast experience on the Treasury Board. What is done is that the proposed expenditures of each department are considered carefully and only selected items of the various departments are removed or revised.
If that has been the practice, why are we in the mess in which we now find ourselves? The whole new system of forecasting government expenditures and programs for five years with all the technocracy of the technocrats, the computers and paraphernalia that
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert the minister has boasted about has brought the government to the position where they were wrong within a few months to the extent of $730 million in their expenditures.
Let me then move to page 3776 of Hansard for November 2, 1967. The then minister of finance, Mr. Sharp, in answer to the former hon. member for Carleton said:
No, Mr. Speaker. Estimates are simply a ceiling on the amounts which can be spent. They are not always spent, and they very seldom are.
The departments do not spend the estimates? Gracious me, they overspent them by $730 million this year and in the previous year they overspent them by $875 million.


Edgar John Benson: That is almost as bad as 1958.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have used the figure $730 million, but the minister has yet to consider the supplementary estimates for 1968-69.


Edgar John Benson: They are included in the forecast.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says they are included but we will see when the final supplementaries come in at the end of March.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You will bring in a whole new set of supplementary estimates.


Edgar John Benson: That will be next year.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On November 30, 1967, the former minister of finance made this forecast as reported at page 4905 of Hansard for that date:
The best preliminary forecast I can make of the yield next fiscal year of our revenues under our current tax laws-which of course at this early date is more uncertain than is usual in normal springtime budgets, is about $9,700 million. With our expenditures at the level of $10,300 million where we have decided to hold them, apart from medicare and Expo, our budget deficit would be $600 million. I believe we can and should aim to eliminate most of this deficit.
That was what the former minister of finance said on November 30. At page 5171 of Hansard for November 7 the present Minister of Finance in his famous intervention said:
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) introduced his supplementary budget proposals last week, he indicated that I would follow up on his remarks relating to expenditures and provide the house with further details as to the efforts the government has been making to restrain its planned expenditures for 1968-69 within a prescribed ceiling.
2264	COMMONS
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Then he said:
I am happy to honour that commitment tonight and to provide the house at the same time with information as to the steps which the government is taking to effect a substantial reduction in the rate of growth of the public service of Canada.
At page 5178, in the same speech, the Minister of Finance said:
There have been many demands from the opposition side of the house and from other quarters during recent weeks and months that the government reveal full details as to what cuts it is making and how it intends to achieve the containment of its over-all budgetary expenditures within this $10.3 billion ceiling.
On the same page the minister said:
The present indications are that main estimates as printed and presented will ram somewhat in excess of $10 billion but less than the $10.3 billion mentioned by the Minister of Finance. Later, there will, of course, be unavoidable supplementary estimates to reckon with, throughout the course of fiscal year 1968-69.
The minister has just told me that his budgetary forecast for the balance of the fiscal year will not be subject to supplementary estimates, but back in December he said the figures he had given us would be subject to supplementary estimates. We know that. This is the normal practice; so why try to tell us that the figures the minister has given take into account supplementary estimates? They cannot. The minister cannot tell us what the supplementary estimates will be. Then he said:
These may well run the gross total of estimates, together with statutory appropriations, as high as $10.5 billion;-
He was a little short still, because his main expenditures are running higher than that. Then he said:
-but, as past experience shows, not less than 2 per cent of this authority will be destined to lapse unspent because of circumstances beyond the control of the departments concerned. The deduction of this lapse of 2 per cent or $200 million will bring the actual budgetary expenditure, we expect, for 1963-69 within the projected target figure, announced by the Minister of Finance, of $10.3 billion.
I shall have something to say about these percentage figures in respect of forecasts of expenditures and revenue and just how far the minister himself said he missed the target. Here is the real climax, Mr. Speaker. As reported at page 6663 of Hansard, on February 13 last the Minister of Finance, in answer to a question asked by the former hon. member for Ontario, Mr. Starr, had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to guarantee to the house that after the supplementary estimates are

DEBATES	October 31. 1968
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.
The man who was speaking is the Minister of Finance. This is why I say that the credibility of this whole budgetary exercise has been placed in jeopardy-indeed, not only in jeopardy but it has been completely thrown out.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is no credibility; that is the answer.


Mr. Harkness:: Guarantees are not worth anything.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hope to read later from an interview the minister had on a well known television program. I understand that the word "guarantee" will be found blazoned across the minister's chest when he dies. That word has now been seared into his chest. Coming back to the points I made on budget night, Mr. Speaker, the government had to recognize certain problems that the country is facing. As I said, the purpose of a budget is to analyse the fiscal problems of the country, government programs, and to provide the means whereby we can deal with those problems.
What problems do we have? I will go through them very briefly. First of all there is the problem of sorting out priorities as between Canada's needs for health, education and social services. This has not been done, although now as a belated exercise the Minister of Finance has larded his speech with remarks about planning, priorities, and so forth. This is not the first time the government has done this because the last budget speech had something to say about priorities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is an annual speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a matter of fact, when we suggested that something concrete could have been done about this situation we were pooh-poohed. I am sure my leader will have something to say about this matter when he participates in the debate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, sir!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In addition, when it comes to planning these priorities it is obvious that the government has not a penny left for the construction of additional hospitals or for the training of additional doctors and nurses. Yet it not only insists upon but uses a blackjack to force the provinces into its own plan of medicare not that of the
October 31, 1968

provinces, but its own plan of medicare. Yet the government has not made any provision for the provinces to be able to discharge their responsibilities. It is not the federal government that gets it in the neck when we are short of doctors, hospitals and nurses; it is the provincial governments. I am sure the Minister of Finance will not have a very easy time explaining the federal government's attitude to the ministers of finance of the provinces when he meets them starting on Monday and Tuesday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Poor fellow.


Gerald William Baldwin: He has bought a large bottle of aspirin already.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is one of the problems the budget should have been able to sort out. Second, there is the question of inflation. This budget places no curb whatsoever on inflation. After all, there is a big deficit that has to be financed by bonds. Again we will be operating on government credit, and that is no curb on inflation.
So far as the 2 per cent tax boost is concerned I ask, where is it concentrated? It is concentrated on the production workers, those people who are earning under $8,000 a year. Many senior officers of major Canadian corporations have indicated that they anticipate that at the very next round of wage negotiations there will be a demand to cover precisely this point of income tax deductions at source. The working man is very conscious of this point of deducting income tax at source. It is brought home to him very quickly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The postal increases, too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will very shortly talk about the postal increases being tax increases too. There is another feature of the budget that increases the cost of business and contributes to inflation. I refer to the provision for a further acceleration of the payment of corporation tax. I will discuss that matter later. This will add to the cost of doing business, and therefore up will go prices. This will be a further, shall I say, push for inflation.
I must apologize to the house, Mr. Speaker, because the other night I used the figure, I believe, of 153.6 as the cost of living index for the month of August and I have found that my statistical information was incorrect.


Edgar John Benson: That is not unusual.
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I find in the latest statistical summary of the Bank of Canada that the total index for consumer prices as of September was 156.4. As a matter of fact, 153.6 was the figure somewhere between March and April. In January of 1968 the consumer index stood at 152.6 and in September it was 156.4. We have already moved up 3.8 points and the year is far from finished. It will be interesting to see what the final cost of living index will be for this year.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We hear talk about inflation. I should like to make a brief reference to a statement which was prepared and delivered in an admonitory tone by the governor of the Bank of Canada in Victoria on October 17 this year. Let me read a few brief excerpts from Mr. Rasminsky's speech:
Taking the whole period since say 1960, our record with regard to costs and prices looked relatively good by comparison with other countries, rapidly than those of most of our major trading partners, including the United States. Indeed, by the autumn of last year we seemed to have developed an inflation psychology in this country. I tried to draw attention to this problem in a speech in Winnipeg last November. At that time I expressed the view that it was essential o break inflaionary expectations by making it clear beyond doubt that inflation would not be accepted as a way of life in Canada and that this was the most urgent task of public policy.
What has been the result? So far as this government is concerned, since last November to the present time the cost of living has gone up 5 points. I do not see any indication that the government has tried some of the things it might have. Because of the actions it has taken in the past years and some it did not take it has found itself powerless to deal with the problem of inflation. I think this is the number one problem in so far as the economy of this country is concerned. The governor of the Bank of Canada gave ample notice that this is the most urgent task in respect of public policy. Yet the answer by the government was that they had a leadership race and then had to go on the gallop for an election instead of being here to deal with these problems. All during that time we have seen inflation increase more and more rapidly. I wonder what we will see by Christmas time? I am sure there will be a real Christmas present in the stockings of the old age pensioners and those people who are on fixed incomes in this country when the final figures are known concerning the cost of living in 1968.
October 31, 19G8
2266	COMMONS
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert
Mr. Rasminsky continued:
The worsening of our cost and price position does appear to have weakened our capacity to withstand the shocks from abroad that we have had to face. The first of these came on November 18 when sterling was devalued.
I do not intend to go into this speech, chapter and verse, because of the time limitation.
I will not go through the tribulations in respect of our Canadian dollar over the past nine months. These things are well documented. I would recommend the speech of Mr. Rasminsky to all hon. members because it shows just how difficult it was to deal with this crisis. It indicates why Canada is particularly vulnerable as a result of the action taken by the previous administration which has placed us in such a difficult situation.
The other evening I referred to the equalization act of the United States and our undertaking to limit our foreign exchange reserve to $2.6 billion. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what steps are being taken to bring about an easing of this situation particularly having in mind all the steps we had to take with regard to the shoring up of the Canadian dollar. We have linked ourselves closer and closer to the United States. As a matter of fact, last spring we converted $500 million of negotiable United States holdings into non-negotiable holdings. We are becoming more and more tied in with the policy and actions of the United States government. The sooner we can get away from the ceiling and the sooner we have more freedom of action, the sooner the Minister of Finance will be in a better position to deal with some of our own problems and we will not have to be tied to the United States go-cart all the time.
I can understand the action taken by the United States. I did not agree with it but I understand why they took the action they did in 1963 when the former hon. member for Davenport took the foolhardy action he did in his budget of 1963. The action taken by the United States was predictable. We got what we deserved in so far as government action was concerned. I should like to read one more quotation from what Mr. Rasminsky had to say:
Now that the problems connected with maintaining a sound external financial position have eased it is possible to concentrate once again on our other economic problems. 1 am afraid that none of them has gone away. Prices and costs are still rising too rapidly despite the emergence of considerable unemployment and unused capacity. The growth of the economy has been well within our potential for more than two years but so long as
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) .1

the strong upward trend in prices and costs continues, there are real risks in taking steps to accelerate the expansion of total spending in the economy. Our recent trade performance has demonstrated that Canada is still competitive internationally but it is also true that 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.
It is plain that in addition to following sound fiscal and monetary policies we need to do everything we can to increase the efficiency of the economy and to bring about more realistic attitudes toward the size of the increases in the incomes, all forms of income, which we can really afford to pay ourselves. There has been a good deal of discussion in recent times about guide lines for increases in incomes and other aspects of incomes policy and I have made it clear that I favour action in this area. I am not going into that matter further today except to say that the basic limit for the non-inflationary increase in incomes in any economy is not set by the authorities. It is set by our actual performance. The basic limit is the increase in real output per person employed. If we ignore that limit and settle for larger increases in money incomes all we are doing is guaranteeing that prices will rise.
Frankly, I cannot see that any action has been taken by this government which follows the course advocated by Mr. Rasminsky. The government has placed some sort of a temporary ceiling on the public service, but on the other hand it has also come forward with legislation to set up various tribunals and boards. We hear of other proposals which naturally will mean that the public service will be built up more and more. There is legislation before the house which says there shall be a tribunal with regard to dumping. We had the machinery board. There are a great number of others. I cite these merely as examples. Again the government is bursting through the ceiling it imposed on itself.
One of the other problems the budget does not solve is in respect of housing. In fact, because of the taxing of insurance companies less money will be available from that source for housing financing. There have been no reductions in costs with regard to housing. The minister could have reduced the sales tax on building materials. I heard him discuss this afterwards on television when he said that building materials should bear their fair share of the expenses. I could suggest a number of other areas which are more of a luxury in respect of which he could have done something with regard to housing. But, no; we are to have a continuation of the sales tax on building materials. The budget therefore failed to deal with the question of housing.
October 31, 1968

