1964-02-21

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the subamendment which Your Honour accepted last night. I wish to make it perfectly clear that in doing so I am not in any way expressing opposition to, or discussing, the subject matter of the subamendment. In fact it was our party which in 1961 set up a royal commission to look into the whole question of medical services in Canada. The report of this commission is expected shortly.
My point is that Your Honour, after expressing grave doubts as to the acceptability of the subamendment last night, rendered a decision at 10.08 p.m. without waiting for hon. members to present their views as to the regularity and relevance of the subamendment. In this particular case I submit that Your Honour's ruling departs from established rulings on the principle of the relevancy of subamendments. With respect, it is the normal custom for Mr. Speaker to ask for the views of hon. members before making decisions on points of order such as the one that was before us last night. In the present case, Your Honour did indicate earlier your doubts as to the relevancy of the subamendment and seemed to indicate then that the subamendment was out of order. Subsequently, without any further discussion or opportunity for hon. members to present their views, Your Honour gave a contrary ruling. I and others of my colleagues were prepared to present certain views, and I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had earlier expressed his intention of making his views known to the house.
Under the circumstances I would invite Your Honour, with respect, to reconsider your original decision and invite hon. members to present their views on the relevancy of the subamendment. In any event, may I point out respectfully that in such situations a ruling should not be made without calling for the views of hon. members present.


Mr. Speaker:: Last evening I gave my opinion that I had serious doubts about the relevancy of the subamendment. I think the authorities will show that good practice provides that subamendments should be relevant to the amendment. In the past, on the address a certain latitude has been given, not only in debate but in the wording of subamendments. I should like to give the house two examples. In 1952, when Speaker Ross Macdonald was in the Chair, Hon. Mr. Drew, seconded by Mr. Graydon, in amendment to the address moved:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers
(a)	continue to impose excessive, burdensome and unjust taxation;
(b)	refuse to eliminate waste and extravagance and to cut down the cost of government;
(c)	fail to take adequate steps to deal effectively with inflation and the high cost of living.
Then Mr. Coldwell, seconded by Mr. Knowles, moved in amendment to the proposed amendment the following:
This house further regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend the inauguration of a national health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: In 1963 the main amendment dealt with economic growth, and the subamendment as proposed by Mr. Douglas, seconded by Mr. Herridge, dealt with nuclear arms for Canadian forces. Those are two examples of subamendments which were accepted by the house and which again, in my humble opinion, are open to some doubt as to relevancy. Nevertheless the house accepted them at the time for debate, although they were rejected subsequently.
Last night, when no one rose to object I decided to accept the subamendment, even though I had doubts about its relevancy. In accepting this subamendment I endeavoured to suggest to the house that in future subamendments should be relevant in spite of considerable latitude given in the past. According to Beauchesne, citation 70, paragraph 4:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the question would be out of place.
My ruling has been made, but hon. members will appreciate that I do not wish to assume more powers than the house gives me; I am, after all, the servant of the house. So I simply leave myself in the hands of the
30	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry house, and if it is thought that other steps should be taken, now is the time to take them.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I just say this on the point of order. With regard to your remark that no one rose to object, there was no opportunity given to members to rise to object. As is reported on page 71 of Hansard, when you gave your tentative ruling the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated that he had something to say, but he asked whether consideration of this question might be deferred. Your Honour agreed with that, and so did the house.
At the conclusion of proceedings at eight minutes after ten last night Your Honour made a ruling and immediately adjourned the house. There was no opportunity whatsoever for anyone to rise to object, and I should not like the record to indicate that we were negligent in our duty in not expressing our opinions on this point.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. These matters are not easy; if they were there would be no need for an arbitrator. As reported at page 71 I did say:
If any hon. member would care to comment I would be glad to hear him-
That is what I was referring to.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Just on that point, Mr. Speaker, I think the house was in general agreement that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) should be given the opportunity to speak, and for compelling reasons, and that any question as to the admissibility or otherwise of the subamendment would be deferred. It is to this point that I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre were referring, and I think it is to that point to which the attention of the house is being drawn.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members have no further comment I propose to continue the standard procedure of the house. I am, of course, in the hands of the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking a question of the Minister of National Defence in connection with the deplorable armoury break-ins which have taken place. I ask him particularly whether the military authorities have checked fully into the identity of the persons who are the


wrongdoers. Furthermore, I ask him to enlighten the house on the degree of security expected from the storing of weapons and their vital mechanisms separately but in the same building. I also ask him to advise the house whether these break-ins, in the opinion of the government, are the work of an organized group, an organized criminal gang, or are simply isolated or unconnected events.
Kon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to give hon. members a report concerning the robbery which took place at Shawinigan Falls yesterday morning.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker- I do not want to interrupt the minister, but if he is going to give a lengthy statement possibly we should revert to motions so that the opportunity would be given to the opposition to make some observations on the lack of control in this connection.


Mr. Hellyer:: I am not making a lengthy statement; it is an answer to a question asked by the right hon. gentleman yesterday and to further questions asked by him this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if this is going to be a long statement we want an opportunity to make some observations about it, and I am sure the house would agree to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house consent to reverting to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I might point out that we are discussing later today the speech from the throne, when there is adequate opportunity to debate any subject without restriction, and if any observations are to be made they can be made at that time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, standing orders do provide certain restrictions on questions and answers, and one of those restrictions is that answers shall be short and succinct. I think the house is having problems at the present time with very long answers on orders of the day which should be statements made-on motions.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I may say that yesterday the minister stated he would be making a full report to the house today. It certainly is not, therefore, a short answer to a question, but is a full report on an important matter coming within the responsibility of the minister. If he is to make it, I think he should make it under motions.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: There were, I think, three questions asked on this matter yesterday, and in his question this morning the right hon. gentleman had three subsections. Perhaps, therefore, they ought to be all dealt with in this one reply.


John George Diefenbaker: So long as it is clear that we have the right immediately to make our observations on this lengthy report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I must say that I am getting experience in procedure this morning. In any event, I believe the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is well taken. If the answer is going to be very long, then it should be made under motions and not during the question time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will drop the report which I have volunteered to make to the house. Most of it is already in the newspapers, in any event.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will comply with the rules of the house and answer the questions just asked by the right hon. gentleman. He asked what steps had been taken. I informed the house on Wednesday that a special commission had been established to consider all matters relating to the security of national defence property. The commission had begun its investigation on January 31 and made its report yesterday. The recommendations include a number of long term measures which are now being studied by the chiefs of staff.
One recommendation relates to immediate action. It is that all serviceable small arms and ammunition be withdrawn from reserve establishments where maximum security cannot be provided. Consequent upon that recommendation, an order has gone out today that all small arms be withdrawn from reserve establishments where maximum security cannot be provided on an around the clock basis. In addition, orders have gone out today that at least one person will be on duty at reserve establishments on an around the clock basis. This procedure will be implemented just as quickly as it is feasible to do so. The longer term measures which have been recommended are being studied and will be implemented just as expeditiously as it is felt advisable to do so.
In respect of law enforcement, we have to be very careful not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local police forces who have, under our constitution, the responsibility in these matters. However, we are co-operating in every respect, fully and completely, with them in the performance of their duties, to
Inquiries of the Ministry the end that we can determine who the robbers were and to recover the stolen goods. In so far as the nature of the groups is concerned, I cannot give my right hon. friend specific information on this. I think it will be easier to do so after the robbers have been apprehended and there has been a chance to interrogate them.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he can give me a reply to the questions I asked yesterday? Are the press reports correct, to the effect that the armouries at Shawinigan Falls were left with no one on duty, that the caretaker did not arrive until eight o'clock in the morning, and that the two officers in charge did not arrive until between 9.20 and 9.30? Is it correct that during the hours of the night prior to 8 a.m. when the robbers entered there was no one on duty, and that this building was left without anyone on duty during the night?
I should like to ask the minister how many other armouries are in a similar position.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is true that no one was on duty during the night. The robbers had broken in forcibly before the caretaker arrived that morning. The caretaker was bound and gagged and taken into the basement, as were the other two officers when they arrived. There are other establishments, particularly in outlying areas, where around the clock caretaker protection or other protection is not provided. It is in those areas that the two actions I have mentioned this morning will be implemented, one to remove all arms even though they have previously been separated as between working mechanisms and the balance, and the establishment of around the clock caretaker or other protection until the long range measures have been implemented.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Could I ask what reason there would be for not providing around the clock supervision of these armouries?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows there are many armouries across the country. It has not been the practice in the past to provide around the clock protection, because with the normal lock-up procedures which have been in effect the number of violations of security have been very few. It did not seem reasonable under those circumstances to expend the very large sums of money required to provide around the clock protection. This policy is being re-examined in the light of recent developments.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister take this point of view now despite the fact that there were two armouries broken into prior to the last one?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, the action I have just announced in respect to the commissions was initiated the morning after the first incident took place, and I think this is just about as fast as anyone could proceed in the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister not be able to advise whether a particular situation prevails in one province? That is the reason I asked whether these incidents were the work of an organized political group. Has he no information in that regard?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no authenticated information in that regard.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. A little while ago the minister refused to give the house the full burden of the report he has prepared, so my question is, is he at the moment withholding any essential information from the house pertaining to this matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the minister if this withdrawal of arms from the army is the first step in the plan for general disarmament.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I understood the minister, he said the department was planning to implement some long term security measures. What are those long term security measures?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I received quite a scolding for giving too much information in the house in respect of security, and on the basis of that admonition, and particularly as some of the measures planned are probably better not released to the public, I am sure my hon. friend would not want me to give out any information in that respect.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice a question with relation to the armoury raids. Is the S and I division of the R.C.M.P. still in existence and, if so, what part is it playing or can it play in the investigations that are ensuing as a result of these armoury incidents? I ask the question because of the emphasis upon the word "robbers" by the minister, which might give an indication that this is simply a criminal matter rather than a subversive matter.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, subject to ascertaining the validity of the question from the standpoint of the parliamentary rules, I shall investigate the matter and report in due course.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister released to the press the contents of the report which was not read here in the House of Commons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a question of privilege, Your Honour, a few minutes ago the minister said that most of the contents of that report had already been given to the press.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. I said I was sure that the press had most of the information. I will send it over to my hon. friend and he can give it to the press if he wants to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Earlier this morning he stated that he had given instructions that all small arms ammunition was to be withdrawn from the armouries where security measures were not adequate. On Wednesday, February 19, in answer to a question which I put to him, he made this statement:
I also directed that appropriate action be taken to increase security measures at all military establishments at which weapons and ammunition were stored .... Ammunition was removed and put in storage at protected depots.
Was the minister misleading the house on Wednesday, and only now has he given his order to remove ammunition from these areas?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. The ammunition had been withdrawn. The order in this case relates to the small arms.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is there a distinction between small arms and ammunition?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, ammunition for small arms is what he implied in this instruction. May I ask the minister, was ammunition stolen from the armoury just the other day after he made this statement in the house, or from the other armoury the day before?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. It wasn't stolen because it wasn't there to be stolen.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask the minister of defence a further question about the break-in to the armoury at Shawinigan Falls. Since the minister has not made any statement we have no other way of getting this information except by asking questions; 1 think it would have saved a lot of time if the hon. gentleman had been able to give us this information.
There are two matters that I wish to raise. First, there is the statement which the minister made yesterday, as reported at page 34 of Hansard. He told us then "In this case there were people on duty". Is this statement accurate or not? Second, would the minister care to tell the house specifically what items were stolen by the robbers who broke in? Are the press reports correct when they say there were 33 FN rifles, three pistols-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that questions be as short and concise as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am simply asking whether this information in the press is correct regarding 33 rifles, 3 pistols, 12 walkie-talkies and a printing press, or whether other items were stolen as well.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There were men on duty, Mr. Speaker, but as I indicated earlier they came in after the break-in occurred.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: On a point of order-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In respect to the items
stolen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert has risen on a point of order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, could not the minister table this report, or at least place it in Hansard, so that those of us who are now getting interested in this subject will not have to read the newspapers over the week end? May I ask the question, will the minister table this report in Hansard?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are three pages here which might be inserted in Hansard as an answer to the question, and I would be delighted to do that if it is the wish of the house.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if something that is not going to be read is to appear
Inquiries of the Ministry in Hansard, it should be inserted as an appendix and not put in the body of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: This requires unanimous consent. Does the house agree?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am prepared to agree, Mr. Speaker, but I think it ought not to be taken as a precedent. If the minister wants to make any statement in this house he should make it on motions, when it can be discussed, or he should make it on orders of the day, when further questions can be asked. To slip something into an appendix to Hansard, when he does not have to answer any questions or clarify any statement, seems to me a most inappropriate procedure.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that not reading it was not my idea. I was prepared to read it in answer to a question which I had taken as notice yesterday. There was no attempt to slip something in.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. The minister has not answered the question that I asked regarding the items that were stolen. Do I take it that the minister is now going to table the report, and does it enumerate in detail the items that were stolen?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's note: For statement referred to above, see appendix.]



PROVISION FOR CONTINUED TRAINING OF NAVAL CADETS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question on another subject. In the light of the closing of a number of reserve establishments of the navy, and the fact that the date for the vacating of premises has in some cases been advanced to February 29, can the minister advise the house what provisions have been made for the continued training of sea cadets and navy cadets?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the conditions vary from place to place. As some of the considerations with respect to this question are still under review as a result of the reports of the two special committees that were set up, perhaps I could take the question as notice and give my hon. friend the information either personnally or in the house on Monday.

Inquiries of the Ministry



BAGOTVILLE, QUE.    INCREASE IN STRENGTH OF ESTABLISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the hon. member for Chicoutimi asked me if it was true that 300 airmen would be added to the staff at Ragotville for the protection of the nuclear warheads stored at that base.
I could just say no, but following the decision which has already been announced to increase the number of CF-101 interceptors at the R.C.A.F. base at Bagotville, about 250 additional airmen will be needed. It must be noted, however, that this increase is not dictated merely by the necessity of ensuring better protection of the base in question.



MID-CANADA LINE    REPORTED DESTRUCTION OF TOWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this matter, but I shall make inquiries at once and give a reply to the hon. member as soon as possible.']
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence, which he may wish to take as notice. Is it correct, as I have just been advised by wire by the High Prairie chamber of commerce, that the mid-Canada line tower at the site near Buffalo bay has been destroyed? If that is so, may I ask why, in view of the fact that I have just opened up negotiations for the use of this tower to facilitate an extension of television service to people of this country?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the tower was destroyed, but I shall look into the matter and advise the hon. member.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has he been informed that three Canadians, Mary Suzuky, 26, of Montreal, Michael Newman, 19, of Vancouver, and Peter Light, are in prison in Albany, Georgia, since last February 3, for taking part in the march for peace? If the minister is aware of this, has he taken action or made representations so that those three Canadians will be released and brought back to this country, if possible?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this matter, but I shall make inquiries at once and give a reply to the hon. member as soon as possible.



ZANZIBAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to shift the attention of the house for a minute to a different part of the world and ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government proposes to extend diplomatic recognition to the regime at Zanzibar, which I believe took over control on January 12.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the question of recognition of this commonwealth country is now under consideration, and I hope to be in a position to take action one way or the other next week.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the statement made a moment ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to Zanzibar, a member of the commonwealth. Does the principle of recognition apply as between countries within the commonwealth? Can the minister give an example of such recognition ever having been given before?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the Leader of the Opposition will recall, on reflection, that this question does extend to countries in the commonwealth. There has been a change of government in Zanzibar. Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom has not yet extended recognition to the government of Zanzibar. There are some complications in the matter involving the withdrawal of British representatives from that country. This and other questions are involved in the decision which the government will make.
The question of recognition certainly applies in a situation such as this. If my hon. friend has any doubt, all I can say to him is that Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom has not yet extended recognition, and we are advised that this matter is also under consideration by that government.

Inquiries of the mimsiry
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT	PUBLIC SERVICE



USE OF MAILS FOR DISSEMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION LITERATURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Are the postal authorities contemplating any action against the national white Americans party, who are using the Canadian mails to disseminate literature encouraging racial discrimination and advocating, among other things, the sterilization of people of the Jewish race?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is a matter of some urgency, and I might say my attention was drawn to it a few hours ago. There is no question but that this organization has been using the mails just within the last day or so to promote racial prejudice in an organized way. It is not a case of a crank. It is the work of an organization, but while the thing is disturbing and shocking I personally do not think the Post Office Department has been or should be set up to act as a censor, certainly not in peacetime. However, in view of the seriousness of the matter I have discussed it with my colleague the Minister of Justice and officials of my own department.
If the hon. member and other hon. members of the house have received letters of this nature from their constituents or others I would appreciate it if they would forward them to me, and particularly the envelopes or containers if they have them, so that I can follow it up with the officials of the Department of Justice and with the provincial authorities.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the remarks made by the Postmaster General, can he advise me why I have not had a reply to representations I made on this matter to the former minister of justice quite some time ago?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. gentleman has not drawn to my personal attention the report which he had made, but I can tell him that this whole file is being placed before me. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has already put a question to me in writing, and has had the kindness to wait until Monday next to put it to the house, so I suppose this answer can be given at the same time.



INQUIRY AS TO SALARY INCREASES FOR CERTAIN CLASSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance when he expects to make an announcement regarding the salary revision increase for civil servants in grades 1 and 2?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather inclined to think that the President of the Privy Council should answer this, but I believe a report will be made within the next several weeks, and certainly by the end of April.



APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR OF METEOROLOGICAL BRANCH, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is it correct that the new $17,000 a year director of the meteorological branch is less qualified than the 15 other applicants for the position?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the appointment to this office is made by the civil service commission. It is not the function of the minister to act as a censor of the civil service commission, and I think we all feel they are competent to discharge their duties properly.


Robert Carman Coates: As a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, is it his intention to investigate the procedures followed in the selection of the director of the meteorological branch of the Department of Transport?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. How was appointed yesterday. I will communicate with the civil service commission and give an answer to the hon. member later.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question which arises from a press release he issued last night, which was the fourth clarification in two months of the government's policy on community antenna television systems. I would now like further clarification. Can the minister tell us what response the board of broadcast governors has given to him on his contention that the
B.B.G. are responsible in this field?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's speech-I can hardly call it a question-contains one or two rather obvious inaccuracies. Unless there was a forgery, I made no statement to the press about this matter yesterday.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Get your secretary to send it to you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be that a statement I made at the beginning of the week has only now come to the attention of the hon. gentleman. The second point is that I have never said that this matter is now under the jurisdiction of the board of broadcast governors because, to the best of my knowledge, most of it is not; but what the B.B.G. has been asked to do, in co-operation with the Department of Transport, is to look into the matter of whether in certain aspects it should be under the direction of the board in order to make sure that national broadcasting policy is not frustrated by some technological developments which are not covered by the existing law and regulations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer just given by the minister, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State. Would he endeavour to secure the co-operation of the government, in view of the circumstances just referred to that are of widespread interest, and other trends and tendencies that have become apparent in the C.B.C., to have the committee on broadcasting set up at the earliest possible date?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I expect to make a statement about this matter later on.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of making a statement on it. Will the minister endeavour to have the committee set up as soon as possible, because things are happening in the C.B.C. that are of interest, and I think parliament should have an opportunity of looking into them.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity to discuss this matter with my colleagues. When I have had that opportunity I shall make a statement to the house.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: supplementary question to the Minister of Transport concerning this press release which was just under review. Would the minister consider extending from nine months to eleven months, the approximate time for the installation to get into the process of relaying? Would he consider extending the period

by two months, the approximate time it took the department to realize that it had made a mistake in overlooking those who were in the process of setting up relay stations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the licences issued are governed by laws enacted by this parliament, and I would doubt whether the minister could change the operation of the law. But I will look into any particular matter, any specific case brought to my attention, and endeavour to do anything which it is properly within the function of the minister or of the government to do.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. If the minister is accurate in his statement, where did he get the authority to issue the statement at the end of December which caused the delay in the whole matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. gentleman has represented that statement very accurately. What the statement of December 31 did say was that while this investigation was going on, no further licences would be issued in certain areas. The purpose of that statement, which was carefully considered by the government and issued jointly by myself as secretary of state with my hon. friend from Ottawa West as minister of transport, was to make sure that no additional vested interests arose until there had been a reasonable time for an investigation to be carried out, and a request was made to the board of broadcast governors that they should carry out this investigation with the utmost speed consistent with performing the other duties which parliament imposed upon them.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Assomption-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Following his negotiations with Mr. Rene Levesque concerning Eskimos, can the minister tell the house whether the administration of Eskimo affairs will be transferred to the Quebec government or whether a referendum will be held before hand?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: We did meet with a delegation from Quebec yesterday for some five hours, and I was about to say that we made progress and asked leave to sit again. But I think the hon. member is entitled to know that we had drawn up a set of conditions in the light of the predominant

responsibility of the national government with respect to indigenous people which might have been used as a set of guide lines for our officers working with officers of the province of Quebec. In one or two of these conditions the language which we used was not acceptable to Mr. Levesque, particularly that relating to our condition that some consultation be held with the Eskimo people prior to any transfer.
We are meeting again on Saturday, February 29, to see whether we can iron out the differences.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinfhe-Bagot):: The minister has just said that certain conditions were not acceptable to Mr. Levesque. Is he implying that Mr. Levesque is not representing the views of the Quebec provincial government?


Arthur Laing: I do not see any relation to the situation in the question asked by the hon. member. I said that the language we had used in the conditions we laid down was not acceptable to Mr. Levesque.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Since the minister is ready to hand over the administration of Eskimo affairs to the province of Quebec, under certain conditions, should it be inferred that this government recognizes that the administration of Eskimo affairs comes under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I do not believe that question is in order.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: wonder if the minister could assure us that before any transfer is made the Eskimo people will be consulted or a referendum held. Is this a condition precedent?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. P. Deschaleleis (Minister of Public Works):: On Wednesday last I took as notice a question asked by the hon. member for Cariboo relating to the Alaska highway. I wish to say that the Department of Public Works will assume responsibility for the Alaska highway on April 1, 1964. A complete assessment has to be made of the continuing operating requirements and the desirability and feasibility of reconstruction and paving.
Inquiries of the Ministry Negotiations with the government of the United States will be carried out only after these studies have been completed.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Will the minister not inform the house of the progress of the negotiations which are informally under way between officials of the Canadian government and the government of the United States concerning joint financial participation in the paving of the highway?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: So far as I know, Mr. Speaker, there have not yet been any negotiations in relation to the Alaska highway, and these will not take place before the assessment to which I referred has been completed.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My question has to do with cable television, and I wish to address it to the Minister of Transport. In view of the urgency of this matter I wonder whether an interim report could be brought in on cable television, or whether such a report has already been sought from the board of broadcast governors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The subject, as I think all hon. members realize, is a very important and complicated one, and I doubt if it would lend itself very well to an interim report. However, I will bring the hon. member's suggestion, through my colleague the Secretary of State, to the attention of the chairman of the board of broadcast governors, to see whether anything useful can be accomplished along those lines. I still think it would be better to have the inquiry expedited as rapidly as possible and have a definitive report.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: I
wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice as leader of the house. Following the statement recently made by the leader of the house I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he wishes to inform the house whether the committee on privileges and elections is going to sit soon to determine the proper seating of the hon. member for Three Rivers.



G8 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could he inform the house of the latest developments concerning the extension of the delay for the completion of houses, that is March 31, in the case of people who have applied for the $500 premium on houses built in winter?


Guy Favreau: As
I have not received notice of this question, may I take it as notice?


Jean Robert Beaulé: I addressed my question to the Minister of Labour, and I understand he is ready to answer it.


Guy Favreau: I am very sorry, but I distinctly heard a reference to the Minister of Justice, and so did the Minister of Labour.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. member for mentioning this matter to me yesterday. I will be glad to look into the situation regarding these representations and to consider the best course of action.
I do not wish to commit myself, however, to any change in the present regulations.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Has the government received any communication, telegram or representations from the premier or the minister of youth of the province of Quebec concerning interest free loans to students, a provision that was described by the provincial government as an intrusion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, up to the time of entering the house I had received no such telegram.


Raymond Langlois: I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Had the government consulted the provinces before announcing such a decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I dealt with this question yesterday, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since the government has had the good idea of providing interest free loans for university students, could the Prime Minister tell us where the required money will come from?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot deal with that question on orders of the day; but when this plan is put into effect, after consultation and with the approval of the provinces, the money will be forthcoming.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. When the Canada pension plan is implemented, is it the government's intention to provide headquarters for the plan and its several hundred clerical workers at Elliot Lake instead of in Ottawa, as promised by the minister in January according to a report in the Financial Post of February 1?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct perhaps a misapprehension on the part of the questioner. I did not promise that the administration of the pension plan would be situated at Elliot Lake. I undertook, on behalf of the government, to see whether such an arrangement might be possible. We are actively looking into the possibility of doing this.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is consideration being given to the transfer of management of the Chateau Laurier or any other C.N. hotel to private interests; and if so, can the house be given the assurance that Canadian companies will be given a chance to bid on such management contracts, as was not done in the case of the Vancouver hotel?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no such plan is under contemplation, but I think before giving a more complete answer I should inquire of the management of the C.N.R.


George Louis Chatterton: Would the minister also inquire and advise the house as to the present situation at the Vancouver hotel, where the privileges of senior C.N.R. employees are being revoked and where senior C.N. employees are being dismissed or forced to resign and are being replaced by Hilton personnel from outside Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the hon. member's allegations to the attention of the management of Canadian National Railways and ask them to let me know what are the facts.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Is it his intention to extend his winter works program beyond April 30 so that the works undertaken may be completed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend refers to the municipal winter works program, the answer must be no.



PROSPECTIVE LAY-OFFS AT POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister what plans have been formulated to provide alternative employment for the men to be laid off at the Point Edward naval base?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is being co-ordinated with other government departments, particularly with the Department of Labour. I am sure my friend the Minister of Labour would be pleased to take the question as notice and perhaps give an answer later.


An hon. Member:: What about the heavy water plant?


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question. I do not know if I can properly
Inquiries of the Ministry identify the hon. member for Northumberland as the person who kept referring to heavy water, but that has got his party into hot water. I wish to direct a question to any one of the ministers, and I would appreciate it very much if the members in that particular group over there would allow the minister to answer. I know they all have ambitions.
I should like now to direct the same question to the Minister of Labour. What plans-


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


Malcolm MacInnis: I want to be very sure that the Minister of Labour will hear what I say. Once again I should like to ask what plan has been made to provide alternative employment for the men being laid off from the Point Edward naval base.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government, of course, in making this particular decision indicated its intention of spreading the employment effects over an extensive period of time, and in accordance with the development of employment opportunities in the area. I shall be glad at a later point to give in some detail the consultations that have been going on with the Department of Labour, the provincial government and others concerning the cushioning, as much as possible, of the effects of this particular layoff.
My hon. friend will realize that the construction program that will commence in this general area within the next few months, both in connection with the development at North Sydney and the heavy water plant, will provide rather a substantial stimulus to the economy of the area and will provide certain employment opportunities for the personnel that have been adversely affected. The purpose of the Department of Labour and the employment service is to co-operate with the provincial government in the training programs and to take maximum advantage of increasing employment opportunities.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister take into consideration the large number of older workers who would not be in a position to accept alternative employment offered at the heavy water plant or in the construction industry? Will he give special consideration to holding these men on the job until some employment in which they can participate is available?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will take a special look at this problem to see if there is any opportunity of making a contribution in their case.


Robert Muir: I understand the minister's sincere interest in this matter. Can he advise me,

Inquiries of the Ministry if he is aware, as to how many of the 30 or 40 men who have already been laid off at this base have obtained employment through the national employment service?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot give an answer to this statistical question on orders of the day, except to say that the lay-off to which my hon. friend is referring is not connected with the decision announced by the Minister of National Defence, but is a regular, seasonal lay-off that occurs normally. However, this is a problem, and I will be glad to encourage the national employment service in the area to give every possible assistance to these men.



PICTOU COUNTY, N.S.    REQUEST FOR ACTION TO RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Russell MacEwan: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise if he has received a communication from the president of the New Glasgow district labour council regarding the unemployment situation in the Pictou county area. If so, will the Prime Minister direct the efforts of the area development agency of the Department of Industry toward this area in order to attempt to alleviate the pressing problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall, off hand, having received that telegram. I shall be glad to look into it and report to the hon. member as soon as possible.



PICTOU COUNTY, N.S.    REQUEST FOR ACTION TO CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Minister of Agriculture about the possibility of extending or adding to the grain shipping facilities in Prince Rupert. The minister replied then that the matter was under consideration. However, he approached the question with such hesitancy that I wonder whether in the meantime he has obtained additional information on this matter and is now able to give a more complete answer as to whether those facilities are going to be added to or increased.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate what I said the day before yesterday, that the matter is still under study. I am sure the hon. member will be interested to learn that we met a delegation from Prince Rupert this morning in connection with this very matter.



OATS AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
1962-63 POOL
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I understand that the oats and barley pool for the crop year 1962-63 was closed out some time in October. Can the minister tell us when the Canadian wheat board will be making the final payment on the 1962-63 oats and barley pool?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I cannot give the date until I have had a report from the wheat board. As the hon. member has indicated in his question, it will be later than it was in the last crop year. The time for the closing date of these pools varies greatly from year to year. I am not certain that they have yet decided the exact date, but it will be in the spring some time.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. At the hearing before the air transport board in Regina, Mr. R. D. Turner, who I believe is president of TransAir Ltd., said that under an agreement with T.C.A. his company had paid $1 for three aircraft and certain equipment. In addition, TransAir agreed to either return the aircraft and equipment to T.C.A. or pay $500,000 if the TransAir operation on the air routes did not get off the ground.
I should like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to seek full information on this agreement and advise the house whether this contract and this agreement have been fulfilled, or whether TransAir paid for the aircraft or returned them to T.C.A.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to make the inquiries, sir.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister completely withdrawn the idea of creating a department of agriculture for eastern Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I dealt with that, or tried to deal with it, yesterday, I hope in a way which is satisfactory to the house.



ASSISTANCE IN COLD STORAGE CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask the minister whether the government has any plans for assisting in the construction of freezer plants, in recognition of their importance to the food processing industry.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is speaking of cold storage facilities. We do consider the financing of certain cold storage facilities on their merits, and applications are examined from time to time. The austerity program is still in force for the most part as far as freezers and cold storages are concerned.



STATEMENT ON COMMUNITY PASTURE POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to give a full answer to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek which I took as notice. The question was:
In view of the fact that this government has changed its policy with regard to community pastures without informing the house, would the minister now disclose the terms of his new policy to members of parliament?
These are the major changes:
1.	Grazing fees were increased from 3J cents per day per head to 5 cents, with an additional 1 cent per day to reimburse municipalities for the loss of tax revenue.
2.	P.F.R.A. assumes responsibility for allocation of grazing privileges based on individual need, proximity to the pasture and its past uses.
3.	The advisory committee will have six members and no member will hold office for more than two consecutive terms.
4.	A general meeting of pasture patrons will be held every two years. Special meetings may be called if necessary.
5.	Each patron will be required to remit a deposit of $2 per head for cattle accepted for grazing. This will help to eliminate the difficulty due to padded allocations and subsequent non-delivery of cattle.
6.	Preference for allocation will be given to breeding stock in view of the increase in cow-calf enterprise.
7.	Allocations for the grazing season will be made in the fall to provide patrons with ample time to arrange for their marketing and wintering programs.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would inform the house when this new policy of community pastures went into force, and does he not feel that it would at least be courteous on his part to inform the members before the information is released to the newspapers? I understand that this policy went into force several months ago, and we are just finding out about it now.


Harry William Hays: This policy went into effect on April 25, 1963. This was the time when the policy had to be effected if the full use was to be made of the pastures. The problems in connection with the operation and administration of our P.F.R.A. community pastures, which had not been materially changed since their inception in 1937, indicated the need for revision. On November 30, 1962 officers of the P.F.R.A. met with my predecessor and he concurred in the proposed changes. On April 25, 1963 I approved the new regulations.



STATEMENT ON SUBSIDY ON GRAIN TRANSPORTED BY TRUCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked on Wednesday last by the hon. member for Lake St. John regarding freight assistance on feed grains and the control exercised when trucks are used, I may say that under the present regulations freight assistance is not granted on the movement of feed grain by trucks, except under certain conditions where a specific level of subsidy is provided to a whole area. In such areas the use of trucks is permitted since the assistance is applicable to the area. This has proved of great benefit to producers, and discussions have been held with farmer groups, truckers representatives, the railways and others with a view to establishing a suitable program to provide freight assistance on the movement of feed grains by truck in eastern Canada. I hope to be in a position to announce the details of this program in the very near future.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In his speech yesterday the Prime Minister made reference to broadening and expanding the scale of farm credit. He made no reference to the fishery. I should like to ask

Inquiries of the Ministry him what measures he has in mind to parallel this action as far as the fishery is concerned.
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I am very conscious of the fact that I did not mention fisheries in my statement yesterday. It was an omission, but I can assure my hon. friend that assistance to agriculture in the form of broadening the basis of farm credit and in other ways will certainly be paralleled by help to the fishery.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that last session the minister suggested a meeting would be held with the various provincial highway ministers, can he now assure the house that this meeting will be held in the immediate future, so as to further co-ordinate trans-Canada highway development?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. This matter is under continuous study by the government, and I can assure my hon. friend that at the next federal-provincial conference an exchange of views will take place between the federal government and the provincial governments. May I add that since last fall I have been in continuous contact with the provincial minister of each province, but no decision will be taken before the federal-provincial conference takes place.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the apparent suborning of the chief witness in the Hal Banks case, who has retracted all the evidence he gave at an earlier stage of the proceedings, does the government propose to take any action against this man for perjury?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would hesitate to give any opinion on this particular matter. This is one question that ought to be directed to the Department of Justice.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration which he may want to take as notice. There appeared in the Calgary Albertan recently a statement made by a Blackfoot chief on the Gleichen reserve to the effect that the children are facing starvation, are badly clothed and cannot attend school. Will the minister check into that statement and make a report at an early date?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, I will take this question as notice.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. When I rose initially he was here, and perhaps I could put the question on the record and it could be taken as notice. Many months ago, during the last session, a number of orders were made by this house for the return of papers which are still outstanding. Will the Secretary of State inquire into this situation?