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I turn now to interest rates. This budget has done nothing to encourage interest rates to come down. As a matter of fact, interest rates have gone up. I have before me a statement from the Bank of Canada issued on Wednesday, October 23. Of course it does not reflect the immediate post-budget reaction of the bond market. However, we have seen already what has happened to the long term average of the ten particular bond issues dated from July 1, 1969, through to September 1, 1992; the rate is 6.86 per cent. The rate for half yearly treasury bills is 5.77 per cent. All one has to do is to look at the charts to see that the bellwether bonds, the 4J per cents for 1983 are on their way up again. They are bound to be. As a matter of fact, we know what the reaction of the bond market was the day after the budget. Bonds dropped by at least two points. My telephone kept ringing for a couple of days afterwards as people in the bond business called to say that the reaction of the market was that people did not believe the government any more. If they could not believe the government, whom could they believe?
School boards and businesses that are trying to arrange long term financing have been left high and dry because the one authority in the country in which one should be able to believe is the federal government-the federal government sets the tone for the bond market-and it has completely missed the boat. Government authorities all along the line will feel the reaction, and this will be a further penalty that Canada will have to pay during the forthcoming year.
I have spoken about controlling government expenditures, Mr. Speaker. We have been told that government expenditures will increase by a further $800 million in 1969-70. According to the figures put forward by the Minister of Finance, we will have reached a total expenditure of $11,670 million by 196970. Naturally, I do not place too much credence in the accuracy of that forecast, except that it is likely to be an understatement. Why do I say it is likely to be an understatement? We know the catalogue of events with regard to the forecast of a balanced budget and the size of the potential deficit during last November, last February, last May and then in September. Now we come to this point.
In September, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) said that because they had underestimated the expenses of two
29180-143}
The Budget-Hon. Marcel Lambert programs in particular, post-secondary education and hospital insurance, the government had underestimated by some $400 million. The truth of the matter is that the postsecondary education program was implemented about two years ago. I recall the occasion,, a Sunday night prior to the dominion-provincial conference, the federal government issued the terms of its proposal and that was it. University grants in the old form were gone. The vocational training program was gone. We were all to get this post-secondary education program. The government devised this program; they did not get any help from the provinces in working out the details. Within two years the government has underestimated the cost to it by $230 million. What sort of thinking is this? How well da they think through these plans? The plan was probably the brilliant suggestion of some backroom boy. I think perhaps the present Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) will have to bear some responsibility for this because the plan was commenced under his aegis. Now that he has been transferred to another ministry he is perhaps heaving a sigh of relief because it would be a very serious problem for him at this time. This is another reason this administration is no longer credible when it makes statements with regard to the financial position of the country.
Then there is the problem with regard to hospital services. Perhaps the house will permit me to reminisce. I recall that when Hon. Donald Fleming was minister of finance the first dollar was spent under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in July, 1958. The act had been passed in 195657 by the Liberal administration, but it was not workable. It was amended. I recall that Mr. Fleming told us privately or publicly, I do not recall the occasion, that within ten years the federal government share of this program would exceed $550 million a year. Well, he did not pull that figure out of a hat. Obviously he had been advised by his officials as to the cost of the project. What has happened? As a matter of fact, his figure of $550 million is perhaps just a mite low but for a ten year forecast it is pretty well on target. When it comes to forecasts, the former minister of finance (Mr. Sharp) stated some time ago that medicare would cost a billion dollars for a whole year's operation if all the provinces were included.
The present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen)-I have to go through these different changes-contradicted
October 31, 1968

government had a windfall, a once in a lifetime advance payment of $285 million. This time it is going to be $215 million.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The next step will be that we are asked to pay next year's tax this year.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We will conjecture on that, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we will be called upon to prepay our taxes. Rather a case of pay now and work later.
On the basis of what I said the other night, Mr. Speaker, and what I have said this afternoon, although I could spend another hour on the deficiencies of this budget, in the interest of letting others have a go at this rather poor document I should now like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
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 peacetime tax increases and consequently rejects the government's statement of the country's financial position.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waierloo):: Mr. Speaker, this budget must stand as a colossal fraud. It is unenterprising and it is unfair. It is a budget for the privileged, not for the vast majority of Canadians.
This government was elected on the promise of bringing in the "just society". Yet its first budget puts the lie to that promise. Rather than moving toward the just society the government has moved to make our world more unjust than before. The Canadian people have a right to expect fairness and intelligence from their government, but instead of fairness and intelligence they have gotten injustice and bird-brained indifference.
This budget must stand condemned on two counts: first, because it asks the poor to pay for the government's errors and mistakes; second, because it completely misses the whole point of what is wrong with thee Canadian economy. At this time in Canadian history, a time of slow growth in our economy, the government insists on dragging its feet and pulling the economy down even farther. It is not as though the government has not received opinions on how it should conduct the affairs of the country or what sort of priorities should be established in the management of the nation.
Let us just look at two such opinions, Mr. Speaker. In the 1967 memorandum to the
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman government by the Canadian Labour Congress, the congress pointed out the danger of lagging growth rates and rising unemployment and urged the government to take all necessary steps designed to prevent the economy from seriously slackening off. They repeated this warning in their 1968 memorandum to the government when they said in their statement on economy policy:
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
-it now seems perfectly clear that our advice was ignored. On numerous occasions in the past year and a half the government in budget after budget has either increased taxes or reduced government expenditures or both. These actions ostensibly aimed at balancing the budget have served only to worsen the situation. There is no special virtue in a balanced budget although it is now apparent that its attainment ranks far higher in the government's list of economic priorities than does the attainment of full employment.
On the other hand, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has advised the government that it should adopt a tight-fisted approach, despite the prospects of an economic slowdown in 1969. The general manager of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, when speaking in Calgary on September 30, said in his annual business outlook review that our rate of economic growth would slow down early next year. He also predicted that the growth in gross national product, in real terms, would drop to 3 per cent in the first half of 1969. He also predicted a probable increase in unemployment. He said in his statement:
Given this outlook, it might appear logical for the government to move to stimulate business . .. Serious errors could be made if government policy followed this direction.
Obviously the chamber of commerce does not think that the logical course ought to be followed and neither, apparently, does the government. Clearly, the chamber of commerce is little concerned about unemployment in this country and it is obvious that the government has accepted that particular body's outlook. It is hard to know why the government supports this kind of position since, after all, the chamber of commerce represents but a small segment of the people of Canada. Also, that chamber has almost invariably been wrong in its economic predictions. Almost invariably it has opposed progressive measures in this country such as medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and so on. Its new windmill to tilt at is the Canada development corporation.
Let it be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that this is a chamber of commerce government
2270	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman and it is small wonder and no surprise that the Prime Minister received one of his greatest ovations from that group when he addressed them. The Prime Minister is the new darling of the chamber of commerce, particularly since in his Halifax speech he showed solicitude for the rich of this nation. He is the darling of that body which has seldom been right in its attitude toward the Canadian economy. As a matter of fact their record of being wrong is so consistent that they can be considered a most reliable guide, a compass, in fact, pointing south. Yet even the chamber criticizes the government for doing what any businessman does.
They talk about a balanced budget and look with disfavour on government borrowing. Yet a businessman's success in this country is often judged by how much he owes the bank. It is all right for a businessman to borrow capital with which to buy machinery and keep his business rolling. That is a good way for him to operate. Yet the government must not operate in a businesslike manner. Oh, no. The government must not borrow capital with which to keep our people at work. Is it not curious that people who expect businessmen to be businesslike give most unbusinesslike advice to the government, advice which they never would take for themselves?
Although this budget has not met with the favour of the ordinary wage earner of this country, it has been received with approval by businessmen. I wish to read some of the responses of businessmen, as reported in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of October 23. One of them said:
It's a fair budget so far as the country is concerned, but it's a little rough on the average wage earner.
Another said:
It doesn't affect the investment business much because Mr. Benson didn't slap on a capital gains tax.
Another said:
The 2 per cent tax is not too onerous for anybody.
This guy should ask the ordinary guy on the street just how onerous the 2 per cent tax is. One businessman at least had the objectivity to say:
I would have liked to see a higher rate of taxation on people such as myself. It's sort of a punish the poor budget.
The ordinary man in the street has a meagre enough wage to work on. Increasing taxes beyond the present level will work hardships. Really, Mr. Speaker, this budget is a punish the poor budget. The poor of this

DEBATES	Ociober 31. 1968
country are being asked to pay for the government's mistakes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: If we accept the argument that taxes must be increased-I do not accept it and will have something to say about it later-why must it always be the little guy who pays? The bulk of new money will be raised by the 2 per cent social development tax which hits hardest those least able to pay. Thus our present, unfair tax system is made even more unfair by such an unfeeling levy.
The Carter commission on taxation said that Canada had one of the world's worst tax systems in terms of the burden it imposed on the middle and lower income groups. The Prime Minister in his just society, with his coat-tail hangers-on, could have implemented the reforms recommended by the commission, thus ending the privileges which have enabled many of the richest individuals and companies in Canada to escape their just share of taxation. Instead, we have a rejection of the general principle of the commission that "a dollar is a dollar and should be taxed as such." The minister seems to have rejected explicitly the concept that a buck is a buck. He rejects the principle that taxes should be based on ability to pay and that tax rates should be determined by what a person earns and not how he earns it. By applying this principle and eliminating all tax concessions now enjoyed by a privileged class much more revenue could be collected without increasing tax rates, which already bear too heavily on the working classes of this country.
There were sighs of relief in the Canadian mining, oil and gas industries when the new taxes were announced. I am sure that many corporate heads slept more soundly because of the minister's solicitude for their welfare. The minister introduced a mere proposed tightening of depletion allowance regulations, hardly affecting over-all corporate tax positions.
For equity and economic reasons the Carter commission recommended complete removal of both the depletion allowances and the three year tax holiday for the extractive industries. If they had been taxed the same way as other companies are taxed, these industries would, according to Carter, have paid $150 million more in 1964 taxes. Perhaps they would pay more today if Carter's recommendations were followed.
October 31, 1968

Apart from considering taxation on a fair basis, Carter also pointed out that increasingly capital in this country is being seriously misallocated. We shall not obtain maximum advantage from our resources as long as there are inequities in our tax system. The so-called just society has introduced a social development income tax with a ceiling of $120. Let me say in no uncertain terms that this tax is a regressive tax that will fall most heavily on those who are now paying to the maximum of their ability.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This 2 per cent social development tax- and I must congratulate the minister on his coining of euphemisms-is in fact considerably more than the 5 per cent surcharge on personal income tax budgeted by the Pearson government in November. The difference is that the government's new tax will be levied on taxable income, which is much greater than the basic tax on which the 5 per cent surcharge was to fall.
Only the rich are better off. The ceiling for their social development payments is $120. Under the proposed surcharge it would have been $600. The setting of an upper limit on the impact of the 2 per cent tax means that the small wage earner will be proportionately much harder hit than those earning $10,000 and upward. In addition, the lid for any taxpayer, whether he earns $10,000 a year or ten times that amount, is the same. And because the 2 per cent tax has a special name and is not considered as part of the regular personal income tax, Ottawa will not have to share it with the provinces.
This is another aspect of the budget which I find most disquieting-the reaction of the federal government toward the provinces, the attitude of "I'm all right, Jake; you take care of yourself." It is an attempt to pass the buck, to avoid responsibility, and to say: We shall be all right; our revenues are increasing faster than our commitments for the future and we shall come out smelling of roses when we are ready for an election, and the provinces will not. In a country which is concerned about national unity and about reaching an agreement acceptable as between one part of the nation and another, the arrogance of this government must stand as a roadblock to the achievement of national unity.
The details of the budget show clearly that the new Liberal government-perhaps we should call it the old Liberal government because nothing much seems to have
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman changed-under its new leader-again, perhaps we should say its old leader because nothing much seems to have changed-has re-established the tradition of reaction and conservatism in economic policy, and this after only four months in office.
I am unhappy about what the speaker who preceded me said but I recognize the difficulty and delicacy of his position. Appreciating his problems, I congratulate him on his speech today. This budget and the present government are so conservative and so orthodox that it is extremely difficult for members of the official opposition to do very much about it.
In the course of the budget speech the Minister of Finance said:
Canada is in a period of widespread prosperity but with troubling problems of inflation and regional unemployment.
I say to the minister: how fatuous can you get? The hon. gentleman has little cause for self-congratulation on the performance of the Canadian economy. In relation to its potential the economy is in trouble. We are experiencing the highest unemployment rate in five years and the figure threatens to go even higher. A news story in the Toronto Star on October 1 under the headline "Employment Outlook Dim For Late 1968" contained the following:
Employment prospects across Canada for the fourth quarter are not as bright as a year ago, reports manpower services latest survey.
In the Ottawa Citizen of September 3 the following appeared:
Unemployment may become a more serious economic problem in Canada than inflationary pressure.
This was reported on the objective authority of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Despite the indications of the danger of unemployment, the government insists on ignoring all the signs. The economy is not expanding rapidly enough to take care of new entrants into the labour market. The Economic Council of Canada puts it this way in the council's fifth annual review. I quote from page 183:
By contrast with the previous six years, the expansion of employment opportunities since early in 1966 has not been rapid enough to fully absorb the marked increase in the labour force. The rate of growth and demand in employment moderated after the spring of 1966 and unemployment rose from a level of about 3J per cent of the labour force to 41 per cent in the fall of 1967, after allowance for seasonal factors. Subsequently, it ranged narrowly around this figure for a time, then moved above 5 per cent in mid-1968, partly reflecting sharply changed conditions in the summer market for students.
October 31, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Saltsman
Bad as these figures are, they are even worse when examined on a regional basis. Again, a government which has said it is concerned about national unity should realize that a major threat to national unity is the feeling that Canadians in certain parts of this country are not getting a fair share. When unemployment increases to a nationally high figure, certain parts of the country are far more adversely affected than others. In the Atlantic provinces the figure is 7 per cent; in Quebec it is 6.2 per cent, and in British Columbia, 6.1 per cent. This is despite the fact that the growth of the labour force in the maritimes is only about 1.9 per cent as against an average of 4 per cent. The maritimes are being denuded of their people. The exodus from that region is becoming massive. Even when migration takes place, tragic as it is for an area, there is really very little that these people can go to elsewhere. The economic council follows up its previous statement by saying:
The level of unemployment in Canada has recently been significantly above that of the United States for the first time since the middle of 1963.
We are going very quickly backwards. It is a dismal record compared with that of our closest neighbour. Rising prices have not been contained and unemployment is one and a half times as high. Although the gross national product is expected, according to the budget, to increase by about 8 per cent in 1968, the minister did not bother to tell us the significance of that figure. In terms of real output per employed person it is only one per cent, one of the lowest growth rates among western nations. It is an abysmal record and one in which the government can take no pride in view of its years in office since 1963.
The past performance of the government leaves much to be desired and the present budget will not improve the prospects for increases in productivity. The first annual review of the economic council had this to say-and it is a point which the council has made over and over again:
Over the past decade, the Canadian economy appears to have experienced one of the slowest rates of growth of any industrialized advanced country in the world both in terms of average productivity and average living standards.
This is despite the fact that we employ more capital per worker than any other country in the world. Usually there is a close relationship between employment of capital and productivity. The assumption has always been that if a worker is given more equipment he will be able to produce more and,

generally speaking, this holds true. It holds true except in one country-Canada.
[DOT]	(5:50 p.m.)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate Chamber.
[DOT]	(6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Judges Act.
An act to amend the Post Office Act.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police- reported criticism by Manitoba supreme court judge; the hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault)-Immigration-inquiry as to assistance to refugees from Czechoslovakia.
Pursuant to special order made this day, this sitting stands suspended until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion (page 1677) of Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now
October 31, 1968
[Stage Direction]
leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party has for too long confused the Canadian public on the question of the need for capital in Canada. I think it has become quite obvious, especially since the York study on capital was issued, that the problem in Canada is not shortage of money but rather the misuse of capital in the absence of policies for investment in this country. The evidence of this has been available for a long time: it has recently been reinforced by the Watkins report.
Under the desperate urgings of the former member for Davenport the government commissioned a study on foreign ownership and structure of Canadian industry. It was not a revolutionary document; it was rather mild, and one gets the feeling that the people who worked on that study desperately wanted the government to accept it. But even that mild document was not good enough for this reactionary government, and the report became a foundling, joining the abandoned child of the Carter report. Now we have two voices, those of Carter and Watkins, crying out in defence of their reports. We have fallen over ourselves in a desperate effort to obtain American capital, with the result that we have oriented our whole domestic policy to that purpose.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who preceded me, rightly pointed out how we have subordinated most of our policies in a desperate pursuit of American money. And to what end? As one of the writers of the Watkins report pointed out in the Journal of Canadian Studies of August, 1968:
The report's conclusion . . . was that we had dissipated much of the gain from foreign direct investment, and that most of the blame for this state of affairs-and the solution lay squarely with governmental policy or the lack of it.
Professor Watkins, who headed the study, had this to say in the Executive magazine of August, 1968:
[DOT]-we can say that without an appropriate set of government policies which create an efficient structure of industry in Canada, the benefits of foreign direct investment tend to be emasculated.
Most governments in the world resist invaders that would take over their country; but not Canada. The invaders did not even have to fire a shot, they did not have to build a Trojan horse; the government simply flung 29180-144
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman the gates wide open and took the marauders to dinner-and what a great feast was that dinner. They consumed 60 per cent of our manufacturing, 75 per cent of our petroleum and natural gas, 59 per cent of our mining and smelting, 97 per cent of the automobile industry, 97 per cent of rubber, 78 per cent of chemicals and 73 per cent of electrical apparatus.
But in this budget there is not one word, not one hint of any indication from the government of the danger facing political sovereignty in Canada or of the abject economic dependence they have forced upon this country. It is not just the need for policies designed for the Canadian culture; it is a question of productivity as well. The reason for the low productivity in this country is the presence of United States branch plants. Productivity is not a function of how hard a man sweats; it is a function of how well the resources of a country are used, and the resources of this country are not being used well because our government is taking no interest in their use. We in this country could be enjoying the highest standard of living in the world. We certainly have the resources for that purpose. We in this country should be producing enough wealth to pay for all those programs that are so necessary to a civilized country.
The 1967 report of the O.E.C.D. showed that of 14 countries Canada has the lowest productivity growth per person employed. We stand behind Japan, France, Austria, Italy, West Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. We cannot enjoy what we do not produce. We cannot solve the problems of poverty with balanced budgets and with government attitudes reluctant to make the economy more efficient and productive.
The main thrust of economic action in Canada should be toward policies of affluence and justice, toward increasing our wealth so that there will be more to share and more to provide the means of diminishing the appalling poverty in this country. Canadians were shocked at the forthright report of the economic council in its fifth annual review when it said:
Poverty in Canada is real. Its numbers are not in the thousands but the millions. There is more of it than our society can tolerate, more than our economy can afford and far more than existing measures and efforts can cope with. Its persistence, at a time when the bulk of Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world is a disgrace.
October 31, 1968

The Budget-Mr. Saltsman
Mr. Speaker, any budget that does not move to ameliorate the conditions of poverty in this country must also be considered a disgrace. In a report in the Toronto Star of October 21 the Canadian Welfare Council pointed out that 400,000 children live in squal-our. The report went on to say that the first major study of housing conditions of welfare recipients in Canada indicates as many as 400,000 children live in shoddy, depressing and disease-ridden homes that lack even basic toilet facilities. On October 24, in the Toronto Telegram, the Canadian Welfare Council accused finance minister Benson and the federal government of just plain, damned dirty tactics. The executive director, Mr. Bates, said:
Mr. Benson was only attempting to mislead the Canadian public by calling the 2 per cent increase in Income tax a social development tax. It Is most unfair and most inaccurate because the budget does not say there is any social welfare program or social development program to go with such a tax. He claimed the label was part of an apparent campaign by the Trudeau government to discredit social welfare programs and to condition the Canadian public against the financing of any further such programs. It is just plain, damned dirty tactics-
It is not that the Canadian economy lacks resources to ameliorate these conditions. It is not that the Canadian economy does not possess the inherent ability to correct poverty and provide decent housing for its citizens. It is just that this government has refused to set priorities in our economy, priorities that are meaningful and productive for our people.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
At a time when we cannot build enough houses for those who need them, construction goes on which we could very nicely do without. Retail chains seem to have no trouble meeting their needs. A recent report in the Globe and Mail states the Dominion Stores plans to open 200 more stores and Steinberg's intends to open 15 or 20 stores a year. Kresge plans to open five or six. It would seem that every major chain is expanding. There does not seem to be any lack of money for their expansion plans. It is too much to expect that those millions of Canadians who are badly in need of homes would agree that shopping centres should have first priority. Perhaps instead of camping in the office of the mayor of Toronto some of these people who need homes so badly might be bedding out at the shopping centres.
In the face of these problems of high unemployment, not enough jobs for the young people who are entering the labour force, a bad

productivity performance in our society, intolerable poverty amidst the affluence of some, the wrong priorities in terms of the needs of its people, what does this government propose to the Canadian public? It proposes a stand pat budget. It proposes to drag its feet. It proposes a balancing act, but it is a balancing act that will see the Minister of Finance take a tumble. Just as the former minister could not move his budget close to balance, just as his predictions on deficits were wrong, so too this minister probably will be wrong. If he balances his budget at all it will be at a cost of intolerable unemployment. The only time it makes sense to balance a budget is when the economy is operating at or near full potential. We are a long way from that.
If the minister wants to balance his budget sensibly he should be introducing full employment policies, because only under full employment can a budget truly be balanced without disaster. Departures from potential output will cause the Canadian people to endure economic losses which can never be regained. At less than full employment the government's taxation expenditure system automatically produces a deficit. Revenue does not rise as fast as it would at full employment because individual incomes do not move up into higher tax brackets. Spending on welfare and unemployment insurance automatically increases as the economy falls away from full employment. Together these two effects produce some economic effects in the form of an automatic deficit any time the Canadian economy falls short of its potential output. The deficit that is produced in this manner is just about big enough to stop unemployment from worsening, provided consumer business and government spending stays steady.
A balanced budget is correct policy for stabilizing a fully employed economy, but at present the Canadian labour force is not fully employed. Indeed we are far from that goal, and the rate of unemployment is rising throughout the land. The Minister of Finance has responded to this problem with a budget aimed at economic contraction rather than expansion. He has cut the deficit this year and has promised to balance the budget next year. This policy ignores the need for a policy to revive employment, and it goes far beyond the idea of a balanced budget at full employment. It is a ridiculous growth impeding policy.
October 31. 1968