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Does he intend to accede to the request of the hon. member for Longueuil, who has strongly recommended to the government the adoption of a distinctive national flag during this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The policy of the government on that matter is very well known, and I am sorry it does not commend itself to my hon. friend opposite.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, but our knowledge of it comes through the hon. member for Longueuil.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. FEBRUARY 21, 1984
Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, may I heartfully congratulate the mover (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) and the seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
But as can be seen on page 23 of Hansard for February 19, the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard discussed a matter which I shall deal with briefly later on.
But the mover and seconder had an unpleasant task, that is to bring forward in a decent dressing the menu for this session which unfortunately contains nothing very tempting, nothing very delicious for the Canadian people.
They discharged their duty very well and their oratory made us forget how empty was the speech from the throne and how it is more particularly remarkable by what it suggests and leaves unsaid.
May I say here that despite their eloquent speeches the mover and seconder did not succeed in convincing the members of our group, nor the Canadian people at large.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage of my remarks, 1 also wish to congratulate the new ministers, including the Minister without Portfolio who, according to some reports, obtained that position because of his fight against Social credit in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, like the previous government, this Liberal government seems to be characterized by arrogance, irresolution and the lack of leadership needed for the sound administration of state business.
The speech from the throne indicates that our statesmen have travelled. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) went to Paris and Washington.
What was the result of their representations to General de Gaulle? Right from the start, the press represented the Prime Minister as a middleman, or emissary, who would eliminate any source of friction between Paris and Washington. Yet, they soon had to sing a different tune, because, after the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, Canada announced its intention to withdraw its squadrons stationed at Grostenquin, in France, and to station them in Germany, because General de Gaulle did not want any foreign aircraft with nuclear equipment on French
The Address-Mr. Caouette soil. That is one result of the Liberal government's nuclear policy and of the Prime Minister's visit to Paris.
And there is another result. The Prime Minister was apparently told by General de Gaulle himself that France would recognize communist China. However, nothing has been said about the Canadian Prime Minister's reaction. We had hoped that the Prime Minister would throw some light on the attitude the Canadian government means to take with regard to such a serious and controversial matter.
I am now coming to the problem of Cyprus where two members of NATO are in opposite camps, that is, Turkey and Greece. Some big financial interests are also implicated. At the first news of the conflict, the press announced that Canada was ready to send a force of one thousand men to preserve peace in Cyprus. What we do not understand, we who belong to the Ralliement Creditistes, is that the Liberal government acts so hurriedly in external affairs matters and problems which only affect us in a remote way, whereas this same government is so undecided and inactive when it comes to deal with problems concerning all Canadians.
On February 14, I sent to the Prime Minister of Canada a telegram that read as follows:
Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa.
Re: Conflict between Greeks and Turks in Cyprus stop We have no commitment toward Cyprus stop Please do not interefere, nor commit yourself, nor send troops to Cyprus without consulting Canadian parliament stop Members meeting next week will decide policy.
Liberals and Conservatives alike are always anxious to interfere, to mobilize armed forces for risky ventures in all corners of the world. Such attitude is not new. It dates back from Laurier, who sent to the rescue of the British some Canadian troops against the Boers in Transvaal. It went on under Borden who during the first world war, set his police and his packs of dogs at the French Canadians' heels when all they asked was to live in peace.
This went on with King and St. Laurent who mobilized all human, industrial and financial resources in Canada to fight the war against the axis powers.
When it comes to waging war, there is no indecision but quick and positive action; men and arms are available and money is forthcoming to meet the cost.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, nobody would say that there is no money to send Canadian troops to Cyprus, but it is claimed that there is no money to help the unemployed, to provide them with a decent standard of living

The Address-Mr. Caouette and to increase family allowances. In Cyprus, our troops would be well dressed, well housed, well fed, but in Canada the unemployed are compelled by the Liberal government to take a shovel and dig in frozen ground under the winter works program while power shovels and bulldozers stand idle in heated garages, close to the places which these labourers are working in bitter cold.
Such is the logic of the system and of the government provided by the Liberals.
This morning, I received from Arvida, in the Jonquiere constituency, a picture which appeared in Le Lingot of Arvida, on February 13, 1964; here is what we read:
This picture shows some 20 men trying to remove a small mound in a field where the St. Michel road might pass some day, in order to cut out a curve. So as to ensure work for the greater number, they use shovels, picks and wheelbarrows.
Why not use teaspoons, in order to give work to the 400,000 unemployed in Canada?
What a brilliant system.
The people of Canada do not want our government and our troops to intervene in Cyprus where they have no business.
On February 18, I received the following telegram from the Greek community of metropolitan Toronto:
Three thousand Canadians of Greek origin, gathered at the Kingsway Club and representing the 45,000 residents of the district, request your support concerning the territorial integrity of Cyprus and the right of the Cypriots to constitute a peaceful nation free from any intimidation or intervention on the part of other countries.
(Signed) E. Ghikadis, Chairman,
P. Economides, Secretary, The Greek Community of metropolitan Toronto.
Yesterday, I received another telegram from Vancouver which I will read in English.

As Canadian citizens of Hellenic ancestry the Hellenes in this area through the Hellenic community of Vancouver respectfully appeal to you to support the rights of the * Cypriots to survive as a nation and to live in peace as free men within a democratic national of Cyprus.

That is the telegram I received from Vancouver yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian affairs must be the foremost concern of members of the house and of parliament itself. Let us look after our own business and matters of interest to the Canadian people.
What did the government give the Canadian people during the last session?
It gave them gifts that they had no use for.

First gift: nuclear weapons, built to spread destruction and death, in order not to meet the needs and the wishes of Canadians, but rather to please our American neighbours and to serve as an advanced line of defence for the United States. That was a Christmas present from the Liberal government to the Canadian people.
A second gift: the increase in the old age security tax to pay $10 a month more to the old people of Canada. If the old age security tax has to be raised by 1 per cent to provide for a $10 per month increase in the pension, what is going to be the cost of the famous portable pension scheme mentioned in the speech from the throne?
A third gift: the 11 per cent tax on building materials, which amounts to a penalty imposed upon building contractors and construction workers as well as home buyers.
On that subject, here is a statement made by the Canadian Labour Congress, an organization representing over one million workers, in the February 1964 issue of Canadian Labour.
In December, the unemployed made up 5.1 per cent of the whole labour force, that is 346,000 Canadian workers. Among them, 73,000 or more than one out of five workers, had been without work for at least four months and more than one out of ten had been unemployed for seven months or more. Their pride hurt, their skills impaired and their faith in the future lessened through a prolonged period of unemployment, many of these workers are already beyond help or close to it.
Another serious aspect of the present unemployment crisis is the fact that a great many of our young men become unemployed as soon as they leave school. The most recent data show, indeed, that 10 per cent of the workers between 14 and 19 are without work, which is twice the average for all age groups.
Drives to encourage students to finish high school or technical training courses and the implementation of vocational training programs will contribute, of course, the solution of the problem, but those efforts will not give a job to those who are already unemployed or to the post-war generation which is beginning to come on the labour market.
To solve the unemployment problem in an affluent society, it is not enough to adopt scattered measures. What is the use, for instance, of granting a $500 bonus on a house built during the winter months when, on the other hand, its price goes up by $800 on account of the tax on building materials?
Nobody can argue that building a house in the winter costs the same as in the spring, summer or fall. The working conditions are not the same and any carpenter who knows how to handle a hammer will tell you that under a temperature of 40 below zero, it cannot be handled the same way as during spring, summer or autumn.
The Canadian Labour Congress suggested far-reaching means for curing this evil.
Hence, even though we can rejoice that recently fewer Canadians were seeking jobs, we must not regard the unemployed as mere statistics. How can we be satisfied that only 5.1 per cent of the

labour force is unemployed? This figure, quite low in appearance, represents hundreds of thousands of Canadians seeking desperately a means of earning a living for themselves and their families, of taking part in the advancement of Canada.
Another gift from the Liberals to the Canadian people is the salary raise for members of parliament; their salary increased from $10,000 to $18,000, while the pension of our senior citizens increased by only $10 a month, to a total of $75 a month.
Following those new taxes and big salary raises for members of parliament, senators, judges and government officials, the Canadian people expected their government to bring in at the very beginning of this session measures likely to raise the standard of living of all Canadian families, and which would have received, I am sure, the unanimous support of all parties in this house.
But there was no such thing. On the contrary, the principal legislative measures announced in the speech from the throne relate to controversial matters which will create division rather than unity.
To mention only one case, I will refer to the grant of loans to students which has been announced in the speech from the throne. One of the chief measures advocated in the speech from the throne deals with interest-free loans which could be secured by university students.
This is a commendable step: to help students to complete their studies and finish their education. It undoubtedly fills a need since a great majority of students have to live in want, to impose hardships on their parents who sometimes become destitute to enable their children to continue their studies.
But we do not believe that the federal proposal is the appropriate measure. In the first place, it constitutes an encroachment on the rights reserved to the provinces, which must remain masters of their educational system. The solution, in this case, is to return to the provinces the taxation authority which is theirs, and to provide the funds necessary for social and cultural development through the Bank of Canada, if need be.
Besides, the system of loans made by the federal government is bound to increase the risks of patronage, of electoral blackmailing of students who will have to get loans through intermediaries.
The speech from the throne also mentions that we shall be called upon to approve the changes in fiscal arrangements with the provinces, decided upon at the federal-provincial conference last November.
There is no need to recall Premier Lesage's famous ultimatum of April 5, 1963, formulated in the following words to the Quebec legislature:
20220-7i
The Address-Mr. Caouette
I solemnly state that I cannot continue indefinitely to talk about the needs of the province of Quebec or to be satisfied to submit requests to the central government in the hope that it will condescend to meet them. As I said a moment ago, this subject is of the utmost importance and I do not intend as premier and minister of finance to repeat these things year after year without obtaining any tangible results. Hence, it is the last time that I reiterate them in such terms in the budget speech.
Twelve months will go by before the next budget speech. Either the central government, regardless of the party that will come into power on April 8-I repeat, regardless of the party that will come into power on April 8-will have availed itself of the 12-month period to take into consideration the requirements of the province of Quebec or we, from Quebec, will have for our part and during the said period decided upon the measures required in matters of taxation. And those decisions will be dictated to us by the economic, social and cultural self-assertion which we set up as our objective, according to the wishes of the people of Quebec.
"25-25-100"; those three figures had practically become a slogan in Quebec, where in most cases the man in the street did not even know that they represented the minimum percentage of revenue claimed by the Lesage government with regard to personal and corporation income taxes and succession duties.
Now, last November, Premier Lesage suggested an amendment of the present fiscal arrangements and claimed from the federal government a per capita yield of $77.03 instead of $49.74 per capita which Quebec is getting at present. Quebec would therefore have received $420 million instead of $272 million.
That was, on the part of Quebec, another concession to the promoters of federal centralization. Indeed, what Quebec wants most, is not 10, 15, 25, or even 50 per cent of its taxation rights, but 100 per cent. Quebec wants to be able to develop within confederation, according to its aspirations and needs. To that end, it needs all its sources of revenue, without prejudice to anybody's rights or privileges, whether he be from Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan or any other province of this country.
Now, Mr. Lesage only obtained $42,716,000 of the $148 million he was claiming as his minimum needs.
We, members of the Social Credit rally, who represent the legitimate interests of this nation, shall not be a party to Quebec's enslavement by the central authority. We shall always claim that all its lawful rights be returned to the province of Quebec.
As concerns the portable pension plan, referred to by the government in the speech from the throne, we admit that it is necessary to seek a formula allowing the workers who change jobs to keep the benefits accrued in a pension fund to which they have

The Address-Mr. Caouette contributed. But, again, we do not believe the fair and equitable formula is that of a state fund administered by the state. We are opposed to the very principle of these state pension funds, whether they are administered by the federal or provincial governments. We believe that the state is not supposed to administer everything, to control everything, to direct everything, but to act as a substitute.
Briefly, here are the main reasons why we oppose the federal plan and that of the province of Quebec.
Those federal or provincial pension funds, if they are intended to create huge capital to which governments will resort to undertake various works, will have the following consequences.
First, they will forcibly drain the savings of the people into the hands of the government, so that private enterprise will be short of money and capital to develop and expand. Private enterprise will have to resort to bank borrowing or sale of shares and bonds in foreign countries to obtain the money needed.
Second, they will place in the hands of the state such a power that it will be able to control all economic activities of the country, or of a country, in this instance, our own.
Third, they will discourage free and voluntary savings among the people by the establishment of compulsory and forced savings plans.
Fourth, the amounts loaned with interest by the pension funds will some day have to be paid back by means of taxes. Those taxes will be paid by Canadian taxpayers who, after having been forced to put their savings in the fund, will have to pay back those savings thus loaned, as well as the interest, doubling in 20 years the amount loaned, so that the taxpayers will have paid twice their pension plan.
In this connection, the attitude of the Ralliement Creditistes is as follows: The Ralliement Creditistes is of the opinion that the Bank of Canada Act should be amended this very year, because it is in 1964, that the banks' charters and the federal banking legislation will have to be renewed. It seems to me that it is high time to amend the Bank of Canada Act so that it may credit the Canadian government with the amounts of money that might be necessary from time to time to increase purchasing power and the money supply of the country. This new purchasing power could be distributed in several ways; social security benefits, public debt redemption, financing of social equipment, price reductions to the consumers and finally dividend payments to everybody.
One of the major tasks and one of the


first tasks of a Creditiste government would be to obtain an amount sufficient to provide everybody with the standard of living permitted by the resources of the country.
On the other hand, if those benefits or annuities came from new money created by the Bank of Canada, it would result in income tax cuts, for the government would not have to take away from the taxpayers, for its own purpose, hundreds of millions of dollars, and this would help to raise everybody's purchasing power. This is what is being done in the United States, where the President announced income tax cuts of $11 and $22 billion to provide the American people with increased purchasing power and to promote a sound American economy. If tax cuts are good and auspicious for the United States, if they are logical at this time, why would they not be the same here in Canada, when our economy is almost paralysed by an obsolete monetary system not adjusted to real physical possibilities and to the needs of our people?
Finally, the speech from the throne talks about strengthening and developing primary and secondary industry in Canada to provide employment.
Is the major problem in Canada today to provide employment? Is that really what Canada needs, to set up new industries while the existing ones have slowed down their production because it cannot be marketed?
As far as we are concerned, we think that industry in all its aspects does not have the responsibility to provide employment, but rather to provide products and services.
Our industrial organization will be all the more perfect if it can produce with less human labour, leaving man free to exercise his faculties at carrying out humanizing and liberating activities.
The main reason why it is so difficult to find a solution to today's problems is that everybody, politicians, press, governments and labour movements seem to think that the objective of economic activities is to provide employment.
I should like to quote here Rev. Georges-Henri Levesque, O.P., who wrote in 1937, that is 25 or 30 years ago:
The nature of things, sound reason and social justice tell us that the purpose of economic activities can be nothing but the material prosperity of society, the welfare of the whole human community.
The economy should be designed, not to create wealth for itself or a happy few, but to meet the needs of all and produce goods which would be of real benefit to every citizen of this country. In the language of economics, it would be even more accurate to say: The aim is to serve the consumer, every consumer. The consumer comes first. That should be the main slogan of any policy truly social and humanitarian.

What is needed before anything else is purchasing power for Canadian families, if economic recovery is to be achieved in Canada while everybody, every politician, every newspaper, is shouting: "Beware of unemployment, beware of the unemployed; jobs for all, jobs for all." The more talk there is about full employment, the greater the number of unemployed in Canada. Industries are shutting down because their products no longer sell.
That is why any government, whether it be Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit or N.D.P., must look to the Canadian consumers so that they may set and maintain the economic power in Canada.
This will materialize only when a greater purchasing power is available to the Canadian people, allowing them to purchase the goods which our Canadian industry can produce thanks to the machines and the technological developments.
It is the Canadian families' purchasing power which must be increased first, not through taxes taken out of the workers' pay envelopes, which results in a lower purchasing power, but by paying them new money, so as to restore the balance with new money, not as the new minister of useless affairs, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville (Mr. Dupuis) likes to say, by printing money without consideration-but by giving them new money in order to balance the country's real credit with the financial credit.
Real credit is the true assessment of the capability of producing and delivering goods and services in sufficient quantity at the right time and place to suit the consumers.
Real credit rests on goods, material things. Real credit is the wealth of a country, a province, in possible goods and services.
Financial credit is the assessment of the capability of delivering money in sufficient quantity at the right time and place.
Real credit is based on tangible things or certainties and originates in some manner in the goodness of the Creator who put in the ground, in the water and in the air all the required wealth for the satisfaction of men, to whom He gave intelligence, brains and hands to use those resources; as for financial credit, which should reflect actual credit, it is an invention of men, a thing invented by individuals and organizations or banks, which can control it and make it scarce whenever they please.
Where is the solution? In the balance of financial and actual credit as advocated by Social Crediters.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
The Address-Mr. Caouette
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: I am grateful to all hon. members and I thank them for allowing me these last few minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house?


An hon. Member:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, until one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry but I hear dissident voices.