The nature of the tax transfer system in Canada does not allow the Minister of Finance to balance his budget when there is 5 per cent unemployment. If he attempts this policy he will be frustrated. Tax revenues will fall below expectation and payments to unemployment insurance will rise. The economy will fall even further away from potential and a deficit will appear.
Canadians cannot afford to lose goods and services which they might otherwise have enjoyed because the Minister of Finance is unable to distinguish between the means to achieve policy and the ends of economic policy. The government's budget is a tool of economic policy and the balancing of the budget is not an end in itself. The government has set the goal of achieving potential output. To do that it must use its policy instruments wisely, reverse the rise of unemployment and plan a deficit that will put Canada back on her potential economic growth path. If the economy were fully employed it would seem as though the budget would be balanced automatically. A few years back in the 1950's when ministers were attempting to get a deficit they could not because the economy was operating at close to potential.
The minister might agree with what I say but argue that I am discounting the problems of inflation. Let me say at this time that I regard those problems seriously. I think steps must be taken to contain inflation, if only to avoid the kind of hysteria we have seen on the part of the government. The minister should tell the Canadian people that some price rises are unavoidable and that some prices have to catch up with other prices. As has been pointed out, many of our price rises are tied in with the United States. We should disentangle ourselves from the United States economy, so that we will not be so tied in with their problems.
In order to compensate for some of the inevitable price rises that will take place, I think the government as a matter of policy should be reviewing our pension programs, to see that they increase automatically, in order to take care of the difficulties and problems created for people on pensions. It is unfair for the government to suggest to pensioners that prices will be held and they will not be hurt. This government knows it cannot hold the prices beyond a certain point.
If the government were indeed to be truly fair and honest with the pensioners of this country it would make those adjustments, so that the people do not suffer from the price 29180-144*
The Budget-Mr. Saltsman increases. I believe the time is past when inflation can be controlled by macro-fiscal policies. It is not every part of the economy that is inflated. If a real attempt is to be made in this regard, specific policies must be instituted and specific measures must be taken. The government should create a prices review board to see that price increases are examined when they take place, in order to determine that they are genuine and that no price increases take place unless they can be justified.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on the record some information regarding the dreadful cost of unemployment when it takes place in this country. The Economic Council of Canada, when it talks about the year 1960, says:
The economy was capable of producing over 8 per cent more production and income than actually occurred. The increases in the major federal tax revenues stemming from an attainment of potential output would have been considerably greater than the implied rise in output itself. It has been calculated that personal income tax yields at the given rates would have been 12 per cent and corporation income tax yieds by more than one third. In the aggregate, such calculations indicate the potential output levels in 1960. Federal yields, had the rates been given effect, would have been over 18 per cent higher than the actual collections in that year, and the economy was operating substantially below capacity.
Although it is very difficult to translate this kind of information into current terms one thing must be obvious. We have suffered an enormous loss in production as a result of unemployment. It would appear that there was a potential loss of five per cent in the 1967 gross national product, accompanied by an over-all tax potential shortfall of over 10 per cent. In other words, we lost $6 billion in goods and services in 1967 and $1 billion worth of taxes more than the minister is attempting to raise in this budget.
The purpose of putting these facts on record is to indicate the outrageous stupidity of a government that tries to raise its revenues by contracting the economy and making every small taxpayer pay for its mistakes. With an expanded economy, tax revenues would be more than sufficient to take care of the needs of this government plus the additional programs that are so badly required in this country.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This budget explicitly rejects the Keynesian revolution of government fiscal policy used in promoting full employment of the labour force. It rejects the application of modern
2276	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Gauthier economic theory in the area of full employment surplus in attempting to achieve the full potential of the economy. The budget rejects also the Canadian white paper on employment and income of 1945 in which the federal government assumed complete responsibility for the full employment of the labour force and undertakes instead a deliberate policy of forced unemployment in Canada. The budget rejects the general philosophy of the Carter commission on taxation, that the first and most essential purpose of taxation is to share the burdens of the state fairly among all individuals and families.
Canadians are shocked when we say today that the government of this country created unemployment; but the government has created unemployment. I think Canadians should realize what their government has done. This budget rejects the goals of the Economic Council of Canada of full employment, of a high rate of economic growth and of equitable distribution of rising incomes. For these reasons this budget should be rejected by this parliament. I therefore move: seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and rejects in particular the 2 per cent income tax increase, with its $120 cut-off, which is an outrageous burden on those in the lower and middle income brackets and adds to the inequity of our tax system.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have my turn this evening to say a few words in order to criticize the budget that was presented to us.
Mr. Speaker, this evening I should have liked to have heard our expert on financial matters, the member for Compton (Mr. Latu-lippe), who certainly will have the opportunity of analysing the budget and of pointing out its weaknesses, not only for the benefit of the hon. members but especially to acquaint the people of Canada with the work that goes on in this house, and in particular with those things that keep happening every session. I shall therefore limit myself to generalities this evening, leaving it to some of my colleagues to analyse the budget in detail.
Listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), when he brought down his first budget-but not the first one we have had in this year 1968-I realized that the formula was always the same. Much emphasis, but very poor results. At the very beginning of
[Mr. Saltsman.3
DEBATES	October 31, 1968
his statement, as will be found on page 1677 of Hansard, the minister said, and I quote:
The government and its strong parliamentary majority have come into office with many new ideas and a desire to look at our problems with a fresh perspective.
The wish he expresses, Mr. Speaker, every Minister of Finance has expressed before him; indeed, there is no lack of good will in the departments, or on the part of the minister and the government chambers. Further on, the minister tells us what is lacking, and I quote:
However-
-after having expressed that great desire, there is a "but".
-we have, however, many major commitments. These restrict our freedom of innovation and make it necessary for us to work out our new ideas over time.
I feel that those lines are full of meaning for the people of Canada, because the minister admits that he is not free to innovate as he would like to, that he will need time. How much time will he need? One year, two years, the whole period the present government is in power? That is precisely what the whole population is wondering about.
I think that the members who want more information about that budget had better deal directly with the senior officials since the minister is often their obedient tool, their spokesman. I do not see any in the galleries tonight but usually they are there watching. That is what makes the people say that Canada often has an irresponsible government. A democratic government that is not elected by the majority of the people cannot be responsible to the people and that is precisely the present state of our government of bureaucrats. If you add to them the spokesmen who are the ministers elected by the campaign funds of the financiers, who are even less able to represent the voice of the people, you have an idea of our bureaucratic dictatorship which some people still have the nerve to call a monarchist democracy.
It has become customary to get a new minister of finance for each budget, but great care is taken not to tamper with the government machinery. With each budget new actors in new costumes are seen but the director remains always the same. They claim that it is a brand-new play, but we readily realize that the original version goes back to one hundred years. And the Canadian comedy
October 31, 1968

goes on, as the parliamentary majority is pleased with it.
This budget resembles all the others in that it levies new taxes on those who can least afford it. If we consider the budget speeches delivered since this government came into power, we see that a series of tax increases have been deducted from the wages of our family heads, thus reducing the purchasing power. Some will object that the people constantly require more services from the State; the government meets these numerous requirements by levying taxes, surtaxes and triple taxes, since the advocates of the new method of taxation start from the principle that the government does not give anything for nothing.
Some even say that the government does not create anything, and yet something is created here in Canada. In fact, chartered banks create monetary credit. Who gave them the power to manipulate, to multiply their assets 14 times, to create out of nothing, with a mere stroke of the pen, new credits which cost them nothing but on which provincial and federal governments may pay 10 per cent in interest, since the ceiling on bank interests has been removed?
The federal government only has been able to grant chartered banks the privilege of serving as substitute for the State. That means that only parliament had this power of creation. Then, why would the present government, through its agency, the Bank of Canada, not recover its powers, by giving back to the Bank of Canada the exclusive right of creation which it granted to chartered banks? By so doing, the government would kill two birds with one stone since, besides innovating, it would recover the tool enabling it to control its economy.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In this way, every year, through the Bank of Canada, the government would be able to take over and to administer the excess yields or the new credit in the country, which it could also multiply by 14, if necessary, like the chartered banks are doing now.
I think it is time that the Minister of Finance started to look for money where it is to be found, when he has to levy a new tax, that is, in the pocket of those who are exploiting the country. We are continually being told that Canada is the second richest country in the world, and the minister himself said it in the speech he made on October
The Budget-Mr. Gauthier 22, which is to be found on page 1678 of Hansard, and I quote:
We have a labour force that is growing more rapidly than that ol any other industrial country. It is also increasingly well educated and trained for work in modern jobs. Our natural resources are the envy of others and the basis of our industry and wealth. We have a large industrial capacity, much of it now relatively modern and little of it in serious excess.
Although we are the richest country in the world and the one with the greatest natural resources, Mr. Speaker, we are also the one most deeply in debt, because foreigners control almost 80 per cent of our economy.
That is why the minister said, as shown on. page 1679 of Hansard:
We do however face serious problems in organizing our economic advance and expansion, in managing it and in financing it. Both in our public and private activities these tasks are going to require the best brains and work that Canadians can devote to them. Great economic advance is open to us but only if we manage our affairs well.
I think that when the minister said that, he was convinced that the greatest problem facing Canada today is that it does not control its own economy. In fact, our economy is controlled by foreign capital and interests which we merely serve. Mr. Speaker, that is not a very reassuring picture for the present administrators, nor a very honourable achievement for their predecessors.
We the members of the Ralliement credi-tiste, maintain that Canada is rich enough, if it were to make logical fiscal and monetary reforms, to give its population a decent standard of living and that a Canadian government can administer the country soundly and rationally without imposing taxes the way it is doing today.
The present government says that it is impossible and the people backed them up on June 25. We accept the verdict, but we now suggest to the government that even under its taxation system, the logical thing to do would be to begin by taxing those who can pay taxes or those who are in the most favoured positions.
As an example, I would say that the government should require from the chartered! banks that they disclose their hidden reserves-which amount to more than a billion dollars-on which they have never paid any income tax. All that was done with the approval of the former governments as well as the present one. The same thing applies to the large companies, whether they are foreign
2278	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Gauthier or not, which are granted unreasonable privileges and leeways which are on the verge of complicity.
After all those loopholes and all that deliberate forgetfulness, the house is told that the Minister of Finance cannot make both ends meet and that the labourer rather than the profiteer must be taxed. According to the new minister, there should be no more talk about taxes but rather about social development. What a brain-wave that was, Mr. Speaker. It must be the result of much thinking on the part of officers of the Department of Finance where at least some financial experts can be found. But the minister should not get excited, because it will not produce the results he expected. The worker has known for a long time that a tax is a tax, and that the so-called social development is also equivalent to a tax which will take a little more out of his pay.
Not being a first rate expert in financial matters, I prefer to stand on safe ground when stating my case. I would therefore like to read part of an editorial published on October 23, 1978, after the budget had been brought down.


An hon. Member:: 1968?


Mr. Gauthier:: Yes, 1968; it is a little sooner. Now I quote:
In spite of the wishes expressed during the last election campaign by the Liberal team led by Mr. Trudeau, to reduce government expenses, in .order to bring down a balanced budget and in spite ,of the fact that government expenses were cut [DOT]down since it came to power, the federal government will register a deficit of $675 million this year. In addition, the Minister of Finance had to levy new taxes and increase others to reduce the magnitude of that deficit. And so, an additional tax of 2 per cent, called the "social development tax", will be paid by all taxpayers. On the other hand, corporations will have to pay their income tax two months in advance;-
Should another minister take over the portfolio, I am afraid the companies-and I know whereof I speak, for I own a company-will have to pay their taxes a year ahead of time, to give a chance to the Minister of Finance. [DOT]Can you imagine the headache for company directors.
___insurance companies now have to pay a corporation tax; banks and mortgage companies will see their non-taxable reserves reduced by half, while oil and mining companies will be subjected to controls on their non-taxable allowance, namely the depletion allowance. In short, this is a harsh budget which will affect the economic life of all Canadians.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Through these new taxes and the increased rate nf certain others, the Minister of Finance (Mr. IMr. Gauthier.]
DEBATES	October 31, 1968
Benson) is firmly resolved and expects to balance the budget for the 1969-70 fiscal year. He even optimistically forecasts a $5 million surplus of revenue over expenditure. Faced with these predictions, the taxpayers are rightly perplexed and even pessimistic for, last March, the government had forecast expenditures of $10,225,000,000. A few months later, it realized that it would go $446 million over that figure. Announcing on Tuesday that the total expenditure of the government would be $10,780,000,000, Mr. Benson noted another increase in government expenditure of $109 million for the present fiscal year, and those are not yet the final figures for 1968-69. We note that there has been a net increase of $555 million over the estimates prepared eight months ago by the former minister of finance (Mr. Sharp). Taking into account the incredible mistakes in the estimates, which a company could not survive, what confidence can we have in the declared intentions of the government to restrain and retrench government expenses and to balance the budget? Mr. Sharp's estimates, last February, and the almost uncontrolled increase in expenditure compared with the said estimates, are examples characteristic of the efficiency of the plans of the government. Once more, therefore, the federal government, presents an inflationary budget which affects all the consumers whether or not they are poor. The loans he will have to obtain in order to make up for the deficit will increase the inflationary pressure and new taxes will increase the prices of consumer goods. The more the budgets are brought down at all levels of government, the more they look alike.
As I was saying a few minutes ago, this is always the same thing. Here is another excerpt of a Montreal newspaper with the heading:
The two percent increase is a hold-up.
The following, Mr. Speaker, reflects the opinion of the labour unions:
Mr. Louis Laberge, president of the Q.F.L., was commenting yesterday on the budget brought down Tuesday evening in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Edgar Benson.
Mr. Laberge did not go half way about it when he said; The two percent increase in income tax for individuals, with a maximum of $120 is indeed a hold-up at the expense of people with a low income by a government recently elected with misrepresentations about a "just society".
Should the minister want to know about popular opinion, let him read the newspapers. On October 24, in La Presse we read:
"The small people again have to pay. The budget is always the same as the small people have to pay the shot-so was saying somebody, yesterday morning, on coming out of the Place d'Armes metro. This sums up the general impression of the people-
-of the province of Quebec and Canada.
I should like to read another item published in the October 23 issue of the Journal de Montreal:
Budget increased by $890 million
Before bringing down his first budget yesterday in the House of Commons and incurring the
October 31, 1968

criticism which would inevitably follow, the Minister of Finance in the Trudeau cabinet, Mr. Edgar Benson, had a haircut and a light meal.
That I did not know.
His total budget is of the order of $11,670 billion-


An hon. Member:: Say it again, he did not get it.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Indeed.


An hon. Member:: Because of his meal, he was not wearing his ear-piece. Say it again for his guidance.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we are told that before bringing down his budget, the minister
-had a haircut and a light meal.
I did not know that.
His total budget reaches $11,670 billion, or an increase of $890 million compared to that of 1967-68.
In order to bear such an increase, the Canadian people will be taxed for the second time this year. Minister Benson has also provided for a cut in expenditures-
And for doing away with haircuts, probably.
-a cut in expenditures-	_
Mr. Speaker, I think that these few criticisms voiced by the public through the press are justified. But what does the minister propose to do about all those tax increases, against all those taxes which burden the workers? What solution does he suggest? He states it again here, as reported on page 1681 of Hansard, and I quote:
1969-1970 Fiscal Outlook
It is difficult to forecast our position in the next fiscal year at such an early date as this, yet I feel I must make some effort to do so in order to develop the tax proposals that I think it is necessary to place before you tonight.
We intend to continue severe restraint-
He does not ask himself whether it is possible to collect more money in the country, but he proceeds right away to talk about restraint. They all think of that famous tax. It seems to be their only solution.
We intend to continue severe restraint upon those direct expenditure programs under the government's control-
This is rather serious.
-under the government's control, eliminating what is obsolete and permitting only the degree of growth that is essential.
We shall have to resist requests by members on both sides of the house, and from groups and individuals outside, to spend money for worthy purposes which we cannot afford to do along with the other things we are doing. It will also be
The Budget-Mr. Gauthier necessary to maintain a virtual freeze on the size of the public service of Canada. We shall also seek the vigorous co-operation of the provincial governments in the same kind of restraint-
It is only then that he appeals to the provinces, I think.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to remind him that the time allotted to him has expired, unless the house agrees to let him go on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues and I will be through in two minutes.
In such circumstances, the federal government decides to meet the representatives of the provinces because we have always noticed that each time it wanted to take certain steps about the shared cost programs, as it did about the winter works program for instance, it acted first. It started by discontinuing winter works and then it informed the provinces that it would no longer grant subsidies. It has always been its way of interpreting relations between the two levels of government. I realize that when it is a matter of saying to the provinces: It is impossible, you will not do that, then it wants to consult the provinces. I hope that once it will at least heed the advice it so often gets in this house and consult the provinces more often. Then, it might get better guidance.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we feel it would be more advisable, instead of reducing the subsidies paid to the provinces, that the expenditures for national defence be cut by 50 per cent and the interest on the national debt, which is unjustified and unjustifiable, be reduced.
In my opinion, the government should meet the financiers. I do not blame the present Minister of Finance himself; I mean the Department of Finance in general. Since its creation, legislation is being adopted to protect it. Let the minister go to these magnets of finance, to the chartered banks, and ask them for an extension of interest, a gift of interest, for two or three years. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the Minister of Finance did that, he would be elected Minister of Finance for at least ten years.
In conclusion, I therefore suggest this to the government: instead of cutting down useful projects or cancelling them, why does it not look for other solutions and other ways of saving, to balance the federal budget which, in spite of what the minister has told

October 31, 1968
The Budget-Mr. Asselin us, will surely have another deficit at the end of the year.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate to second the amendment moved by the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) this afternoon.
I must say that the member for Edmonton West moved an amendment which, to my mind, is realistic with regard to the financial situation of our country.
The statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when he brought down the budget was, I think, a parody of the statements made by the members of the present government during the election campaign. At that time, according to them, Canadian finances were faring very well. We were promised a balanced budget, thorough fiscal reforms which would do away with obvious inequalities and injustices in matters of taxation.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Today, we face a budget statement filled with contradictions with regard to what expenses are foreseen, and reductions of the moneys voted for non essential programs. There is a general lack of planning in government expenditures. Those contradictions on the financial state of our country have placed the government in a strained position and we wonder about the credibility of this government in financial matters.
On May 21 last, the present Minister of Finance stated that the Canadian budget deficit for 1967-68 would amount to $808 million, while on the 1st of June, the former minister of finance (Mr. Sharp) stated that there would be a deficit of $740 million, which would be adjusted to $785 million on November 30. Expenditures were 12 per cent higher than in 1966-67, while revenue had increased by only 8 per cent.
During the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, in order to secure the support of the Canadian businessmen, the minister kept repeating all over Canada that the new government would propose a balanced budget.
On June 3, 1968, at Calgary, the former minister of national revenue, who is now Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) made the following statement.


The next budget will be a balanced one and every attempt will be made to hold the line on tax increases.

On June 6, 1968, the Minister of Finance, in turn, promised that a new Liberal administration would present a balanced budget. On June 18, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) declared also, at Fort William, that a new Liberal government would present a balanced budget.
What then has happened since June 25 that made this government hasten to forget its electoral commitments?


Mr. Paul Langlois (Chicoutimi):: The budget is indeed well balanced.


Martial Asselin: For next year it is far from sure. Would the honourable member for Chicoutimi have the cheek to get up and tell us, as the honourable Minister of Finance has done for the past six months, there is going to be a balanced budget when his estimates have shown discrepancies amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars?
Would the honourable member dare to get up and say on behalf of the Minister of Finance that the budget for next year will be well balanced notwithstanding the flagrant inconsistencies of his last budget?
Mr. Speaker, one will admit that a Minister of Finance can make a mistake, but a series of contradictory statements will never lead us to believe in the minister's good faith, and this budget clearly indicates that the Canadian people are entitled to question this government's credibility.
We have been trying for two years to make the government understand that it should cut its expenses drastically. Besides, cuts were promised to us on several occasions, when we made representations to the government.
We also asked the government to establish priorities with regard to expenditures in order to check inflation effectively. Unfortunately, this was not done and the budget is the result.
I wonder whether the minister has some notions of accounting or if his computers or his adding machines broke down, but the difference in the estimates lead us to believe that all is not well in the Department of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, a review of the budget in an Ottawa newspaper, on October 23, 1968
October 31, 1968