Guy Favreau: I understand that the hon. member has the consent of the house until one o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: If the government have other solutions to present problems, if they have the formula to ensure family welfare, they should implement them. If they do not have solutions, let them try the Social Credit formula; we are convinced that there is nothing to lose in trying Social Credit.
At the outset of my remarks, while I was congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address, I pointed out that the seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver-Bur-rard (Mr. Basford), made the following remarks concerning the by-elections which took place recently in Montreal, and I quote:
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) try to tell us that they are the spokesmen of the French speaking people of Canada. Their hysterical and destructive statements are given great prominence in much of the English press of Canada, sometimes to the exclusion of all other statements. The people in my part of the country, British Columbia, often get the impression that the views of these members are the views of all French speaking Canadians. I particularly congratulate the new members because their victory is demonstrative proof of the fact that the hon. members for Villeneuve and Lapointe were turned down by the voters. They are not in fact the spokesmen for French speaking Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my own congratulations to the two new members for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) and St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) though I deplore the fact that only 32 per cent of the voters troubled to cast their vote.
Whether this regret is expressed by myself or by anyone in the house, I believe that if we want to save democracy, it will be necessary to establish a political climate which will' cause the electors to go and cast their votes.
Sixty five per cent of the electors in these two electoral districts did not cast their votes. How can the hon. member conclude that the

The Address-Mr. Caouette people approve the Liberal government policy, and state that the Creditistes are losing ground in the province of Quebec, when a recent Gallup poll published in the Western Producer mentioned that, in the province of Quebec, the Creditistes were regaining ground?
The following are a few remarks made, not by a Creditiste but by an independent newspaperman, Maurice Huot, of Le Droit. Everyone knows this journalist for his cool and logical analysis of such matters. This is what he had to say the day after the elections:
The two by-elections showed that if the two old parties took the lion's share in a riding like that of St. Denis, the Ralliement Creditistes was a source of annoyance for them and that in Laurier, it was a real threat since it took the second place away from the Conservatives by several hundred votes.
In view of the fact that, in Laurier, the candidate of the Ralliement Creditistes got the same proportion of votes as in 1963, in spite of the division of Social Credit into two branches in the House of Commons and the determined fight carried on against it by the Liberal party in the last general election, the latter will certainly want to reconsider the situation. Prudence will perhaps dictate that the best course of action for the present time is to keep quiet.
Here are the official statistics for the last three elections, in 1962, 1963 and 1964, in the constituencies of Laurier and St. Denis.
Out of 26,000 voters in Laurier, 16,773 voted in 1962, 18,226 in 1963, and 10,348 in 1964.
The Liberals obtained 8,255 votes in 1962, 8,059 in 1963 and 5,349 in 1964, or a loss of
3.000	votes for the Liberals.


An hon. Member:: They did not lose their deposit.


David Réal Caouette: They did not lose their deposit, but all the same our percentage remained the same as last year.
The Conservatives got 5,466 votes in 1962, 3,245 in 1963, and 1,866 in 1964. The New Democratic party obtained 1,360 votes in 1962, 2,379 in 1963, and only 683 in 1964, with the new N.D.P. leader for the province of Quebec.
In the St. Denis riding, out of a total of
37.000	votes, the Liberal candidate obtained 11,728 in 1962, 11,707 in 1963, and only 7,763 in 1964, or 4,000 less.
If it is inferred from this that the Creditistes have lost so much ground, I wonder how the Liberals stand, since 65 per cent of the voters refused to place confidence in any political organization.
As long as the government will not be progressive and ensure the security and freedom of the people, they will take no part in their democratic system in which they have no confidence.
Let us be on the front line to give them a system which they can trust and which they will be anxious to support in future.

At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Rinfrel (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I join all the previous speakers in extending my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford).
Mr. Speaker, for more than two thirds of the sixty three years of this twentieth century, the Liberal party was entrusted by the people with administration of Canada. Liberalism is that broadminded and lenient attitude which, in politics, is found in the promotion of freedom and is limited by the freedom of other citizens and the common good.
In our times, when a one-party dictatorship and tyranny prevails in certain countries, it is important to restate our love of freedom has remained the basic purpose of asset of man living in society. This love of freedom has remained the basic purpose of the Liberal party since its foundation. The Liberal party has always been mindful of progress in the field of social as well as economic measures.
Last evening, the various parties represented in this house gave a hearty ovation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Mr. Speaker, the living symbol, the champion of Canadian unity is the leader of this government, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the riding of St. James where I had the privilege and honour to be elected to the federal parliament, is a county which has existed since confederation and in which lives an industrious and almost exclusively French-speaking population. The remaining population consists of a number of Canadians of various origins with whom we fraternize and pursue the achievement of a Canadian nation.
The county of St. James runs along the bank of the St. Lawrence river and contains part of the old Montreal, to which so much Canadian history is attached by so many bonds. Arrangements have been made to preserve the original character of that city

district. Municipal authorities, the Jacques Viger commission, and the historical sites commission took concerted action to establish the south central sector of the city as an historical district. Further steps will be taken to create an entity of which Montrealers will be proud and which tourists will admire.
The federal government which, through the national harbours board and various other services, occupies an important part of that territory, could play a significant part in preserving this special character of Montreal. I hope that the marine terminal, a project to which Montreal has been looking forward for a long time, will respect the style and authentic architecture of the first days of this country.
The immediate neighbourhood of the harbour is inhabited by waterfront workers, longshoremen, stevedores, seamen and all those who, in one way or another, are making a living in or around the harbour district. I rejoice with the longshoremen about the improvement of their working conditions, and I congratulate them, as well as the shipping companies for having come to an agreement last fall.
Last Sunday, February 9, local 375 of the longshoremen's union offered the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) a token plate recalling his faith in labour unions. The Minister of Labour, despite some pressures in the opposite direction, has recognized the principle of collective bargaining and the right of the labour unions to make, within the four corners of the law, those demands they believe fair. The Minister of Labour and the staff of his department also deserve praise for their intelligent and wise intervention in putting under a temporary trusteeship the reorganization of the seafarers' union. Some people would have preferred the strong hand to solve the problems, but negotiations brought about a satisfactory settlement for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, Canada, the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal witness the new impulse which has been given to the 1967 world fair. Instead of listening to the lament of some people, the federal government proceeds with celerity and, in co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities, it votes the funds necessary to ensure the success of this international event. To the initial amount of $20 million, the government will add $21 million for the construction of a Canadian pavilion, built in the image of Canada, and which will remain as a reminder of the exhibition.
Despite the whining of some narrowminded people, thanks to financial aid from the federal government, the bridge linking
The Address-Mr. Rinfret Montreal and Boucherville will be erected at a cost of $50 million, with a contribution of $30 million from the federal government.
The east-west trans-Canada highway and the north-south belt highway will run through Montreal and the federal government's contribution will amount to $45 million.
The C.B.C. building will be erected in the eastern part of Montreal.
The maritime shipping station is another interesting project.
In order to protect the world fair site on Notre Dame island and Ronde island, the federal government will build a $17 million breakwater and the wall thus erected will protect the fair site against ice jams and flooding and at the same time ease the flow of water in the vicinity of the Montreal harbour.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are accomplishments which reflect the dynamic policies which will ensure the success of the 1967 fair. Those are constructive measures to decrease unemployment.
In all areas of the country, under the guidance of the Canada economic council and the new Department of Industry, with the loans to municipalities program and with the program under which 32,000 prospective owners of homes built during the wintertime have benefited from a $500 allowance, unemployment is declining and the number of unemployed people has decreased by
68,000	from December 1962 to December 1963.
Mr. Speaker, at the present time, the Canadian people show that they are nationally minded and seek means to strengthen unity in the country.
One bicultural Canada is looked upon by some as a source of trouble, difficulties and problems. On the contrary, it must be considered as a source of wealth and success.
In Canada, in spite of certain manifestations which are no doubt regrettable, we live in an atmosphere which should promote the development of both cultures.
It might be of some avail to recall all those things that unite us, before considering what separates us.
We are united in our attachment to the Christian civilization which so deeply influenced our institutions.
At this time, I would point out the beneficial effects of the Vatican II council. It provided for a rapprochement between the various churches. Without prejudice to the rights of those who do not share our Christian faith, it should be recalled that the great majority of the Canadian nation, according to the last 1961 census, share that ideal and that faith. And even nowadays

The Address-Mr. Rinfret our country is adding to its wealth through the contribution of individuals who, in several cases, have known the horrors of war. They came here looking for a country with tremendous opportunities. On that score, the testimony given by new Canadians is quite eloquent. They chose Canada; they made a place for themselves in this country and they are making their contribution to its greatness.
There are of course some factors which differentiate us, and some people are taking advantage of that fact to divide us. We must look at those differences as a source of enrichment. There is no superior race, there are only individuals to whom God gave talents and who are called upon to develop them in the country where they live.
Do we realize that Canada has the two most prevalent cultures in the world? As a citizen of French origin, I note with satisfaction that the French language has remained the language of diplomacy and of a civilization with a large audience, not only in Europe, but also in Latin America and in Africa.
tText]
As a Canadian citizen, Mr. Speaker, who learned as a child to speak and to respect the English language, I am most happy to express myself in a language which is the language of my fellow citizens and the vast majority of the North American population as well as several countries throughout the world.

The attitude of those who, in some parts of this country, would like to eliminate all reference to French or of those who, in some other sections, wish to have English disappear is to be regretted.
Let us pay tribute to our present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who has really succeeded in understanding the aspirations of the French Canadian community to which I am proud to belong. He has found it possible to give the Canadian nation cause for optimism and to the French speaking community a confidence which some calamity howlers wanted to destroy.
I know that, within the present cabinet, the French speaking ministers are considered to be on an equal footing with their English speaking colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I am also aware of the efforts being made at present to attract a greater number of French speaking university graduates to the federal civil service.
I am aware too of the fine work done by our English speaking colleagues to become familiar with the French language and to understand the legitimate demands of citizens

who make up 30 per cent of the Canadian people and who are the heirs of the first settlers of this country.
Canada is an adult nation, called upon to play a prominent part in the world.
Canada must carry on its role as a proud and free nation. The time has come for Canadians of every origin to agree on the identification symbols of Canada. We must have a distinctive national flag which all Canadians will fly all across the country. We must have a national anthem whose words will tell the aspirations of our people.
Even if it is too early yet to know the results of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, it can be said, however, that a lot is expected1 from that team of competent men who will know when to ignore the claims of extremists in order to present suggestions based on realism and wisdom.
What about the work done by many private groups in order to develop friendly relations in a climate of mutual understanding.
I am thinking of the interprovincial visits made by young French Canadians and English Canadians which enable them to know our country in all its glory.
Let us take positive action to develop the Canadian unity essential to the progress of every group and every part of the country.
Religious and civic leaders, as well as businessmen, intellectuals, labour leaders, in short all leaders, must do more to promote unity in our country. They must speak with what the right hon. Prime Minister called the "voice of reason".
The information media, the press, radio and television, must also contribute to publicize what is positive rather than negative.
As members of the House of Commons, we all exert influence in our constituencies and our provinces; let us use it so that invitations will be extended by our universities, schools, associations and national conferences, to genuine representatives of the other community who will be selected not because they attracted attention by their abusive language, but because they gained respect by their frankness, their honesty and their sincere desire to create a favourable climate.
Let us get rid of our prejudices towards men and events. Violence must be rejected, because it is violence which brings some groups to commit most regrettable actions.
The relations between Canadians will improve through the constructive work of every one of us. The Canadian nation will prosper provided each and every Canadian realizes all the advantages of our association guided by an enlightened and generous patriotism.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, following tradition, I shall begin by congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address. 1 also extend my congratulations to all those who have been promoted on the government side.
Mr. Speaker, this year, 1964, the citizens of Joliette will celebrate the centenary of the incorporation of their town. Our city is proud to bear the name of its founder, the Hon. Barthelemy Joliette. Notary Barthelemy Joliette, by his high-mindedness and his vast family relations, was not long in commanding attention. As early as 1817, he was standing for parliament in the riding of Leinster, now L'Assomption, but was defeated by Jacques Lacombe. Mr. Joliette contested the election and, after three years of court wrangling, was declared elected. He took his seat in parliament, which was dissolved the next day. Again, he was a candidate in 1820 when he was elected without any opposition. At the expiry of his term of office, he retired from public life, entertaining other projects that were to take all his time and energy.
The municipal authorities, the social organizations of Joliette, in co-operation with the centennial commission, intend to make every effort in order to celebrate brilliantly the centenary of our city's incorporation.
The religious authorities, such as the Clercs de Saint-Viateur, have participated in the moral and material development of our city.
In 1845, Mr. Joliette undertook the building of the college that bears his name. In 1846, the college, under the guidance of the Clercs de Saint-Viateur, opened its doors to students. Right from its beginning, the Joliette seminary gained international renown since it has provided church and state with men who served their country, both at home and abroad.
I invite all the people of the other provinces to come and visit Joliette this year. They will find that we are a warm-hearted people and that ours is an ideal community for the establishment of new industries. To mark the centennial, I would further ask both the federal and provincial governments to carry out two projects which would contribute to the economic development of our city, that is the construction of a 500-bed hospital to replace the existing facilities which are inadequate and the construction, at an earlier date, of a highway between Joliette and Montreal, this urgent project to be implemented by the province.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government of Quebec is not firm enough in the stand it takes before the central government to 20220-8
The Address-Mr. Pigeon recover its taxation powers which are absolutely necessary to meet such essential needs as education.
On April 5, 1963, Mr. Lesage said the following in the Quebec legislature:
Of course, the provinces are responsible for the economic development within their territory. This is implicitly provided for in the constitution by the distribution of powers made therein between the federal and provincial governments. Such is the situation and the provinces must carry out their obligations.
And Mr. Lesage went on to say:
That is what we advocated last year. This has been our position since 1960. It is still the same today and I see no reason to change it whatsoever. We have launched in Quebec a national revival program and we shall not allow anyone- whichever party comes into office next Monday

to deprive us, for some reasons unacceptable to us, of the means of action we still need.
In its issue of May 22, 1963, the newspaper La Presse reported:
Part of his budget speech dealing with tax sharing was actually an ultimatum given to Ottawa, declared last evening Premier Lesage on the T.V. program "Conference de presse".
Mr. Speaker, this government was elected on April 8 last. During the last conference on fiscal matters the Quebec premier who had been adamant became very soft. He retreated and, like St. Peter he stated on three occasions: "I never used the word ultimatum."
Mr. Speaker, in 1954 the former member for Quebec-Montmorency said:
I submit that the provincial Liberal party should be in a position to find within its ranks a leader who would not be a federalist subservient to Ottawa, in order that the dividing line be quite clear between these two political groups and this to enable the provincial Liberal party to abide with the traditional policy of the Gouins and the Taschereaus so far as the fiscal autonomy of the province of Quebec is concerned. If the policy of appointing a member of parliament as the leader is maintained, I am sincerely convinced that the party would be committing a serious political blunder.
Wilfrid Lacroix M.P. (1954)
Mr. Louis Philippe Pigeon, the legal adviser of Mr. Lesage's administration, stated in public once that it was much easier to maintain Quebec's autonomy when a government of a different political hue held office in Ottawa.
Instead of giving its support to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), at the last election, Mr. Lesage should have asked the people of Quebec to place their confidence in the party that is respectful of the rights of the provinces, the Conservative party.
On April 18, 1962, Mr. Gerard Filion, an editor of the newspaper Le Devoir, wrote:
A good point to the credit of the Conservative party is their tax-sharing policy. The provinces are not satisfied, and rightly so, but just the same, they have gained ground in the last five years.

The Address-Mr. Pigeon
And a little farther, Mr. Filion stated:
Owing to the strength of precedents and logic, the Liberal party is slowly but deliberately driving the wedge deeper and deeper. A Liberal government in Ottawa would surely mean a new round of infringements by the central government into the field of education.
The present Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice (Messrs. Lamontagne and Favreau) would like to put education, a provincial responsibility, under their wing. As a matter of fact, did the Prime Minister not state in Manitoba:
Assistance to all higher education programs must be increased.
Besides, here is what could be found in the newspaper he Devoir of February 10, 1964:
Sudbury-Miss Pauline Jewett, Liberal member for Northumberland, advocated before some 350 teachers of the Ontario high school federation the establishment of a federal department of education.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec-and I am convinced that most other provinces share this opinion-are opposed to the federal government's intrusion in the field of education.
On March 22, 1963, he Devoir published the following article:
The St. Jean Baptiste society of Montreal is opposed to any federal proposal to award scholarships to Canadian students.
The Canadian teachers federation often submits briefs to the federal government.
It is a terrifying thought that those who are entrusted with the education of our youth are ready, in a moment of panic, to blow up the whole legal structure of confederation. How could the crucial issue of federal-provincial fiscal relations be settled fairly and in accordance with the constitution, when educators themselves are the first to undermine the whole legal system established in 1867?
Fortunately, the "association des commissaires d'ecoles catholiques de langue franchise du Canada" has come out strongly against the intrusion of Ottawa in the field of education.
Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, I heard the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) state this:
Liberalism means the promotion of freedom.
I am sure that what he wanted to say is that liberalism means dictatorship and the throttling of provincial prerogatives.
The speech from the throne mentions a student loans program. Now, the government has not even consulted the provinces beforehand. That legislation is another devious and shifty way of taking over provincial responsibilities. That is the kind of co-operative federalism the Prime Minister advocates, with the support of the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau).
As is the case for loans to municipalities, the provinces will have to open their books to federal inspectors if they accept the new scheme. This legislation is an ultimatum to the provinces which are being told: "Surrender your control over education or leave confederation".
The present Prime Minister is a separatist who should go back to university to take a course in constitutional law.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoma East has been calling lately for national unity. In a sobbing voice, he talks about understanding between the two main racial groups. By so doing, he reminds me of the murderer grieving on the grave of his victim.
The Prime Minister is insincere, and with the support of the hon. members for Outre-mont-St. Jean and of Papineau, he is trying to undermine this unity and understanding by interfering in the field of education. The government is undermining confederation and wants to replace it by a legislative union.
The Quebec premier denounced this legislation as an intrusion in the field of education. Is he sincere? I doubt it very much, because in answer to a question he was asked on the orders of the day, the Prime Minister replied that the premier of Quebec had not sent any official protest to the federal government.
In La Presse of February 20, 1964, there appeared the following statement made by Mr. David Jenkins, president of the Canadian students' union:
It may prove impossible to carry out the Pearson government's project without violating provincial sovereignty in the field of education. If such be the case-as it might very well be- then the only solution for the federal government would be to hand back certain fields of taxation to the provinces to enable them to take their own responsibilities concerning education.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the provinces to fight that unfair legislation. I also urge the social organizations of our country such as the chambers of commerce, the St. Jean Baptiste societies and others, to launch a crusade all across the country, against that piece of legislation.
Never before, at any time, has the future of confederation been in such grave danger. And never has separatism, on the part of French speaking as well as English speaking citizens, been so acute. In fact, the following statement made by Mr. Rene Levesque, cabinet member of the Lesage administration, was reported in La Presse of February 16, 1964:
The Federal Government a Monster
Canada is a jungle where prowls a monster, the federal administration, and where the provinces count for nothing. That is the way Mr. Rene Levesque presented confederation to his audience.

At the same time, he thrashed these "neofederalism and co-operative federalism cataplasms", concepts brought out by the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Lester B. Pearson.
The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean should start by calling cryptoseparatists his own friends in his own party.
The Liberal member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) declared in Toronto that one language is sufficient to establish unity in Canada, the English language.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) also insulted English speaking Canadians.
The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mac-kasey) confirms my allegations to the effect that separatism exists within the government.
Speaking in the course of printing week in Montreal, he stated, as reported in La Presse on January 15, 1964:
Groups within French Canada as well as English Canada are trying to separate us; some members of those groups do it through hatred and ignorance, others because they sincerely feel, although they may be misguided, that separatism is the only solution.
The federal M.P. revealed that he was shocked when a member of parliament (Ralph Cowan) criticized the C.B.C. for deciding to make of CJBC a French station. He also said that he was sickened by some statements made by Douglas Fisher as well as Auguste Choquette who, in Toronto, is said to have insulted English Canadians.
Who made that statement? None other than a member who sits on the government side.
Before talking about national unity, I feel that the Prime Minister should first convert some of his supporters.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are governed by an incompetent Prime Minister who, instead of consolidating national unity, is destroying the confederation of Macdonald and Cartier.
As far as the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) is concerned, he was hooted twice by the electors of Quebec West, a riding which really represents the feelings of Quebec, and I shall call him a renegade of confederation.
Mr. Speaker, how can the federal government give assistance in the field of education without interfering with the autonomy of the provinces? By allowing deduction of students' tuition fees from income tax.
By allowing an income tax exemption on money spent by teachers for improvement and outside activities likely to improve their efficiency, as claimed by many organizations. By cutting income tax for low income families in order to help them keep their children in school. By continuing to pay family allowances till 18 years old for children still in school. By allowing provincial lotteries whose revenue would help finance education, and by giving back to the provinces certain sources of revenue.
20220-8i
The Address-Mr. Pigeon
The government should also, Mr. Speaker, entrust the province of Quebec with the education of the Eskimos in new Quebec. Here is what we find in today's La Presse:
Stalemate in Negotiations concerning the Quebec Eskimos-Before Messrs. Laing, Favreau and Rene Tremblay, Mr. Levesque called "tomfoolery" any attempt at consulting the Eskimos, which would tend to give to the indigenous population a right of veto with regard to decisions which governments alone are entitled to take.
Inacceptable Tomfoolery-Apologizing for using the word in front of the ladies (among whom were Mrs. Claire Kirkland-Casgrain), Mr. Levesque added: "Anything looking like a referendum could not be "embraced", as it would be shameful for Quebec, and would, moreover, constitute an unbearable abuse of democratic practice."
"To safeguard its dignity Quebec could not tolerate such tomfoolery, which would make us a laughing stock."
Mr. Speaker, it is urgent and necessary that the English speaking provinces concede to the French speaking minorities a school system Similar to that which the province of Quebec has granted to the English speaking minority. I shall illustrate this by saying that a French speaking Canadian pays twice the school tax in British Columbia.
The establishment of a normal school is a vital necessity for the French cause in Saskatchewan.
In 1964, the French language was abolished in Nova Scotian schools. In 1871, the French language was abolished in New Brunswick schools. In 1890, the French language was abolished as an official language in Manitoba. In 1892, the French language was suppressed in the government and schools of the Northwest Territories and the district of Keewatin. In 1915, the French language was suppressed, for all practical purposes, in Ontario schools.
In my opinion, it would be possible, without affecting in any way the importance of English influence, to enlist the co-operation of the provinces in such services, so that the French and Roman Catholic minorities in other provinces may have the same rights as the English minority in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, a department of education was created in the province of Quebec. Due to its concepts, it represents a state monopoly, which places under trusteeship parents, school boards, religious teaching and the higher council of education. The Quebec people favour a reform in the field of education, provided, however, it is based on logic.
By an exaggerated planning and by trying to jump the gun, the Quebec government is at present destroying private enterprise under the crushing burden of taxation. Farmers are getting into debt, which threatens to paralyse the great reforms undertaken in the education field. Landlords, faced with rising taxation, increase their rents. The owner of a

The Address-Mr. Pigeon single house is on the brink of bankruptcy. School boards are in the red and teachers remain unpaid; there are teachers' strikes. In a word, free education is a hoax.
It is for those reasons that I appeal once again to the government in Ottawa to give back to the provinces, to Quebec especially, their income sources so that education, which is threatened and comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, may progress without any harm being done to anybody.
Once more, I ask the members of this house to face up to their responsibilities and rise after me to beg the Pearson-Lamon-tagne-Favreau government to withdraw that bill which constitutes an intrusion into the provincial field and give back to the provinces their taxation rights, while paying to the poorer provinces special grants which would place them on the same footing as the richer ones.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the religious orders. They gave much to Canada for generations. They worked almost without pay for education. The church contributes $7 million a year in unclaimed salaries to classical education in the province of Quebec. It would be stupid, a serious error and even a gross injustice to tax religious property.
The government in Ottawa should give back to the provinces their sources of revenue so that they may fulfil their obligations. Today, the needs of the provinces come first.
Universities are on the brink of bankruptcy because the provinces lack the necessary sources of income to carry out their responsibilities.
Accommodation is at a premium in universities, teachers are not paid enough and a large number of research workers are leaving for the United States. What is the government doing to stop the immigration of Canadian scientists? Instead of infringing upon the field of education, it should start by trying to keep our teachers in Canada.
In the province of Quebec, universities are urgently needed in Joliette, Chicoutimi and Rimouski; Loyola and Sainte-Marie colleges should also be given university status. School boards are hard pressed, and that is the case not only in Quebec but in the other provinces.
The Joliette school board will have to raise the level of taxes by 39 cents for the 1964-65 fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation providing assistance to students constitutes a serious threat to provincial rights. Instead of talking about national unity and of making contradictory statements, it would be better for the government to hand over taxation powers to the provinces, thus enabling them to assume their responsibilities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic party welcomes most heartily the good things that are contained in the speech from the throne. There are a few good items in it, and we shall do our best to see to it that these good items are enacted into legislation at the earliest possible date.
The New Democratic party also regrets very strongly the serious omissions from the speech from the throne, and we shall do our best during the course of this session to persuade the government to make up for these omissions by bringing in some of the items which ought to have been included. Reference has been made already to a number of these items, but may I list them briefly so that the government may know what to expect from us by way of demands during the course of this session.
We believe this government should be bringing in provision for a federal-provincial medicare program, and we shall be asking the house to vote on this at a quarter to six this afternoon. We also regret that the Canadian development corporation, which was proposed in the speech from the throne last year, has been omitted. There was also the omission of any reference to improving the Unemployment Insurance Act. There is the omission of university scholarships, which in our view has not been taken care of by loans to students. There is also the omission of any proposal for improving the Family Allowances Act.
Likewise, despite the apparent conversion at the last session of this house to the principle of economic planning suggested in the speeches on the bill which set up the Department of Industry and the bill setting up the Economic Council of Canada, there is nothing in the present speech from the throne to indicate that the government realizes that in this day and age economic planning is a necessity if we are to achieve the kind of economy which will provide full employment and security for all our people. We shall, in the course of this session, do our best to get the government to bring in some of these things it forgot to put in the speech from the throne.
I may say, also, that we in this party welcome the type of speech which the Prime Minister made in this debate. I think it would be agreed on all sides of the house that it was a tremendous improvement over the speech the same right hon. gentleman made in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne last session, and even more of an improvement over the one that he made two sessions ago. He refrained from being baited by the Leader of the Opposition,

and chose rather to tell us what the government of which he is now the head proposes to do.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this type of speech from the leader of the government. But having made the kind of speech that he did last evening, he perhaps should be given a word of warning. It seemed to me that he was endeavouring to cast himself in the role of a social and political reformer. He used the words "social and political reform" on two or three occasions. He referred to the pieces of legislation that the government proposes to proceed with as examples of social and political reform. This is fine, Mr. Speaker, provided that the same Prime Minister and the government of which he is the head deliver the goods.
I am sure that, as the leader of the Liberal party, he will not be surprised that some of us do not clap our hands for joy when the Liberal party announces itself as the party of reform, because after all that is the stance the Liberal party in this country has taken throughout the lifetime of all of us who are in this chamber, whatever our age. For far too long this stance has been one that has deceived the Canadian people. Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King was a past master at appearing as a protagonist of reform, getting elected on this basis and taking years and years, decades and decades, to put on the statute books some of the things that were promulgated in the name of reform. So if the present Prime Minister wishes to take this stance, if he wishes to appear as an apostle of reform, well and good; but I suggest that he deliver the goods, otherwise the Canadian people will not take kindly to the idea of again being fooled by the Liberal party that has done it to the Canadian people so often.
That leads me to the main body of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, during which I shall deal with three of the subjects that the Prime Minister himself touched upon last evening. Other subjects that he spoke of will be dealt with by colleagues of mine during the course of this debate but, as I say, I shall confine myself to three of the subjects that he dealt with as being in the eyes of the government, in the eyes of all of us, very important.
The first of these subjects is the Canada pension plan. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister say last night that he regards this as one of the most important pieces of legislation to be enacted at this session. We were told in the speech from the throne that it would be laid before us. We were told, in response to a question I put to the Prime Minister the other day, that it would be given high priority and proceeded with in the early days of this session. We were told the same
The Address-Mr. Knowles thing last night by the Prime Minister in his speech; that it has priority, that it will be proceeded with.
These are wonderful words to hear, Mr. Speaker, but I hope I do not sound cynical if I remind the government that we heard precisely the same words at the last session. We came to this house at the last session fresh from an election campaign in which the Canada pension plan was promised by the Liberal party. It was the keystone in the arch of the victory they won last April. It was promised in the speech from the throne. It was promised in answers to questions on orders of the day. In the speech the Prime Minister made in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne last May he confirmed that it would be enacted at that session. But everyone knows that because of opposition that arose, all we had was one day's debate on the resolution preceding the bill, and that was as far as we got.
Now we have the revision of the plan. As my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), pointed out last night, we have the third version of the Canada pension plan as presented to us by the Liberals, and it is watered down to an extent that we deplore. I want to say to the Prime Minister that though by common consent he made an excellent speech last night, there were two or three very weak points in it. I thought one of the weakest was when he tried to explain that reducing the benefits to be obtained under the Canada pension plan was not really a reduction because under the plan of last July the ratio of benefits was to be 30 per cent at age 70 and 20 per cent at age 65, and under the new plan it is still 20 per cent at age 65, even though it is no higher at age 70. So somehow or other we are supposed to believe that the benefits have not actually been reduced. The benefits at age 65 under last year's plan, were a reduction of the normal benefits to be available at age 70, and we are now being given a plan which will cost the people of Canada more, but the benefits will be less.
We suggest that this is a retreat; that it is hardly the proper performance for a party that takes the position of being a party of social reform. I think attention should be paid to the demand my leader made last night, that the plan be restored to what it was last July, and that this parliament be given an opportunity to enact it in that form at this session.
This is not the first time we have been in the position of seeing progressive legislation stalled because of lobbies against it. I can think of many other instances during the years I have been here. I will not take the time to mention them, but I am very much

The Address-Mr. Knowles aware of what happened last year and we are all very much aware of the position that still exists, of the position being taken by Mr. Robarts and the communications still being sent out by Mr. Kilgour, the president of the Great-West Life Assurance Company of my own city; and we cannot help but be concerned that these pressures will again have the effect of dissuading the government from keeping its promise and going ahead with the plan this session. The promise has been made that the legislation will be referred to committee which means, of course, after second reading.


Mr. Graffley:: Why do you forget Lesage?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Lesage is not forgotten in this house; he is mentioned many times, almost every day. The bill will be referred to committee after second reading, no doubt. I hope that this reference to a committee which the government has promised, because it has been asked to do so by those in favour of the plan as well as by those against it, will not be used as an excuse for such a long delay that the bill will not get through. That can happen. In committee all kinds of bodies and organizations can appear, debate can go on and on, and before we know it, it could be too late in the session to put the measure through. I suggest that the house make up its mind. The people of Canada voted for something like this on April 8, 1963, and it is our responsibility to see that this legislation gets through at this session without fail.
The second of the subjects with which the Prime Minister dealt last night concerning which I should like to say a few words is the question of a national labour code. It was on November 8 of last year, during the first session of this parliament, that the Minister of Labour, in response to questions during the discussion of his estimates, gave a virtual promise that at this session of parliament a national labour code would be brought in by the government. We are glad, therefore, to see the assurance in the speech from the throne that this will be done. We are glad also that the Prime Minister confirmed in the speech he made last night that this legislation will be introduced and will be given high priority at this session.
Again, as my leader pointed out last night, you can hardly expect us to jump for joy over this sign of progress on the part of the Liberal party. I have here two interesting books which are to be found in the library of this parliament. They both go back to 1919. This larger one contains all the resolutions and proposals which were submitted to the Liberal national convention of 1919 held here in the city of Ottawa, and it makes very interesting reading. If one goes through this


volume he will find that a major section of the resolutions presented concerned labour relations, on the basis of which the Liberal party wanted to take a stand for a minimum wage, for a maximum work day, for a maximum work week, for vacations, and for standards which would protect workers so far as health and safety were concerned.
That is the one book. The other book is a report of the Liberal convention in 1919, and it contains the consolidated resolutions which were passed. The Liberal party almost 45 years ago took a stand for progress in this field, a stand for a national labour code, a minimum wage law, a maximum work day, a maximum work week, and the other matters. It is hardly an indication of speed that it has taken 45 years for a Liberal government to bring in a piece of legislation of this kind. Incidentally, it was given to the then Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King to make his main speech at that convention, apart from the one which he made at the end after he had been elected leader, on the question of labour relations. He gave a stirring pledge as to what the Liberal party would do to make things better for the working people of Canada by enacting into legislation these things which that party promised way back in 1919.
As I say, you can hardly expect us to jump for joy, but we are at least glad that at long last we are seeing these things appearing before us in legislative form. I suggest that before the bill is presented to us, whether it is preceded by a resolution or comes in directly as a bill, the government give very serious consideration to its terms. Let it be not a weak bill hardly worthy of being passed. Let it propose standards which are worth while in this day and age.
The suggestion is that there will be in the national labour code a minimum wage. I suggest it be not less than $1.25 an hour. Indeed, by now that figure should be higher, but it should certainly be not less than $1.25 an hour. Let there be no distinction as between men and women. Let there be no distinctions among various areas of the country. Let that minimum wage apply to all workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction.
In the matter of maximum working hours or a maximum working week, let it be not less than a five day, 40 hour week. I suggest there be included a provision similar to that contained in the bill on the order paper in the name of my colleague the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), which would make it possible for those hours to be reduced as technological improvements and automation make it necessary for us to have a shorter

working week. Let the provision for statutory holidays include at least eight or nine of them.
Let the bill also include something about vacations with pay. Nothing was said in the speech from the throne or in the speech yesterday of the Prime Minister on this point. I realize we have a Vacations With Pay Act on the statute books, but it has at least two main weaknesses. One is that it takes two years before the two weeks which are allotted become effective; the other is that there is no provision for escalating that two week vacation into anything more no matter how long an employee works for a corporation which comes under federal labour jurisdiction. Hon. members know of my bills on the order paper, one of which calls for two weeks vacation with pay after one year and the other for three weeks after five years. I suggest that provisions which are at least as good as these ought to be included in this legislation.
Then there is the question of providing health and safety standards. Let these things be well thought out and let them appear in the bill, so that some of the provisions to protect the position of workers in industry, and the workers of the country generally, which Mackenzie King proclaimed 45 years ago, will at last become part of the law of this land. I would remind Liberal members of the house that Mr. King was very specific when he made his speech at the conclusion of that convention for he stated that his was the party which would take these resolutions which they had passed at their convention and enact them into legislation and make them the law of the land. Let us do that at long last, at this session.
I also plead with the government of the day to pay no attention to some of the voices which are being raised in connection with the enactment of a national labour code. In particular I suggest that the government pay no attention to that great Liberal journal, the Winnipeg Free Press. It agrees with the idea of a national labour code, but it wants it to include not only minimum standards to protect workers but as well certain restrictive provisions to hold in check the strength and bargaining power of the trade union movement.
I suggest that is entirely a different subject. That sort of thing is covered, if it needs to be covered, by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I suggest rather that the national labour code should be a charter for labour. There is nothing in the speech from the throne to suggest that any of this other kind of legislation will be included; but I know the kind of pressure which will be exerted, and I urge the govern-
The Address-Mr. Knowles ment to stick to the kinds of things that it has said, through the mouth of the Minister of Labour and through the speech from the throne, are to be included in this legislation.
This is a subject, Mr. Speaker, concerning which many proposals have been made in the House of Commons. My bills and the bills of some of my colleagues have been on the order paper for a long time. Resolutions have been introduced and speeches have been made. But apart from the equal pay for equal work legislation which the previous Liberal administration brought in and the Vacations With Pay Act that the last Conservative administration brought in, there has not been introduced in the House of Commons from the government side of the house at any time a comprehensive national labour code. I hope this is not a case of it having to be done two, three or half a dozen times, as is the case with some legislation. That is the way the first old age pension legislation started out in 1926 and 1927, and that is the way it is at this time with the Canada pension plan and the Canada development corporation. Let us face the fact that the thinking on this subject is well jelled; let us recognize that this is a good piece of legislation, and, let us see to it that we get it through at this session of parliament.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that there were three matters to which I wished to devote my time this afternoon, and the third matter is the question of parliament itself. I think it was a good sign that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister had something to say in their remarks yesterday about this institution of parliament. I believe they reflect the views of all of us in drawing attention to parliament. I believe they reflect the desire of all of us to improve the job which we are doing in this place on behalf of the people of Canada. We earnestly desire this institution to be the glorious one that historically it is reputed to be; and that it do the best job it can in terms of the needs of this day and age.
However, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice yesterday, despite the worthy statements made by both these right hon. gentlemen on the subject of parliament, that when it came to specific examples each of them saw something wrong on the other side. When the Leader of the Opposition had something to talk about in terms of what is wrong with parliament, what was it? It was the way in which the Liberal government acts. His example, of course, was that the Liberal government in the last session transferred too many notices of motions for production of papers to the item