clearly shows that every time the minister has made forecasts, he has been utterly wrong.
Let us consider carefully that review which states: Six months ago, Mr. Benson said that government expenditures would not exceed $10,300 million for the current year and that the budget would be balanced through a minor tax increase. A month ago, in September, the government tabled the estimates for the current year which reached $10,670 million.
On October 22, the night he introduced his budget, the honourable minister stated that expenditures would amount to $10,780 million, or 4.6 per cent more than his estimates of six months ago.
However, federal government expenditures for the fiscal year commencing April 1 are estimated to range about $11,670 million, namely 8.2 per cent more than for the current fiscal year and 13.3 per cent more than the first estimates which amounted to $10,300 million. What does this mean in terms of dollars, Mr. Speaker?
Federal expenditures for the current year exceed by $480 million the estimates tabled six months ago. And the minister suggested that next year, government expenditures would reach $890 million.
This year's increase of $480 million represents an average of $33 for each individual on the labour market. The increase in expenditures for next year, will amount to $62 for each individual on the labour market. This year, the government will spend the equivalent of $744 for each individual on the labour market, that is $33 more than forecast last May. Next year, the government will spend the equivalent of $817 for each individual now on the labour market, that is, $96 more than forecast six months ago.
How is it possible to reconcile this enormous increase in expenditures with the statement of the Minister of Finance who, according to the Canadian press, said in Peterborough on June 5, that he would resign as Minister of Finance if the members of his party expected too much from the government regarding the increase in expenditures. Naturally, the minister has no alternative but to retrench government expenditure and fulfil the promise he made in Peterborough last June.
Mr. Speaker, we must now ask ourselves the following question: Who will pay for the incompetence the minister has shown in planning government spending? The answer was given by hon. members during the day and
The Budget-Mr. Asselin it is found in the budget which the hon. minister introduced last week: Taxes, taxes and more taxes. The small taxpayer will again be the one hardest hit by this budget.
Mr. Speaker, the minister called this a social development tax. In my opinion, it is more of a social injustice tax. When a taxpayer earning $5,000 is treated in the same way as one whose annual income is between $10,000 and $15,000 a year, this tax, which has a ceiling of $120, is, in my opinion, flagrantly unfair to the lower income groups. The government cannot be asked to tax the rich people. The other day, the Prime Minister said in Halifax that, in a forthcoming budget, he was considering reducing taxes for the people that are well off. Why not tax the rich ones? The Minister of Finance explained it in his last speech on the budget: it is feared that there will be a brain drain of highly paid people to the United States.
The poor people who have not fared better in life must remain in the country and be burdened with taxes that have been announced in the budget speech. In my opinion, this budget brought down by the minister of Finance is one that hits the taxpayers the hardest since the end of the war.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In his speech, the Minister does not indicate that the government will substantially reduce its expenditures. I said earlier that this is a budget of social injustice and to show you why I will give you some examples.
In 1969, the $550 exemption will be lowered to $300 for any child not reaching the age of 16 before the end of the fiscal year. At the present time, taxpayers are allowed a $550 exemption for a dependent child but this amount is brought down to $300 when the child is eligible for family allowances.
Another example would be the 2 per cent tax on individual income effective on next January 1. Whatever their income, Mr. Speaker, this tax is applicable to all taxpayers through an additional deduction of 2 per cent on their taxable income. However, as a favour to the more fortunate people, that tax will not exceed $120 a year. I repeat, this is a social injustice budget,
What will the workers say, Mr. Speaker, about the statement made during the last electoral campaign by the government now in office? What is this social development tax, Mr. Speaker? How much will a married man

October 31, 1968
The Budget-Mr. Asselin with two children eligible for family allowance, pay as a result of this increase? A person earning $3,500 a year now pays $102 in income tax and he will have to pay an additional amount of $16 because of this tax hike. A person earning $4,000 a year is now contributing $184, and because of the new tax he wil pay $26 more. A taxpayer now earning $4,500 a year and paying $275 in income tax will have to pay $36 more. Those earning $5,000 are now paying $376 and will pay an additional $46 due to the increase. The one who is earning $6,000 is paying $597; from now on, he will have to lay out $66 more. The one who earns $7,000 pays at the present time $842; he will now have to pay out $86 more, as of January 1st, 1969.
But the difference is not so great-as I said earlier-between those ones who earn $5,000 and those earning $10,000. As a matter of fact, those who earn $10,000 pay $1,644, but they will have to disburse only $120 more. It is not even twice as much as the ones who earn $5,000 a year! As far as those who earn $15,000 or $25,000 a year are concerned, they will pay the maximum, as I said earlier, of $120. Mr. Speaker, this tax which is called the "social development" tax by the minister is, to my mind, a "social injustice" tax. Once again, it will be the low-income individuals, the small wage earners who will pay the bill, because those who earn $8,000, $15,000 or $25,000 a year, do not care if they have to pay $120 more.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has brought down eight budgets since 1963, and has increased the personal income tax four times. One budget reduced taxes, naturally on the eve of elections, and three brought no change.
Personal income tax, Mr. Speaker, is saturated at all levels. There are provincial taxes, school taxes, municipal taxes and federal taxes and the taxpayers cannot bear any further taxation.
Thus, when mention is made of a social development tax, I say that the minister has made a big mistake. I say once more that it would be called the social injustice tax.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the new budget will create new tensions between the provinces and the federal government because the Prime Minister said in Halifax the other day that the provinces must not expect any share of the taxes collected by the federal government. God knows that right now they are faced with serious financial problems.

It is well and good to introduce legislation on the status of the official languages-I am in favour of that-but I think that the first reform needed is that recommended by the Economic Council of Canada, namely to amend the constitution in such a way as to set up new jurisdictions between the federal government and the provinces so that the latter can get the money that will enable them to meet their obligations in the social, industrial and economic fields.
If the Prime Minister really wants to improve the lot of the provinces, we advise him to propose at the next federal-provincial conference an amendment to the constitution, which will enable the federal and the provincial governments to come to an agreement, to discuss together the jurisdictions and fields of taxation so that the tension between the provinces and the federal government can be cleared up.
Mr. Speaker, if the federal government does not want in any way to give part of the incomes to provinces at the time of the next fiscal arrangements, where will the provinces get their money? Evidently, provinces cannot work miracles. Their only means of getting incomes is to do as the federal government does: levy taxes on taxpayers. And the taxpayers in Quebec or in Canada until the next fiscal year will be taxed even more because the federal government does not want to leave to provinces fields of taxation which belong to them and to which they are entitled.
Mr. Speaker, the needs of the provinces are extremely important and are increasing over the years.
In 1967, Quebec spent $591,614,300 for educational purposes out of a budget of $2,791,000,000.


An hon. Member:: What is the contribution of the federal government?


Martial Asselin: I will tell you later on.
For the construction of schools, the federal government pays certain costs. In 1967-68, the federal government paid $71 million to help the provinces in their construction plans for schools, while we know that the budget of provinces for school construction amounted to $125 million in 1967-68 and that the estimates
October 31, 1968
for 1968-69 will he about the same. But provinces are not any richer than last year. The federal government is cutting down its contribution to $57 million for the 1968-69 year, a reduction of $14 million, whereas the provinces-


An hon. Member:: No-


Martial Asselin: -my hon. friend says no. He should look at the figures over there. There is a difference of $14 million between 1967 and 1968. Let him iot it down. If he wants to refute my statement and if I am mistaken, I shall stand corrected, but the figures I have here have been audited by both the federal government and the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, social security is a field in which, as has already been said, there is jurisdiction overlapping. We know that social security, under the constitution, comes under provincial jurisdiction and we are aware of the circumstances under which it has been given up to the federal government for a number of years. Now, the province of Quebec spent $464 million in 1967-68 for social security. In 1968-69, it will spend $407 million. The federal grants to Quebec for that item amounted to $10 million in 1967-68, but for 1968-69, no grant has been provided for.
I am glad that my hon. friend is coming closer in order to listen to me more attentively. He was too far away before.
Mr. Speaker, the same applies to all the Canadian provinces. The same difficulties and the same problems in the field of education are found in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and all the other provinces. They are facing serious financial problems, and the federal government refuses to concede a single point with regard to the fiscal arrangements made with the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, there is another subject which I should like to deal with tonight, and I am very glad to see that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is here tonight. I should like to talk about the tendency on the part of the present government since it came to power to interfere increasingly in matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
The other day the Secretary of State made a statement in the house concerning E.T.V. He said that his department would soon set up a task force of experts to go around the country making inquiries on E.T.V. I am sure
The Budget-Mr. Asselin the minister would be one of the last to contradict me when I say that education falls exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. Naturally, the federal government has rights with regard to means of communication. The honourable minister told us in his statement that his department intended to give licences to private companies to operate E.T.V. and that, at the same time, the province could not be guaranteed the same privilege, that is of having a licence to avail themselves of the services of E.T.V.
Recently, the Quebec premier protested against this further intrusion of the federal government in provincial matters at the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa last February. Quebec said very clearly to the former government, which has been slightly altered, that E.T.V. fell within provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has jurisdiction over the means of communication. But why quarrel and create tension between the provinces with regard to education when the minister tells us in his statement that licences will be granted private companies? Still, he did not guarantee that the provinces, should they make similar requests to operate an E.T.V. system, would be treated by the federal government as it will treat the private companies.


Gérard Pelletier: Will the member allow me a question?


Martial Asselin: Certainly.


Gérard Pelletier: I have already heard the member say three times that I said in this house that the federal government would grant E.T.V. permits to private companies. That assertion has just been made three times in a row and does not correspond in any way to the statement I made the other day; I wonder where the member got this information.


Martial Asselin: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have to take the word of the Secretary of State, but many statements have been made outside the house, in addition to those made in this house or in the committees. Would the minister like to contradict me about what his department is planning to do, namely grant licences to private companies to allow them to go into educational broadcasting when the



October 31, 1968
The Budget-Mr. Asselin provinces are not even sure of getting licences?


Gérard Pelletier: That is precisely what I was asking the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.
There has never been any question of granting licences to private companies for educational television and the hon. member certainly did not get his information from any statement I ever made in the house or outside.


Martial Asselin: I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, to have the confirmation of the minister on that point. But could the minister assure the house that if a province asks a licence for operating educational television, the federal government would agree to grant it? Can the minister answer?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there is no question about my having to answer. Evidently, the member speaks of a statement made in this house and which he has not read because it is said in that statement that licences will be granted to a federal and public agency, and to it only. Therefore I wonder why he puts that question and has been referring for the last fifteen minutes to a statement about which he obviously knows very little since the answers to questions he puts are included in this statement, made more than a week ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the minister's statement as this confirms what he said in the house, namely that he would grant TV licences to companies and agencies. He just said it in this house. Therefore, the minister should consider giving the same opportunity to the provinces if they want to get a licence to operate in the field of educational TV.
Mr. Speaker, this of course is not the last time we see the government opposite encroaching on provincial matters. It did so in the field of medicare, and the Quebec taxpayers will probably pay a penalty for not participating in the federal plan, as they have to pay taxes to finance medicare on the same basis as the people in other provinces who join to this plan. When we have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Does the house agree unanimously to allow the hon. member to proceed with his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members and I think that the minister is even more magnanimous than those back-benchers who said that I should speak for a few minutes only. However, I shall not take too much of the time of the house to conclude my remarks.
The Quebec taxpayers, because they do not contribute to the federal government medicare program any more than those of some other provinces at present will have to pay taxes to help its cost. I do not suggest that this program is a bad thing, but the federal government, before putting it into force, should first have consulted the provinces so as to establish a plan meeting the conditions laid down by the provinces.
[English}


Edgar John Benson: We had consulted the
provinces.


Martial Asselin: The minister says: We had consulted the provinces. However, some provinces said that they refused to accept the federal program, because they could not meet the four conditions imposed on them by the federal government.
I say that the present government wanted to act unilaterally and that the taxpayers of Quebec and other provinces, who do not now participate in the federal medicare plan will be penalized by taxes they will have to pay to the federal government. In fact, the 2 per cent tax might help the federal government to meet the expenditures of the medicare plan.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We would have preferred, Mr. Speaker, that in his budget speech the minister deal with some positive solutions and tell us about his plans for overcoming our unemployment problems. This is a problem not to be neglected as it is known that in the Atlantic provinces the unemployment percentage is
October 31, 1968

4.3 of the labour force, 4.4 in Quebec, 2.5 in Ontario, 1.9 in the Prairie provinces and 4.5 in British Columbia.
The budget announced by the minister does not in any way indicate what solutions are contemplated by the government to solve this problem. This situation will, in my opinion, be more severe next winter because the present government has, without informing the provinces and municipalities beforehand, discontinued the winter works program which had been put into effect by our party when we were in power.
They would rather eliminate the program than providing work for those people in winter. Even if there have been some abuses in the past, some people earned money in winter time and could survive because they could work. But this winter the only course offered to them will be unemployment insurance, social assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think this a good way for the minister to tackle this unemployment problem, by ignoring it. If this governement wanted to eliminate winter works, the only thing to do was merely to provide provinces and municipalities with an alternate solution. We ask the government to provide us one but it gave us no response.
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, we are fully justified in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West and I hope that among our Liberal friends, who during the election campaign showed compassion for the plight of the poor people, unemployed people in Quebec and in other provinces, there will be a few members to rise and support our amendment. The budget introduced by the Minister of Finance is completely unacceptable to the population as a whole, especially to the poor people; obviously, it is not in this way that the government and the minister will establish the main heads in order to set the great principles that will bring to Canada the just society the Right Hon. Prime Minister so often referred to during the election campaign.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to avail myself of this opportunity to say on behalf of the Rallie-ment creditiste what we think of the present administration, what we think of the past
The Budget-Mr. Latulippe administrations, of the "smashed up" budgets. Since the end of the 1939-1945 war, we have known nothing else but "smashed up" budgets. We have had different Liberal and Conservative administrations and they were all administrations with a smashed up budget. They increased taxes, which in turn increased the cost of living and led the economy to an unsufferable unbalance, almost beyond remedy. So this economy's balance must be reestablished and I believe there is nobody among the members of this government who can offer solutions.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has no other solution than to increase taxes and the price of services. The price of services is rising at all levels of society.
The governments bleed the people dry to speak bluntly, and they benefit much more from loans than the individuals. The governments can borrow money at a much lower rate than the individuals. And because the all-round cost of living is allowed to rise, individuals have to borrow money at unconscionable interest rates, that are exorbitant and even criminal for society, for the individuals and for the families.
The governmental budgets, at all levels, announce increases in taxes. It is a universal disease. We call that austerity because international finance and leaders of all governments say so.
Tax increases please no one, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, everybody is complaining privately or publicly. Each and every one grumbles against taxes, but strange contradiction, there is an almost unanimous belief that taxes are inevitable.
Mr. Speaker, let all of those gentlemen who claim taxes are necessary rejoice, because the government has once more fulfilled their wishes. Surely, it is the government's fault, but is is also our fault; in short, it is the fault of every member, every taxpayer who fails to take his own responsibilities. Taxes are claimed to be necessary, there are some who are always ready to let the others carry their burden. Many fight taxes with all their might but make every effort to avoid paying them as they should.
When you are among the mighty it is not too bad. But it is not so simple when you are
2286	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Latulippe a wage-earner and when the pay envelope is legally searched by a good dozen thieves, before being given to its legitimate owner. Nevertheless, it is the public who pays. Then why do the taxpayers not request a reform which would abolish a good many taxes?
What is preventing the taxpayers from going on strike against taxes; there are strikes everywhere, in all sectors, all over Canada, but no one thought of going on a tax strike. I think one day we will have a tax strike and that day will be an abomination for Canada and other countries like ours.
Why do we not consider an administrative formula ensuring that public developments are financed by a single fact of accountancy, consistent with the realities of the considerable wealth and progress of our country? After all, financing is only a question of figures.
Mr. Speaker, can all 262 members and ministers of the Parliament of Canada, since the elections of June 25, 1968, mention a single measure of the government in favour of the people? On the contrary everything has been done in favour of capital.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Bonds worth $260 million at 5 per cent have been replaced by bonds bearing 6.5 per cent interest. Interest rates have been raised on loans to students and farmers and other Canadians in executive positions. The price of stamps has been increased, and personal income tax is being raised by 2 per cent. It is obvious that the same system is being maintained without any change. Capital income is increased and personal income is reduced through all kinds of increases, in taxes, prices and in the cost of living generally. The ceiling on the interest rate on bank loans generally, as well as on personal loans to farmers and to students guaranteed by the government is being removed. There is a constant and progressive protection of the national social capital and continual and progressive denial of the family and human capital. The present administration is exactly the contrary to what a good and a sound administration should be. Capital, which is only an instrument of production and financing, enjoys all privileges, profits, reserves and surplus which the Canadian people are deprived of, when in fact capital is created and legalized by the government of the people. That is complete nonsense.

DEBATES	October 31, 1968
All this has been explained at length and in precise detail in the brief which I presented to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs on October 25, 1966. This brief has never been read nor studied by the committee, but it was printed as appendix AAA, on pages 2548-53 of volume II of the deliberations of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs on the occasion of the decennial revision of banking legislation.
I shall quote two paragraphs from the brief which will make your mouth water and will encourage you to read in full these basic papers on our past, present and future economic policy:
Every time the workers' salaries, are raised, every time interests on capital, are increased, the cost of living goes up generally and the economic position of people without income, work or capital is jeopardized and by the same token, the economic position of those responsible for them.
When the Bank of Canada was established in 1934, it set its rate of interest at 2 per cent for treasury bills and its loans to chartered banks. This rate remained unchanged for 22 years, from 1934 to 1956-57, in spite of the depression, the war and the post-war boom.
Mr. Speaker, one would wish to read all over again this basic report, which sets forth the main financial procedures in our economy which have brought about the present situation, so wonderful for the presidents, directors, administrators and shareholders of big banks and companies, but which also maintain our governments in permanent deficit and eternal debt, resulting in exhorbitant interest rates and causing many of our people hardship, insecurity or poverty, without the least hope of coming out of it except through a war or a revolution.
Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada, the eight Canadian chartered banks, the 800 largest companies, listed or not on the stock exchange, which show an annual net profit of $1 million, in addition to two or three times that amount in hidden, unpublished and untaxed reserves, come under the economic and legislative management of the Minister of Finance and of the government of Canada.
The directors of those companies are Canadian citizens the same as every other citizen in this country. If all Canadian citizens were aware of those facts, if all newspapermen,
October 31, 1968

teachers and politicians would pass on those facts openly to every Canadian citizen, if none of them were camouflaged, thinned out, disguised by an intellectual elite benefitting largely from such an unhealthy economy, do you think the people would bear any longer those deficit budgets and those unprecedented taxations?
Here are the four most important ministers in the government of Canada in 1968, that is the ones mainly responsible for our economy and our administration.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not hold any particular portfolio but he must have an overall grasp of all departments and must generally direct the administration of the country to the benefit of the national social capital or towards the social development of the human capital of the family.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) must see to it that justice and legal understanding prevail between all the citizens of Canada, bar none. But the first step, Mr. Speaker, is social distributive justice, that of the primo vivere, that is the right to live, the right to live one's life.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has contacts with all the citizens of Canada, without forgetting any, because all the citizens are linked together by the exchange of all the products of industry, agriculture, mining or the other necessities of life for each and every citizen of Canada.
The Minister of Finance is perhaps the one who has more to do with all the needs of the citizens of Canada because no one can move without needing money, currency, credit or capital. Everything works with money and the Minister of Finance holds the highest authority with regard to the whole machinery of money, the issuance of money, the chartered banks, the Bank of Canada and the setting of the interest rates.
The principal tool of the Minister of Finance, with regard to the administration of Canada, is his famous annual budget, a tool which he tries to use to regulate the circulation of money according to the needs of all the citizens of Canada.
The Minister of Finance operates a kind of suction and force pump through which he takes money from those who have too much and gives it to those who have not enough. He is the main regulator of monetary circulation among all Canadians. That is why
The Budget-Mr. Latulippe everyone turns towards him, even all the other ministers and members of parliament, because he is the one who pays their salaries, out of taxes collected from Canadian citizens, out of income taxes or taxes on profits.
We should not worry about the complex task of the Canadian Minister of Finance. Indeed it is not more difficult for him to balance his yearly budget than for any single person, father, farmer or small businessman. He has at his disposal all the information and all the qualified personnel to balance his budget.
As everyone, he must apply the regular formula of any sound administration: income, expenses and profits. As everywhere else, there should be enough income to make up the expenses and leave a margin of security, surplus or reserve. What is good for the corporations is equally good for the government and for the individual, whether he be a bachelor or the head of a family in Canada. [DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It's always the same administrative formula: revenues, expenditures and profits. You have to concentrate on this formula once you start talking about administration, budget, political economy, at all levels whether personal, family, social, municipal, provincial, federal, national, international or even at world level.
We should stop making so much ado about nothing. Such mysteries are only there to frighten the little man. When the people are at all informed, they see through them and public finance does not frighten him anymore. Even if he cannot grasp all the details, he can read between the lines.
So the day has come to be honest with the people of Canada about the annual budget of the government, to steady the flow of money with both the suction and the forcing pumps, so that every Canadian citizen, individually, be considered as a complete and essential unit, with his own buying power either through his work, or his capital, or through his right to live and if he does not have any revenue from his work or from his capital, for any possible reason.
Our ministers must therefore know what the people think about that.
Since the end of the war, in 1945, the whole economy of the country has been oriented toward the national social capital benefits in institutions to the great detriment of the family human capital in residences.
2288	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Latulippe
Our banks and companies are prosperous but families are declining.
Capital and labour are the two mainstays of production and the 7,700,000 Canadian citizens that take part in this production receive wages for their work and interests on their capital.
But the 13 million citizens who have no work nor capital, receive no revenue, have no purchasing power to meet their personal needs and the needs of their families. Yet, all have the right to live in Canada.
This right to live must become a component in the distribution of the purchasing power, of a personal guaranteed income, through a vital personal right for each and every Canadian citizen without work or income.
A plain and easy formula to be applied universally, on a pay-as-you-go basis, depending upon the national production, would allow every Canadian without work or income to receive a personal vital right of $1 per day for a child, $2 for a student, $3 for an adult and $120 for each retired citizen of 60 years of age or more.
The total cost would be only $9 billions out of a production of $60 billions in 1968, for the 13 millions of Canadian citizens of all ages, without work or revenue, without any other personal revenue than the vital right.
This would only cost 14 per cent of the 68 billion national produt and there would still remain 86 per cent or 59 billion dollars to pay for the work and capital of the 7,700,000 citizens contributing to the national product, in preportion to their participation.
This one program, this one technical formula can be applied immediately, all at once or through successive steps, according to the competence and ability of the ministers of the present parliament and of the 262 representatives elected by the people to legislate on behalf of all Canadians.
Only outmoded and mechanistic reflexes or intellectual sloth are preventing us now from establishing within the framework of our economical machinery such a distribution formula of the purchising power, of a guaranteed personal income that adds automatically to the salary formula as regards work and to the interest formula as regards capital.
I am sure the three senior ministers can understand this view and can even provide for its immediate implementation, in spite of the last annual budget introduced by the hon. Minister of Finance.
[Mr Latulippe.]
DEBATES	October 31. 1988
Just let us wake up to this new light, this new possibility that suddenly he comes within our reach.
Can we deliberately, close our eyes? What can stop us from taking such action? Let us take a look at ourselves and we shall understand.
It has to be done some day, so the sooner the better. The more we postpone action, Mr. Speaker, the more difficult it will be, for the gap wiU go on widening every year between the rich who get richer and the poor who become poorer. Therefore why not correct right away what needs to be corrected.
This technical formula, Mr. Speaker, can be applied without any increase in taxes, in the cost of living or in prices, if only the large banks and the millionaire corporations agree to pay all the expenses of the guaranteed personal income out of their tremendous annual reserves of over $24 billion after taxes.
Most of the presidents and directors of large banking or commercial enterprises or institutions in Canada are willing to accept this guaranteed personal income formula, provided decisions are made by the government of Canada and everybody is considered on an equal basis, that is individuals, all corporations and even those which are exempt from taxation of all kinds for all sorts of considerations. This I am pointing out to the right hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Finance and hon. Minister of Justice.
I would like at this time, Mr. Speaker, to differentiate between true credit and financial credit.
True credit is the power to produce whatever the people need. It is the power to produce food, clothing and living accommodation and the capacity to build houses for families with children, barns for cattle and manufactures.
True credit means the capacity to build highways, roads, transportation equipment, automobiles and airplanes. It also implies the power to obtain the services of teachers for the education of children and to produce goods, which those teachers cannot produce them themselves and which they need.
Those are indeed realities which exist without any doubt, realities which are the reason we prefer Canada to a desert or an island and are instrumental in bringing about a decent way of living in our country.
This might be defined as true credit, Mr. Speaker, for the word "credit" means confidence. This potential production, this confidence factor and this true credit already existed when the first settlers from France
October 31. 19G8	COMMONS
or England landed here. They hoped to get enough to live. They would not have come otherwise and this true credit has constantly increased since then.
The problem is not at all due to actual possibilities but it is an artificial problem created by the lack of money and figures which can make products and services fluctuate.
There are two kinds of credit, Mr. Speaker, the true credit and the financial credit.
The financial credit is established by banks and is based upon the real credit. On the other hand, the real credit is the work and the devotion of past generations, science, technique or technology as well as philosophy.
Money credit is a title which gives a right to those products and services. It is only a figure engraved on metal or printed on paper, and it is controlled by the Bank of Canada for an issue of almost $3 billion. But financial credit, Mr. Speaker, amounts to figures-
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask for confirmation of the business for tomorrow. Is it the railway bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, No. 24 on today's order paper, the bill dealing with the financing of the Canadian National Railways. If any time is left over after that matter has been dealt with the house will resolve itself into committee of supply and consider the estimates with respect to legislation and the Treasury Board.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, this house and the country have heard a great deal in recent weeks about the Biafran tragedy-and it is a tragedy. To listen to some of the remarks of the opposition members one would conclude that the
DEBATES	2289
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Canadian government is totally insensitive to suffering, while the opposition is a veritable oasis of charity and humanitarianism. Hon. members on the opposition benches know in their hearts that this is not true. It is not given to any group, be it a political party, a government party or an opposition party, to be the repository of goodness and generosity to the exclusion of all other groups. There have been criticisms of Canada's record in Nigeria. But what is that record, Mr. Speaker? Stated simply, the record is the best in the world.
We were one of the first nations to answer the call for help last August. We are the only nation which has been successful in negotiating with both sides to expedite aid to the starving of Nigeria and Biafra. We are the only nation today with government aircraft bringing aid to the victims of that horrible war. That is the record.
We are one of a handful of nations to contribute to the team of observers. These have been solid and productive accomplishments. In the process the government has not yielded to the temptation to seek headlines. Indeed our record in assisting in the resolution of international disputes and extending aid rests in our ability to conciliate and negotiate, even though that is done in an unspectacular way.