The Address-Mr. Knowles under which they can be debated and then talked them out. This was pretty had, he said, and I agree it was bad. It was also bad the session before, when from the Liberal side of the house there was the motion for the production of papers with regard to the surcharge order. The Conservative government of that day transferred that motion to the item under which it could be debated, and then talked that out for the session.
However, that is just by the way. The point I am making is that the principal example which the Leader of the Opposition advanced to show something was wrong was something which he saw over on the other side of the house.
The Prime Minister, in effect, did the same thing. He had some suggestions to make. Time must be saved. The suggestions he made were at the expense of the opposition. Parliament must be improved. We must streamline our procedures, and we must expedite the business of the house. But how was this to be done? It was to be done by the opposition talking less in order to get the business through. I suppose it is human nature and it is typical that when anything is wrong in any group or society it is the other fellow who should make the corrections. I suggest that if we are going to improve parliament, and I think we all agree that we should, we are going to have to admit that there are faults on both sides. There is room for improvement on both sides. We have to look at the problem in its totality rather than finding ways of blaming the other fellow.
As a matter of fact, if time permits I should like to say a word about the responsibility on both sides of this house. I should like also to say a word about the responsibility of a third side of parliament to which I shall refer in a moment. As for the two main sides that are here on the floor, the government and the opposition, I think we must face the fact that we have to do something about the element of time, not to save time so we can go home but to improve the use of our time so that we do not waste it on unimportant things. This, to me, is the essence of any proposal to save time in any particular phase of our procedure, not just to get through but to have a better apportionment of our time.
The Prime Minister made certain suggestions he thought should be considered. It is not necessary at this point to say what our views would be in respect of those specific suggestions. However, we are prepared to sit down with representatives of the various groups to study what the Prime Minister has suggested and ascertain if there are certain

things we could do even before the committee on procedure brings in its report. Undoubtedly what will have to be done will be to find ways of making better use of our time. Let it not be thought that the goal is simply to get home, that the goal is simply to cut down the amount of time that might be spent in the House of Commons.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to blame the other side. I think we have to look at both sides. I think we have to make a careful study, a study in depth to use a word that is commonly used today. In so far as the government is concerned, surely the government has the responsibility of introducing good legislation and planning the business of the house, of giving leadership in debate. The government's responsibility is to see to it that there are contributions made to the debate not only by those on the treasury benches but by those occupying the back benches as well. Parliament is not just an institution where the cabinet meets the opposition. Parliament consists of 265 members. 1 suggest that greater use should be made of all members of the house and there are ways in which this can be done.
On the opposition side of the house, we too have a responsibility. We have a responsibility not to block things that are good but to give them our support. We have a responsibility not just to stall for the sake of stalling. But we also have the responsibility to check everything that is brought in, to criticize where criticism is necessary; to examine expenditures and to examine legislation. We have a responsibility to prod the government where it fails to introduce legislation that it ought to be introducing. We are a major element in the whole parliamentary process.
May I take just a moment to refer to what to me is one of the most classic statements of the role of the opposition. It is found in Hansard for April 9, 1913, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was setting out the role of the opposition. He referred, as will be found on pages 7433 and 7434, to the times in history, particularly in the British House of Commons, when the opposition, because it felt strongly on matters of public policy, did not hesitate to take time to try to prevent something being done that should not be done. I shall read a sentence or two from what Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to say:
On another occasion, in 1771, the majority of the house did not want to allow the publication of the debates. That strange position was opposed by a minority headed by no less a man than Edmund Burke, and Burke by whole days of obstruction succeeded in defeating the object of the majority, and, as he himself said afterwards, "posterity will bless the pertinacity of that day."
There are times, Mr. Speaker, when it is the duty of the opposition to talk and to do

its best to prevent certain things from getting through. It is the duty of the opposition to do this in the name of the people.
I see my time is fast running out, but I want to refer to a third side with respect to this matter of improving parliament. The third side, I suggest, relates to our friends in the press gallery. I want to suggest to them that I think they too have a responsibility. They enjoy, and we will protect it to the death, freedom to write about us as they choose. But I suggest that freedom carries with it responsibility, and that they should be interpreting what we are doing here to the Canadian people in the light of reasonable and valid standards. They should judge us not on the basis of whether they are tired because our speeches are lengthy; they should judge us not on some personal basis because they like this member or do not like that one or because they are in favour of the government or do not like a certain party. They should judge us in terms of what are the responsibilities of the government and the opposition. I invite my fellow members of all parties, government and opposition alike, to give serious thought to ways and means of improving parliament. I also invite our friends of the press gallery to join with us in trying to help make these improvements.
In these days Mr. Speaker, there take place a good many model parliaments in universities and other places. Some of us have had the privilege of attending some of them and performing certain functions. I think they are excellent. Out of this experience I should like to make a suggestion. I should like to suggest that some day when parliament can recess for a week or two, there be held in this chamber a model parliament par excellence. I propose that the members of it be the members of the press gallery. I make this proposal in all seriousness. I suggest we give them complete freedom to decide who is on the government side, who is on the opposition side, who are the cabinet ministers and who is the Speaker. We should give them complete freedom in every respect except one. I insist that if this model parliament is held, its members should treat it as though it were real, that they deal with the issues of the week they sit here as they come up and as if their function was real. Perhaps we could go up in the press gallery and we could write for the newspapers of Canada on how they perform.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, why I make this suggestion. I am asking that we try to improve the job we do here, but I am asking also that the members of the press gallery sit where we sit; that they look at parliament through eyes responsible to the Canadian people, and that they try to interpret it in the best way they possibly can
The Address-Mr. Addison so that some progress will be made toward what I believe is the ideal of all of us, toward what I believe the Canadian people want, toward what I believe we can have, not just a parliament that was glorious in history but a parliament today that carries out the full functions of democracy in doing a job for the Canadian people.


Mr. J. H. Addison (York North):: Mr. Speaker, after those eloquent words from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning his suggestion about the press gallery I wonder if he might also suggest that we trade salaries? I do not think so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of them would not want to.


John Hollings Addison: I should like to offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am sure their constituents can be proud of them. They certainly did justice to a very fine document. I should like also to congratulate the Prime Minister on his brilliant speech of yesterday. For one who has been in this chamber for only two parliaments it was the finest speech I have heard.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, yesterday the Prime Minister suggested certain proposals to streamline and improve parliamentary procedure. I should like to follow the Prime Minister's lead and offer suggestions to the cabinet, particularly to the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill), in connection with an air policy for this country. As was mentioned in the speech from the throne, certain aspects of the Mac-Pherson royal commission report will be implemented in order to improve the operating efficiency of Canadian railways. This means that the time of the new Minister of Transport will be taken up largely by this legislation, as well as by the vast and complicated department that he has the privilege to head.
In the speech from the throne there was no specific mention of an over-all comprehensive air policy for Canada, but there was mention of other legislative proposals that may be coming before us this session. Without an over-all air policy I think the direction, the goals and the planning of this industry, and a very vital industry it is, are stunted. With a comprehensive air policy guide lines can be established which will take the matter out of the hands of the politicians.
I am sure all members of the house agree it is essential that this country should have a new aviation policy. It is needed now because of the apparent readiness of the United States to begin negotiations on trans-border

The Address-Mr. Addison routes. President Kennedy appointed Mr. J. K. Galbraith, former United States ambassador to India, to study trans-border routes between the United States and Canada, and after visiting Canada last summer he reported to the President. A copy of this report was also sent to the Prime Minister of Canada by Mr. Kennedy shortly before his assassination. While the contents of this report are confidential and secret, it is reported that a North American approach is recommended and that talks begin between the United States and Canada this spring. I suggest that this important question needs the attention of a full time minister, at least temporarily, to cover the whole field of aviation, telecommunication and meteorological services in this country.
Aviation policy should be broken down into three particular aspects. The first is international flag carriers, the second is transborder carriers and the third is domestic air carriers. My concern today is primarily with the international aspect of our air policy. As we are aware, international carriers are now in the process of reducing fares and are doing so very rapidly. I believe the next reduction goes into effect on April 1. This could be of serious consequence to our two flag lines operating out of Canada. In making his report to the railways, air lines and shipping committee the president of T.C.A., for example, pointed out that part of the profit realized on the trans-Atlantic runs was used to subsidize non-profit lines operating in Canada, as well as to cover part of the overall overhead.
This country must make a fundamental decision, namely whether a country of 19 million people can support more than one flag carrier internationally. Of the countries operating the more than 93 air lines which are members of the international air transport association, only three or four countries in the world operate more than one international flag carrier. These are notably the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Mexico. Looking at these countries we see that the United States, with a population of 180 million people, has four carriers, three of which are passenger and one cargo; namely Northwestern, Pan American, T.W.A. and Seaboard, which carries cargo only. Last year Pan American and T.W.A. attempted to merge but were prevented from doing so by the civil aeronautics board. Here we had a business decision overruled by a government body.
The United Kingdom has a population of 53 million people and has three international flag lines, B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and British Eagle.


B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are government controlled and operated while British Eagle is a subsidiary of Cunard. B.O.A.C., as we know, has recently had a major shakeup of its senior personnel because of a poor operating statement, and the fact that it has been losing money steadily. France, with a population of 47 million people, operates three flag lines, Air France, T.A.I. and U.P.A., the latter for cargo only.
Ten flag carriers of other lands are authorized to land in Canada. These carriers have the right to pick up and deliver passengers in this country. So we can see that on what is called the blue ribbon run T.C.A. certainly is in intense competition.
My proposal is straightforward. I propose a merger for international purposes of Canada's two flag carriers. I would propose a merger along the lines of A.B.A., which represents Sweden in that country's participation in S.A.S. This merger should take place in the future on a timetable that will allow each air line to phase out duplicate personnel who would be eliminated by the merger. This would minimize any job dislocation.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this idea is not new. It has been discussed for some time, particularly in 1962 when C.P.A. were operating at a very substantial loss. But the reasons for this proposal are very real. The first is that it would be a great aid to the government in negotiating bilateral agreements to negotiate for one air line representing Canada with one air line representing another country. When negotiating at the present time we negotiate on the basis of two for one.
This proposal would also eliminate wasteful competition between Canada's air lines internationally. I mean by that that in 1961 a route was granted to C.P.A. to fly from western Canada to London.
This route never came into existence because of the objection of the United Kingdom to landing rights for C.P.A. at London. But there is also the practice of booking passengers on other air lines when a sister Canadian company could provide that service. For example, at present T.C.A. is represented in Japan by Japan Air Lines. This means that would-be passengers for Toronto are carried by J.A.L. to Vancouver, via Hawaii and San Francisco and then onward by T.C.A. Canada misses the substantial foreign currency earnings that would be won if the Pacific flights were by a Canadian carrier.
With the advent of the new supersonic jet aircraft, and I am speaking specifically of the Concord and the new aircraft under development in the United States which will cost somewhere in the vicinity of $25 million


each, it will become increasingly difficult for private air lines to finance the purchase of aircraft like this. It is interesting to note that in a press	release which appeared in	theGlobe and	Mail	on February 16	referencewas made	to a	tentative order	given	byC.P.A. for	three	of these 2,000	miles	an
hour supersonic jet aircraft that are to be manufactured in the United States. That report read as follows:
C.P.A. said it was the only private enterprise air line in the delivery lineup that does not have some form of government subsidy available to it.
With a merger of the two air lines there would also be a reduction in sales staff and personnel throughout the world; but more important, a merger would ensure a private enterprise approach to the air line business, and I suggest that this is necessary under the conditions under which these two air lines are today operating in Canada.
We need only look at the last hearings of the committee on railways, air lines and shipping, held on Monday, December 2, 1963 to see what unfair competition the government sponsored line is operating under at present, and for an example of this I would like to quote from page 29 of that report:


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question in respect of this same matter before we move to another point. Mr. McGregor, most of these companies' financial statements are made available and I presume that you have seen C.P.A.'s financial statement and have had your staff study the information in respect of where C.P.A. is making a profit and where they are losing money; is that right?


Mr. McGregor:: The fact is that C.P.A. does not put out a financial statement. Their financial statement is included in a paragraph in the annual report of the C.P.R.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: 
Robert Henry McGregor: It is not detailed at all. This is a ^report in respect of the over-all operation of
During those hearings, which went on for four days, an official of the C.P.A. air line sat in attendance in the visitors' section of the committee room, and the full disclosure of T.C.A.'s position was placed before that committee for the information of its chief competitor.
There is also the question of political pressures brought to bear on management; for example, the political pressure brought to bear to keep the T.C.A. overhaul base in Winnipeg, which admittedly will cost T.C.A. a substantial amount of money, and the controversy that swirled throughout the House of Commons over the selection of short range jets, the DC-9 or the Caravelle. When these
The Address-Mr. Addison things happen it becomes increasingly difficult for a member of operating management to divorce himself completely from the political implications.
I suggest that when the air lines are in a healthy position, then this is the time to arrange for a merger. This should be a marriage of convenience and not of necessity. Nineteen sixty three was one of the best years international air lines ever enjoyed, and both Canadian air lines operated at a profit. Air lines in the United States operated at record earnings. Such a merger must be carried through in a spirit of co-operation. It is necessary so that an air line can operate as a business, and an air line must be conducted as a business with the minimum of interference from the government.
I do not think we should operate our flag line as an instrument of national prestige. I do not think it is unrealistic to look into the future when there may possibly be only 10 or 12 international flag carriers servicing all the nations of the world. As trade barriers are reduced competition will become more severe among competing air lines, and now is the time to lay our long range plans for an international flag line representing this country.
One may ask how a merger may be brought about. The heads of the two air lines have been competing against each other for some time and it is only natural that, as competitors, they would not advocate such a step. But I suggest it has worked successfully in other countries, and that it can work successfully here with the government and private industry in a fifty-fifty partnership in a national project. This would give the private enterprise approach with the aid of government financing.
I do not intend to go into a great deal of detail in connection with the merger of
S.A.S., but I think it is important that we look at part of it. S.A.S. is a company which represents Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Norway and Denmark each own two sevenths and Sweden owns the other three sevenths. The Swedish portion of this partnership is owned by a company called A.B.A., which company is controlled 50 per cent by private industry and 50 per cent by the Swedish government.
Each of these groups elects an equal number of directors to the board and the chairman of the board is appointed by the directors voting the government shares, but the operating executive committee is made up of four directors, two from private industry and two representing the government. The chairman of this operating executive committee is elected by the private interests.

The Address-Mr. Nielsen If a dividend is to be paid at the end of the fiscal year, it is determined by the group recommending the lowest figure.
I suggest that with co-operation between private and public financing a transportation company of this type could be a very valuable instrument for Canada, because with such a company as this Canada can utilize it in order to form her own merchant fleet. Today Canada has virtually no international merchant marine, and I think we have all accepted the fact that the country is not going to be in a position to manufacture highly sophisticated, large, supersonic transport aircraft. But we could build a merchant marine using Canadian shipyards, using Canadian personnel and material to build the ships, using Canadian men to man and sail them, and employ these vessels for the purpose of transporting Canadian agricultural products and manufactured goods originating here.
Any policy dealing with transportation is complicated because of regional interests involved. I suggest we accept that we must be united in order to compete internationally. I suggest we adopt a policy of co-operation between private industry and government whereby this company would be allowed to operate as a private company on a free enterprise basis.
This is a house of minorities, and some have accused us of timidity. I do not think this has been the case. Policies have been introduced into the house and pursued with vigour and courage. Courage will be needed to merge the air lines structure so as to form an over-all transportation complex. But for the good of the country and for the sake of competing internationally in the future I feel the approach must be one of full cooperation between government and private industry so as to develop one integral transportation company.


Erik Nielsen: I should like first of all to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address. They had a difficult task in attempting to make a mountain out of the molehill which that speech turned out to be.
In this regard I should like to say a word or two about the manner in which the Prime Minister treated the speech from the throne in the remarks he made. I think the Prime Minister's performance in his speech yesterday both before the supper recess and afterward was an amazing example of parliamentary irresponsibility. Here was a prime minister faced with a want of confidence motion based on his government's financial policy, a charge that the country was disillusioned with, and had rejected, the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and construction materials.