J. Michael Forrestall: Who wrote that speech?


Raymond J. Perrault: During these past weeks, when we have seen some hon. members trafficking politically in the human misery of the Nigerian conflict, it is noteworthy that hon. members of the opposition have virtually ignored Canada's record in another area, a record which adds new laurels to Canada's reputation as a nation that cares about humanity.
We have achieved a superb record in the Czechoslovakian refugee crisis. The manner in which Canada has met her obligations in the Czech crisis shows that where there is an opportunity, where international red tape and diplomatic realities do not intervene, the government of Canada more than matches in action the generosity and compassion which the opposition delineates in words. The government, and particularly the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, deserve the commendation of parliament and the people of Canada for the nature and extent of the efforts to find a new life in Canada for those refugees who fled from Czechoslovakia in the face of Soviet aggression.
October 31, 1968
2290	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
As far as our nation is concerned, red tape has been virtually eliminated, financial barriers removed and screening processes speeded in an effort to bring as many refugees to Canada as quickly as possible. Tomorrow, the twentieth chartered plane load of Czech refugees arrives in Canada. All these flights have carried from 130 to 190 passengers. They are men, women and families who, in my view, will become exceptional Canadian citizens and make contributions to this country far beyond their new numerical strength.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: Since the first flight in mid September I have ascertained that approximately 3,449 refugees have come to Canada, the majority coming under the auspices of the government's program which provides grants or loans to cover transportation, settling in and adjustment costs. Practically all those intending to enter into the Canadian labour force have been interviewed by manpower counsellors in offices across Canada. Altogether 1,102 persons have been placed in employment; and 800 are taking language courses and other training in English or French so that they may become better equipped to practise their professions and trades across this country.
As of yesterday there had been 11,241 inquiries from Czechoslovakian refugees interested in coming to Canada. Our information offices in Europe have received firm applications for admission from approximately 10,000 people, dealing with 150 people a day in Vienna alone.
The government has acted with compassion and generosity. If it were given the same opportunity and if it were unhampered by external barriers not of its own making, I am sure it would do as much and even more for the victims of the Nigerian conflict.


J. Michael Forrestall: Let's hope so.


Raymond J. Perrault: Despite their agitated and impassioned observations of recent weeks, our friends in opposition are well aware of the limits, often severe limits, which exist and which prevent this nation from accomplishing all that we may wish to do in the area of resolving conflicts and relieving the suffering of the world.
We know, for example, how the fact of national sovereignty, a right we cherish ourselves, may frustrate our efforts to intervene constructively in the affairs, and indeed in the agonies of our world neighbours. Canada's contributions to the world are not a subject of


humiliation and embarrassment to any Canadian. Certainly they are not a subject of embarrassment with respect to Nigeria. Rather they are a matter of pride, as exemplified by our conduct in the Hungarian revolution as well as in the Czech crisis. I submit that in all these matters Canada's actions have been outstanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the question?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleagues would only agree to grant me the three minutes that-


@Acting Speaker: Order.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member sitting at the end-I apologize for not being able to name his constituency- inferred that hon. members should listen, and sit down and learn something. I would draw attention to the fact that this period is set aside for members who are dissatisfied with the answers they receive from ministers. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has at no time mentioned any question asked in the house nor has he referred to the minister with whom he is dissatisfied.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the procedure should be the following: I shall call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Donald MacInnis: What is the question? Which minister is he dissatisfied with?


Gérard Loiselle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Allow me to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), whose constituency I know very well, for having raised the question.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) said that the ten o'clock show must be reserved for the members opposite who have some questions to raise or grievances to discuss. Why from time to time should we not congratulate the government for nobody can make me believe that the government is always wrong.
October 31, 1968
I congratulate the hon. member once again on the minister's behalf as well as on my own for having raised that matter of which all Canadians are quite proud.
I myself saw the arrival of some Czech refugees and I could see how happy they were to enter this country.
Canada can be proud of what she has done, for no other country in the world has accomplished as much as Canada for Biafran or Czech refugees.
During the Prague uprising on last August 23, the Canadian government, as early as September 4, ordered its European offices to process quickly all applications made by Czechoslovakian refugees. At the same time, we relaxed somewhat the ordinary conditions to allow them to enter Canada.
We must also remember that when the advisory commission which spent a few days in Vienna to see whether officials were taking proper and quick action came back to Canada, it could only praise all the Canadian officials in our offices abroad who hurry the answers to the applications which they receive from Czechoslovakians who want to come to Canada.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In order to add to what the hon. member said a few moments ago, regarding the attitude of the government towards refugees, I must mention that, from the 1st to the 23rd of November, ten groups of refugees will arrive in the country. This proves, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government has done what no other government in the world has done.
As far as the Biafrans are concerned, we are trying to do our utmost for them, but we must admit that the present conditions in Nigeria do not allow us to act as promptly and as easily. However, the Canadian government has publicly declared that any Biafran citizen, presently visiting the country, who asks for permission to stay, will have his request granted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A the motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.13 p.m.



October 31, 1968



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
THE PERMANENT MISSION OF CANADA TO THE UNITED NATIONS 866 United Nations Plaza,
New York, 10017.
October 24, 1968
Dear Ambassador,
My Minister, the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, has asked me to enquire urgently about the role of churches in respect of relief supplies. One of the leading critics of the Government, Mr. Brewin, whom you will recall came to New York, and met with Dr. Arikpo, claims that he was told that the Federal Government would not oppose flights into rebel-held areas from Sao Tome by churches, using Canadian Hercules aircraft. This statement does not appear to have been made to Mr. Sharp himself but may have been made during the visit of certain Canadian Parliamentarians when they met the Commissioner for External Affairs.
Mr. Sharp would be very grateful if you could let him know, as a matter of urgency, whether in fact such a statement has been made or whether the Federal Nigerian Government would be likely to permit such an arrangement.
Yours sincerely, George Ignatieff Ambassador and Permanent Representative.
His Excellency Mr. E. O. Ogbu,
Ambassador and Permanent Representative,
Permanent Mission of Nigeria to the United Nations,
757 Third Ave., 20th Floor,
COPY New York, N.Y., 10017.

[Stage Direction]
757 Third Avenue New York, N.Y. 10017 Telephone: HAnover 1-2610 24th October, 1968
UN/S/130/161/
His Excellency Mr. George Ignatieff, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations,
866 United Nations Plaza,
New York 10017,
New York.
Dear Ambassador,
In reply to your letter of today's date, I am directed by Dr. Arikpo, Nigerian Commissioner for External Affairs, to inform you that neither he nor any other member of the Nigerian Delegation told the Canadian members of Parliament who met with Dr. Arikpo that the Federal Government would not oppose flights to rebel held areas from Sao Tome by churches, using Canadian Hercules aircraft. I am to inform you that the churches are operating at their own risk. For example, Caritas has been operating independently and the World Council of Churches operates under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross only when it suits them. The Federal Military Government has expressed its preference that all voluntary agencies operate under the aegis of the International Committee of the Red Cross. This preference remains unchanged.
Yours sincerely,
(E. O. Ogbu)
COPY	Permanent Representative

[Stage Direction]
la?


[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 15, 1968