Yet he did not say one word about this 11 per cent sales tax. He did not deal with it at all, though this was the basis of the motion which faced him. Not one word was said by him in defence of his Minister of Finance or of the investment policy pursued by that hon. gentleman, although this subject was dealt with fully by the Leader of the Opposition.
The obvious reason for this, I suggest, is that the policies of the government in this regard are indefensible and the Prime Minister knows it. That is why he said nothing about them. It will be interesting to see whether any of the other cabinet ministers have anything to say about this particular subject if, indeed, they have the courage to attempt to defend these crippling financial policies.
Instead of addressing himself to this question the Prime Minister treated the house to a lecture from a text which, I would guess, had been prepared three or four weeks before the speech from the throne. It was a rehash of the throne speech itself. He talked about a magazine policy which had been previously announced by the Conservative government as though it were something entirely new. He said it did not really matter what the provincial premiers said about the pension plan. This is where the mask of diplomacy slips and the face of Liberal centralization peers forth. Hon. members opposite talk consultation, but they practice creeping centralization.
What has been the government's record in these last ten months, almost a year, and what has happened to that dynamic promise of a. blazing 60 days of action by the government? They have attempted to substitute diplomacy,, negotiation and dialogue for decision and action. They have negotiated from a position of weakness in pursuit of objectives which they have never been able to make clear even to themselves. In an irresponsible attempt to-twist the facts to fit preconceived theories, they have weakened confidence in Canada's, economy. They have embarked upon a series-of inept and ill advised measures based on emotionalism and political sloganeering rather than on a realistic appraisal of the situation.
Where are those promises made during the election campaign? They have disappeared during the last ten months and been replaced by a policy of postponement and evasion of the critical issues which must be resolved if we are to continue as a federal system. Hon. members opposite are surrounded now by the wreckage of their own frustrated endeavours. Relations with the provinces have deteriorated, to an all-time low level. Co-operative federalism, by which the government has set such store, has been reduced in effect to inoperative' Liberalism. Our relations with the United:.

States are no better. There is now a pathological fear of that country marked by subservience in the political field and defensiveness bordering on the neurotic in the economic field.
For ten months we have been afflicted with the weakest government since confederation. They are trying to be all things to all men. Pressure is bending them and opposition is buckling them. Vacillation and uncertainty are their watchwords. The rash election promises have backfired, and I intend to say a word or two about that diabolical dialogue of deception before I sit down. Decision has been supplanted by diplomatic dithering. Highly touted programs have had to be modified, withdrawn and revised in a series of humiliating retreats. The finest example of this is provided by the last budget brought down by the Minister of Finance. They have weakened the fabric and structure of confederation by dragging into the arena of partisan politics the relationship between the races and seeking to derive political advantage therefrom.
Now a word about the 11 per cent sales tax. This tax has, since its inception, met with a chorus of denunciation from industry, business and municipalities. It has had a marked restrictive effect on expansion. Now set at 4 per cent, it rises to 8 per cent on April 1 and 11 per cent on December 31. It was an ill conceived and incomprehensible measure. This is what the Prime Minister should have been dealing with in his reply to the motion of non-confidence moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
As to United States investment, the Minister of Finance says we need it, then he moves to turn off the tap. There is an almost psychopathic attitude toward the United States, a curious combination of hostility and servility. Every time the minister goes to Washington the policy changes. Financial houses, banks, the Quebec minister of finance, economists all across the country, claim that the Gordon anti-investment policy is unworkable and that we are cutting off our nose to spite our fiscal face.
The unworkability and ineptness of the policies of the present Minister of Finance throw strong doubt on his capacity to continue as minister. Obviously the hon. gentleman has no understanding of the workings of the economy, and refuses to accept the fact that the North American economy is an integrated economy and that measures designed to strike at the United States have a harmful effect on Canada's prosperity and on our ability to create new jobs for the growing working force. This is the gentleman who, during the last election campaign, said that
The Address-Mr. Nielsen one of the aims of the Liberal party in those blazing first 60 days of decision would be to pass measures to create full employment for all Canadians.
The reaction to the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and new equipment has been the most vitriolic of all so far as measures still in effect are concerned. The opposition has urged the government to repeal this tax because it has felt so deeply that it is retarding our national economic development. The 30 per cent tax had to be withdrawn. The withholding taxes are still causing friction in the United States and will probably be revised by the Minister of Finance. They should be, in any event.
The 11 per cent tax is still being subjected to a barrage of criticism from business and industry. I am sure all hon. members have received this sort of communication from businesses all across the country. The Canadian Lumbermen's Association, for instance, in a brief to the government on the 11 per cent sales tax called it a horrible and confusing mess, a state of complete confusion and uncertainty. They asked that the tax be removed. In its present form the tax is a pistol pointed at the head of business by this government, forcing expansion to take place before the rise to 11 per cent on December 31, 1964. The Liberals hope to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to point to the increase in building permits and construction as business attempts to get under the wire before the tax reaches the maximum. They have placed a one year deadline on expansion; that is the size of it. After December 31, 1964, they lower the boom with the full 11 per cent. It became a delayed action budget.
There has been no greater example of confusion and muddle-mindedness than the 11 per cent tax on building materials. First they put it on; then they withdrew it; then they were going to refund the money. Hon. members will remember what the Minister of Finance and the members on the treasury benches said when they spoke of this refund after pulling in their horns from 11 per cent to 4 per cent. They were going to refund to all suppliers the tax they had already been charged on building materials; but we have heard no more of those refunds.
The last budget was the most bitterly attacked budget in Canada's history. Bowing to public pressure, the government withdrew the budget piece by piece in the same way they are now doing with the pension plan. They have produced a diluted and watered down version of that plan. I think the Gordon budget, the 11 per cent sales tax, the 30 per cent withholding tax and all these other ill conceived measures might properly be termed

The Address-Mr. Nielsen frenzied financing. In a speech in Edmonton the minister said that large deficits should not be incurred in periods of prosperity and full employment. They have been telling us, particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), that this is just such a period; the country is booming. At the same time the Minister of Finance says that we must have large deficits. Mr. Speaker, have you ever known such muddled thinking? The more they cut expenditures, the higher they get. We are faced in this country today with a deficit which will probably be the largest in Canada's peacetime history. The Minister of Finance, in Edmonton on January 28, had this to say:
I can properly report that as a result of a thorough examination and review, the estimates submitted by the civil departments and agencies of the government for next year have been cut by some $200 million.
In the very next paragraph of the report of the minister's remarks we find that he said the following:
This does not mean, of course, that in total they will be lower than for the current year. On the contrary, they must meet growing requirements and will therefore be higher.
What confusion and contradiction, Mr. Speaker. In the publication "Industry" published by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the issue for January, 1964, there appear these words:
Sales of manufactured goods by U.S.-owned companies based here totalled $9,6X0 million in 1962, of which $8,095 million represented sales made in Canada. But exports to the U.S. itself accounted for no less than $1,080 million, while exports to other countries brought in another $435 million.
Thus a substantial part of Canada's export trade, both to the United States and abroad, is provided by firms supported by foreign investment; yet we have a Minister of Finance who is doing all he can to curtail this type of investment. Through devaluation and the export drive we had produced a substantial improvement in the balance of payments situation, as the Minister of Finance himself admitted on more than one occasion. Outgoing payments in the shape of interest and dividend payments on foreign investment in 1962 represented 1.9 per cent of the gross national product, compared with 2.5 per cent of the gross national product in 1947. The figure remains substantial in so far as the balance of payments is concerned. Our method was to compensate by increasing exports and reducing imports, rather than by punitive measures which, if they do not kill the goose, will make him less eager to go on producing golden eggs for our benefit.
The Prime Minister in his remarks yesterday dealt with confederation. No government, in the short period they have been in power, has done more to impair confederation than

the government that is now sitting on the treasury benches. If there are strains on confederation they derive from the fact that for 30 years the Liberal party has persistently moved into fields of jurisdiction allocated to the provinces under the constitution. On his television program with Mr. Lynch and Mr. Claude Ryan of Le Devoir, the Prime Minister said that confederation was blurry. If it is blurry it is the Liberal party that has made it so. In his speeches the Prime Minister has talked about "reshaping confederation" and "writing a new chapter". It is not a reshaping that is needed, not a new chapter, but simply the restoration to the provinces of those rights taken away from them by the Liberal party over the years. In speech after speech the Prime Minister of Canada has cast doubt on confederation and confederation's capacity to survive.
Surely this talk of confederation being found wanting is not calculated to restore public confidence. Many Canadians who have a belief in Canada and Canada's future at least as strong and sincere as that of the Prime Minister are fed up to the teeth with this repeated suggestion that confederation has been found wanting. Throughout the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday he spoke of a Canada from coast to coast, of a Canada from Atlantic to Pacific; he spoke of dominion-provincial conferences; he spoke of federal-provincial co-operation; but not once, sir, listening as carefully as I could, did I hear him refer to the one fully representative government above the sixtieth parallel and the legislative council of the Northwest Territories. Not once did he refer to those growing political bodies which are taking the first tottering steps toward full autonomy. Despite repeated requests throughout last session-and they will be made again this session-not one inch has been given by the government in agreeing to the suggestion that in these conferences and consultations where provincial-territorial plans are discussed there should be representation by the two territories. There are taxpayers in the north; there are forms of government in the north, and if any contributions are to be made to pension plans and other plans where provincial-federal co-operation is required, then certainly the territories should be consulted. They signed the same kind of fiscal agreement with the federal government as the provinces signed, and they have the same spheres of jurisdiction, legislatively, as provinces, with only three exceptions.
All that is required, I suggest, is a reversal of the Liberal policies of centralization which have warped and twisted the idea of confederation into a form that is now barely recognizable. The present government, made

up as it is of the inheritors of the policies of Mackenzie King and his then secretary, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill), is hardly the instrument to bring this about. Give back to the provinces, I say to the government, their historic rights and you will hear no more talk about confederation being found wanting. Give them the capacity to secure the financial resources necessary for the development of provincial resources, the funds necessary to meet the mounting costs of education. Then you will have an end to the uncertainty and confusion which more than anything else are at the base of the present problem.
The overlapping in the field of welfare as exemplified by the pension plan is not only a case in point but the best example which could be discussed at this time. This government wants a pension plan, and it went at it like a bull at a gate. It began by antagonizing the two provinces without whose co-operation it would be impossible to have a pension plan. It did not consult; it had a theory, and then tried to twist the facts to fit that theory.
This has been its course in every sphere, Mr. Speaker. The premier of Quebec came here and said there was no consultation on municipal loans, pensions, depressed area legislation; and I feel, as I charged last session, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) knew at the time of the feelings of the premier of Quebec and that he was going to introduce a pension plan, yet boldly presented her pension plan to this House of Commons without disclosure of that fact.
The former government was never in that position, because the provinces were respected and were consulted. The chaos and confusion in welfare on the federal-provincial and municipal levels can only be resolved through national welfare consultation at which the lines of authority will be set out, and the costs allocated and the jurisdictions defined. The business of having plans cooked up in the inner recesses and back rooms of the Liberal party and then shoved down the throats of the provinces on a take it or leave it basis is a dead end street. We all remember how fond they were of that course of action prior to 1957; apparently they have not yet learned their lesson.
On January 11 the Prime Minister wrote the provincial premiers and told them that because Quebec was adopting its own pension plan, age-reduced benefits will be financed from the existing old age security fund rather than from the Canada pension plan. The old age security fund is financed from taxes, whereas the Canada pension fund is to be financed from contributions. In spite of the
The Address-Mr. Nielsen Prime Minister's statement that payments before 70 will be financed from taxes, we have the Minister of Finance speaking in Edmonton on January 28 and saying this:
This plan will be fully self-supporting from contributions to be made by those covered by it and from their employers, just as private pension plans are.
The Prime Minister wrote the premiers on January 11 setting out the details of the watered down version. In the memorandum he sets out as one of the essential features of the plan that it will be universal. On the same page of that memorandum to the provincial premiers he says they are now willing to revise this consideration. It can hardly be a universal plan, sir, without the co-operation of one of the most important provinces in the country.
I am in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the Liberals have no monopoly on the idea of a universal contributory pension plan. At the time the government changed we were negotiating with the provincial governments and were attempting to obtain agreement on amendments to the British North America Act so as to be able to provide for survivor benefits within the framework of the universal contributory plan. All this was on the basis of the recommendations contained in the Clark report. The Liberals in fact likely stole from the Clark report the plan which they are now endeavouring to force through the house.
This is a highly technical and complex subject which could not possibly have been worked out between the time the Liberals took office and the time the minister of health and welfare made her announcement in the house. When we were in office departmental officials were working on a plan for two years. As to delay, this is simply the result of trying to obtain a plan which would meet the approval of all the provinces and required negotiations with those provinces. That was a plan which has not been followed by this government, which is why they are coming to grief in attempting to get acceptance of it. Compare this to the Liberal approach now, where the provinces were not consulted until late last year, months after the plan was announced as ready to be transformed into law; and it was not until January of this year that the Prime Minister's letters to the provincial premiers were released.
The reaction to the Liberal plan is almost universal rejection, with the province of Quebec embarking on a plan of its own and Ontario accepting conditionally, and this before the details were even known. All that appears to be left of the plan after almost universal rejection is a catch phrase which

The Address-Mr. Nielsen would be appealing to the electorate, especially if the Liberals in their usual fashion were to be able to fix the opposition with the responsibility for their own neglect and in the face of having their plan rejected by the provinces. We had been working with the provinces for two years and would have continued to do so in order to work out a method of implementing a pension plan before asking parliament to make it law. That is what the government should have done in this case, and the blame for their coming to grief rests with them alone.
I now want to deal, Mr. Speaker, in the time left to me with what I call a diabolical dialogue. The Prime Minister is fond of the term "dialogue". I went through some election pamphlets and material published by the Liberal party in the last election campaign, and I am going to go through some of the promises which were made. In each case the result of the promise has been nil, but I think it desirable that they be on the record.
The first promise: Improve social security in a responsible way that will make it an aid to economic growth. In particular, institute a medicare plan, improve unemployment insurance and establish portable contributory pensions. The result to date: Nothing.
The promise: Reorganize the international development bank as a development corporation co-operating with private enterprise to provide capital for industrial extension. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Give leadership in research, especially for the processing of more Canadian materials in Canada. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Promote policies for freer trade by co-operating constructively and energetically with other free world countries to reduce barriers and expand trade. The result: Nothing.
The promise: In co-operation with the provinces, to see that more low rental homes are built. The result: Nothing.
The promise: In federal contracts, cover increased costs of work done in the winter. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Put federal contributions to municipal winter works on a sliding scale, carefully supervised and rising to the whole of labour costs in areas of severe and chronic unemployment. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Improve federal legislation to speed up conciliation procedures. The result: Nothing.
The promise: To restore the unemployment insurance fund, extend its coverage, and return it to its proper use. The result: Nothing.
The promise: To pay unemployment insurance benefits to people who are out of work because of illness. The result: Nothing.

The promise: Improve retraining and pay supplementary benefits in cases of long term unemployment. The result: Nothing.
The promise: To vigorously promote sound projects for northern development. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Study of ways to sell and use coal will have a prime priority in our Atlantic development plan. The result: Nothing.
The promise: To restore term 29 to the terms of confederation. The Minister of Transport will be interested in that one. The result: Nothing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does the hon. gentleman admit that it needed to be restored?


Erik Nielsen: I am quoting from a promise which was made in St. John's, Newfoundland, on March 22, 1963, during the last election campaign, when the Liberals promised to restore term 29 to the terms of confederation, and after ten months have done nothing about it.
The promise: A review of civil defence policy. The result: Nothing. Not only that, but there will likely be greater expenditures than ever before, and in addition the minister of defence has decimated the militia, which was the nucleus of our civil defence force in this country.
The promise: Freer trade with Caribbean countries and even closer commercial and financial arrangements. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Extend family allowances to children beyond the age of 16; that is for boys and girls who remain at school. The result: Nothing.
The promise: A system of bursaries which would be repayable to help young persons obtain university education. I presume that is the scholarships promise. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Extension of and increase in federal grants for urban renewal in order to remove slums. The result: Nothing.
The promise: During those blazing 60 days of decision, to reduce the federal voting age to 18. The result: Nothing.
The promise: The Liberal party's portable pension plan can be introduced at once, since it involves no added expenditure by the federal government. The result: Nothing. Where did the portability of that pension plan disappear to in the explanations we have heard of this pension plan?
The promise: It is a firm commitment of the Liberal party to introduce a national health plan in its first term. The result: Nothing.

The promise: "I am confident that a medical care plan can be introduced in the first parliament of a Liberal administration." The result: Nothing.
The promise: A careful review of all high tariff rates with a view to their reduction or removal. The result: Nothing. There is a withholding tax now, Mr. Speaker, and there is also a plan to put an additional 15 per cent tax on aircraft imported into this country, that is light aircraft.
The promise: Immediate action to hard surface the gravel air strip at Deek lake, Newfoundland. The Minister of Transport should pay attention to this one. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Assistance for Elliot Lake, Ontario, and this is something to which the Prime Minister should give attention. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Construction of deep water ports along the St. Lawrence river in the Rimouski area as part of the Liberal party's area development program, and winter navigation across the river to the north shore. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Payments of 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway, completion of engineering studies of the Chignecto canal and the Prince Edward Island causeway, and use of native coal for the production of electric power. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Increased assistance to the gold mining industry. The result: Nothing.
The promise: An inland waterway from Montreal to Georgian bay following the Ottawa river. The result: Nothing.
The promise: More air strips and radio communications for the north. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Immediate paving of the Alaska highway. The result: Nothing.
The promise: "Our whole task is to narrow the cost of living for those who fight the north." This is the minister of northern affairs speaking. "We should use public funds to make it economic for investment and risk capital to enter the country." He should get together with the Minister of Finance. The result: Nothing.
The promise: Reduced costs of transportation and communication through more air strips and roads; faster tax write-offs and extension of the three year tax free period now allowed for new mines. Again this is the minister of northern affairs speaking. The result: Nothing.
This, sir, is the diabolical dialogue of deception. If I had been allowed more time for research, if I had had more than the one hour I spent in going through the Liberal promises, I could be speaking here for the
The Address-Mr. Marcoux next week cataloguing this phony list of promises, weaving this fabric of chicanery that was offered to the people of this country and which bamboozled them into voting that party into power. This government is now frittering it all away. This is the program which the Canadian people had a right to expect would be put in effect, Mr. Speaker. Shylock's students on the treasury benches had better take a second look at their promises made during the last election campaign.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne as well as those who have recently become cabinet ministers, and those whose transfer to another department enabled them to gain new fame.
I also would particularly commend the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) for the very fine speech he made earlier today, which was similar in trend to those of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply. The one unfortunate thing, is that there is often a long way to go from words to action.
The "giant" from the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) just told us so-and I think he might strike his own breast and confess that, during the five years that his government was in power, the result of various problems he tackled was nought, zero, exactly like the nought he is trying to charge to the Liberal party at this time.
There is even some hope that politics will not always be a matter of going one better than the other old party in the way of election promises, with the idea that they will never be carried out, and trusting that the government will be long enough in power to make the voters forget that it failed to keep its word. There is nothing new in that respect, because it has been always so since 1867.
If Providence allows us to celebrate the centenary of confederation, we shall at the same time celebrate the centenary of the electoral promises which were made by the old-line parties and which have not been kept.
As usual, the speech from the throne is a pretty dull document, which says little. On the other hand, it showed the centralizing propensity of the Liberal party. The speech from the throne also allowed us to recognize the architect of the Liberal party's policy for some years, that is the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne). What is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh.
Previously, the provinces were robbed of
their privileges, they were not consulted, they

The Address-Mr. Marcoux were at some time informed that due to a national emergency the federal government was forced to deprive them of the rights to which they were entitled under the constitution, more precisely by the spirit and the letter of confederation.
Today, the behaviour is more proper. The provinces are advised that they will again be deprived of their privileges, but this, after consultation. It is said that the federal government is forced to take such action, which is contrary to provincial autonomy, but that the individual governments of the provinces will be informed before action is taken.
In regard to students' loans, this is a flagrant example showing to what degree, despite nice words from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), from the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), the government does exactly the opposite of what it says. The Prime Minister admitted he had not consulted the provinces in the case of assistance to students, more specifically in regard to interest free loans to students.
He indulged in fine rhetorics which could be termed as diplomatic since he is quite able in that field. But if you look for the answer to that question, you realize that he had not consulted the provinces.
As for the other centralizing measures they are trying to put through, it is specifically said in the speech from the throne that the provinces will be consulted. The procedure is always the same. It was followed by the Conservative government since 1957 and it has always been followed by the Liberal government in the past. The provinces are put before an accomplished fact.
When it was contemplated to set up a hospital insurance plan, the provinces were told: if you wish the federal government to pay 50 per cent of hospital expenditures, you will have to accept the plan as proposed.
The provinces were not asked for their views, and especially not the "belle province" which, at that time, did not have the honour and the privilege of being under the leadership of Mr. Lesage. But if that province had been asked under what terms it would join the hospital insurance plan, I think we could have had a more equitable plan for the province of Quebec.
And if I refer to the province of Quebec, it is because I live there. But the situation is the same in the other provinces. The point is not to discriminate in favour of Quebec. That is not at all a question of Quebec receiving a handout. I am talking about the autonomy of the provinces generally.
And when the present premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, accepted the hospital insurance plan on January 1,

1961, he accepted a joint program. As a matter of fact, he accepted it unconditionally and went so far as to say that the people of Quebec were taking the Union Nationale party to task for having previously refused to share in a joint program.
Now, as you can see, the two old-line parties, in the federal as much as in the provincial field, have a great deal to be ashamed of and neither of them has any lesson to take from the other. We always hear a lot of fine talk, but good things are always much more easily said than done. I shall come back to this in a moment.
Another measure mentioned in the speech from the throne has to do with the retirement of senators. I feel that is a step in the right direction. It is obvious that, having reached a certain age, some people are no more useful in a legislative body than they would be elsewhere. And the fact remains that they are entitled to quite an attractive pension for the work they may have done.
Nevertheless, I believe other changes should be made in the act amending the Senate.
Personally, I find it improper for the Senate to be a refuge for people who are caught in the act. In my opinion, it is not right to reward somebody who pleads guilty to certain charges after having previously denied them. But this person is rewarded by being appointed to an office that is not only fairly well paid, but in which he is protected from the fury of the Canadian voters.
It would be possible, it seems to me, to have at least half the senators appointed by the provinces and the other half perhaps by the party in office. This would be a more judicious procedure. A little later on it might be advisable to improve the quality of senators by selecting them from among intermediate bodies, which are so important these days, such as employers' associations, labour unions, professional organizations, etc. Those people are generally competent and would be appointed by their respective bodies. Therefore, instead of abolishing the Senate, it might be possible to improve it, because I feel that it could then render very valuable services.
The speech from the throne also refers to the redistribution of electoral districts. Theoretically, from a demographic and geographic point of view, such a measure should certainly prove advantageous in a democratic country.
However, it was found in the last byelections that the greater the population of a city, the fewer members of parliament it needs, because the people are less interested in public matters. Therefore, when a redistribution of electoral districts is being considered and would be likely to increase the

number of urban ridings compared to rural ridings, I feel that there would be some danger of injustice, because the problems of a city, of a great urban centre are pretty much the same, and having a great number of members will not solve those problems. And in proof of this, there is the example set recently by the voters in Montreal.
I do not blame them, because apparently they had agreed that it was not worth taking the trouble to vote for the political parties represented. And it is not because the Rallie-ment Creditistes did not get enough votes that the people did not bother to vote. It is because they thought that it was not worth taking the trouble to support that political party. In addition, with the organization set up by the Ralliement and since all the Creditistes did vote, I am convinced that they obtained more than their share.
But it means that people are no longer interested in politics, especially in a city like Montreal. Such a fact was noted, when the mayor of Montreal was elected by a considerable majority, while only 25 or 30 per 100 of voters went to the polls.
In my opinion, such a fact should be taken into consideration when the redistribution of the electoral districts is studied. I agree that the population should be taken into account. But there are also many other factors showing the democratic spirit of our government still better than certain political considerations which should not be disregarded.
The speech from the throne also announced a measure to control electoral expenditures. There will at least be something in our legislation to show that political parties are aware that electoral expenses are exceptionally high and that it is easy for a party to cheat on unreported expenditures.
Apart from recognizing that principle, I think that this step will be to no avail, because nothing will prevent political parties from establishing electoral funds outside the scope of the regulations prescribed in the legislation. However, and once again, it is an attempt to bring about a solution to a problem which will remain very hard to solve in a democracy.
I note that in the speech from the throne, mention was made of the O'Leary report on publications. That legislation was to be introduced by the Conservative government in 1963 but they saw fit not to do so. At the time I knew that the legislation which was going to be presented would grant special privileges to two U.S. magazines, Time and Reader's Digest. In fact, we know that those two magazines are about the only ones which
The Address-Mr. Marcoux could be detrimental to Canadian publications. A regulation is made in order to stop advertising in all U.S. magazines which are not harmful to Canadian magazines and we allow the cost of advertising published in these two U.S. magazines, which really do some harm to our Canadian magazine industry, to be deducted.
I am of the opinion that, once again, this is only window dressing. The government wants to give the impression that it looks after Canadian industries when, in fact, it does not worry about them at all. As a matter of fact, it takes care of the people liable to contribute, even just a little, to its slush funds. That is why I say that the proposed change, which follows one of the recommendations made in the O'Leary report, is not enough. Instead of protecting Canadian magazines, I feel that it will hurt them.
Mr. Speaker, other measures could have been included in the speech from the throne but they were not, and there is not a hint about them.
There is in my district a naval yard which is very well equipped and has highly skilled workers who have proved themselves in the construction of war ships, frigates, destroyers, etc.
I am convinced that the government should ecourage this shipyard. Let me say right away that I have in mind the shipyard in Lauzon, because there is another one in my riding, in St. Laurent, on Orleans island, which practically had to close because of the lack of interest of governments which did not give it any business either for naval ships or for merchant ships. In my opinion, if there is an industry which should be protected and maintained in that area, it is indeed the Lauzon shipyard.
And if an atomic submarine should be built, as it has been implied, I think it should be built in that area and in that shipyard. Calling for tenders in foreign countries is an idea that should not even be entertained. Mention has been made of possible tenders from Japan, Scotland or England.
I know that in some cases tenders have to be called for abroad but when it comes to construction of this type, in which we are interested, I believe that tenders should be restricted to this country, regardless of the fact that it could cost a little more. The money would at least remain in this country and would be put into circulation among our people.
Many individuals would get employment and would thus pay income taxes; we would then be able to recoup a good deal of the amounts made available to these firms for shipbuilding, while we do not save anything by having this work done abroad. Apart from

The Address-Mr. Marcoux
not saving anything, we are always obliged to assign part of the budget to social assistance for unemployed people, who cannot pay income tax any more.
While I am on the subject of income tax,
I would like to return to the matter of charitable receipts. This question has been discussed at length and I know that some newspapers published in English, in other provinces, seemed to insinuate that the people of Quebec were deducting maliciously or improperly certain taxable amounts through charitable receipts. Well, I believe that these statements have been made without any knowledge of the facts, and I am sure that the people of Quebec are in every way as honest and righteous as the citizens of the other provinces. If, in other provinces, people do not take full advantage of these allowable deductions, it is that they find other means, and, in the end, their net income is still higher than that of the citizens of the province of Quebec. Either the government should accept the 10 per cent deduction for charitable donations or it should strike out from our statutes the provision concerning that deduction. I submit that the government should increase the basic exemptions in the field of income tax to enable the people to eke out their small salaries.
I should now like to say a few words about the all-Canadian games which are to be held in the province of Quebec. This question has already been raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) and several others. We were given to understand that the government would make grants for amateur sports. I feel such grants should be made in particular to interprovincial games. That had to wait until the cabinet was reshuffled, until the session was opened, until the speech from the throne was written. I wonder what we are waiting for now. The session is now in full swing and the organizers of these games no longer know where they stand; they wonder whether the games should be held on schedule since they have not yet received the contribution they should normally get from the federal government. The only thing the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) said was that the question was under advisement and that the parties concerned would be informed of the decision in due course.
I submit that the question is urgent, that the government is able to make a contribution and that it should make its decision known as soon as possible, especially since it claims to reach decision promptly when it is faced with problems.
I come now to a point which has already been mentioned by spokesmen for the Con-

servative party, the 11 per cent tax on building materials. This tax is detrimental to the whole Canadian building industry. The link between construction and employment is such that when construction is hampered, employment goes down and unemployment goes up.
I regret that the editor of Le Soleil is not in the house because he could say that I have just made a truism. However, when one does not state self-evident truths, people do not seem to understand why there is unemployment. Coming back to the tax in question, I say that it is detrimental to construction in general and to employment in particular. What in theory is supposed to reduce unemployment actually increases it.
Hence I believe the government is in a position to remove this 11 per cent tax. They will have to do it before long because the industry will find itself in dire straits.
I wish now to come to another question concerning eastern farmers. Despite what the Prime Minister said, the whole of eastern Canada is now fully aware that the party in office, as the one before it, is not interested in eastern agriculture and does not look after it. That has become obvious. They have tried to disguise this attitude under other names, other sentences, other manoeuvres. We in Quebec realize, as well as people from the other eastern provinces, that agriculture does not seem to interest the government at all, not because it is not a paying proposition economically, but because it is not so politically. In the province of Quebec, people always end up voting for the Liberal party even though the government does not look after the farmers.
In the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the same ideas prevail, and even if there is no involvement of specific assistance to agriculture, their citizens always find other motives to cast their votes in favour of the old parties. So, I suggest that although it is not necessary for political purposes to give assistance to the farmers of eastern Canada, the government should nevertheless do so in a very specific manner. The present Minister of Agriculture is incapable of answering questions pertaining to western Canada. How can we hope to have him answer those concerning the agricultural conditions of eastern Canada?
As far as the new minister of forestry and rural development is concerned, we know what this means. We are under the impression that the farmers of eastern Canada are not any better off than they were before.
I should like now to say a word about nuclear weapons. Many people have dealt with the question. Those are very dangerous

weapons which could cause massive destruction of people. This is a truth recognized by everybody. Although x-rays, smoking and drinking are also very dangerous, this does not mean that we have to make all those things disappear because they are dangerous. In the same way, the country needs to defend itself. The North American territory needs to take up to date measures and not try to defend itself with bayonets as in 1914. However, when we are offered weapons which are obsolete, which are not worth anything and which cost millions of dollars, the best thing to do is not to accept them. It is not a question of saying that we want or do not want the Bomarcs, it is a question of saying that we must not spend money on futile things so long as there is no evidence that nuclear weapons are indispensable and we have the means to buy them.
In my opinion, the government must oppose the acquisition and the storing of nuclear arms. Moreover, Social Credit urged before last session the setting up of an independent defence committee.
Well, that committee was appointed and worked wonderfully under a very able chairman, maybe not in the field of defence, but as far as the set-up of the committee was concerned. All the members of that committee were in earnest and I can say so because I was not one of them. Those people are now in a position to assess what Canada's defence policy should be, and when that committee brings forward a complete report, I think its suggestions should be accepted because investigations were carried out very seriously.
I should also like to say a few words on the non-confidence motion introduced by the Conservative party. People are being led to think that those who vote against that motion are in favour of the 11 per cent tax.


Gilles Grégoire: That is a fact.


Guy Marcoux: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated himself a while ago that those who vote against their subamendment are against a health insurance plan. We must remember that if the whole house voted for a non-confidence motion, not only would we have an 11 per cent tax, but we would not have any health scheme, and we would not have any government. It is an error to think that voting for a non-confidence motion would repeal that tax, because we would not even have a government to pass legislation.
But some reporters and radio or television commentators have succeeded, by sleight-of-hand tricks which might be also diplomatic- probably inspired by our politicians-in hoodwinking people into believing that when you
The Address-Mr. Marcoux vote for or against an amendment, it means you are for or against the wording of the amendment, which is not so.
If the amendment is ruled out by Mr. Speaker, and the question is put with regard to that amendment, the vote will not be on the amendment itself but on the validity of the amendment and on Mr. Speaker's ruling. The members of the press gallery succeeded in convincing the public of the opposite.
Yesterday, on television, I listened to a French speaking commentator whom I shall not name. According to him it was understood that the splinter parties would do some bargaining in 1964, as they had done in 1963.
Another newspaperman whom I have to name because I think that his chronicle is always neither fish nor fowl; he begins by bludgeoning his man and ends on a flattering note, or else he starts by building him up to knock him down in the end. I am speaking of Poliquin of L'Action who states that:
Mr. R. N. Thompson's Social Credit group is unable to make a significant contribution to this federal session. Because of some agreement which remains secret, they will continue to support the Liberal government-
I shall tell my friend that this is absolutely untrue, because there has never been any secret understanding between the Liberal party and ourselves, and this we are going to prove. We shall vote in favour of the Conservative amendment, not because it tends to abolish the 11 per cent tax, but to show to all those who make such insinuations that we are quite capable of assuming our own responsibilities before our voters and the general public, and that we need nobody's advice in this respect.
Indeed it is hardly surprising that those people take such an attitude. Our group is the only one which has officially recognized the title of joint national leader of the party in its constitution whereas the others speak about it but do not have the position. But following some misunderstanding, the Rallie-ment Creditistes group slanders those who are not with them. According to them we are betrayers, traitors, people who refuse to defend French Canadians to join the Protestants and the English.
I say that this is demagogy at its worst; those who advocate the principle of the respect of human beings should start by respecting their own fellow citizens instead of accusing them.
It was said that, personally, I owned a hospital protected by the Liberal party. A homosexual of their organization spread that rumour; he said my hospital had been sold to the Liberals and that I was leaving Quebec to go west; that Mr. Manning had offered me a position and that I had accepted. What

The Address-Mr. Marcoux happened is that the provincial Liberal party took away my hospital licence and transferred it to somebody else. It is certainly not the case of some baneful association with the Liberal party. This other person continues operating my hospital, which I had to rent to him since he has a licence and I have lost mine. Such is the whole patronage from which I benefited.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Guy Marcoux: Will the house allow me a couple more minutes as it did others?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Guy Marcoux: I shall be brief, because I realize that I took more time than I expected.
Mention was made of biculturalism, bilingualism, minorities, etc.
I think a few words should be said about biculturalism and bilingualism. I think that the Laurendeau-Dunton commission is not likely to help us. It is a way of postponing the moment of truth.
French Canadians do not require every English speaking person to be bilingual, that all English speaking federal civil servants be bilingual. What we want is that about a third of the civil service staff be composed of French speaking Canadians.

Recently we heard in Quebec a television broadcast by the former head of the national museum here in Ottawa. This gentleman said he had suffered injustice in Ottawa when he joined the civil service. He stated this publicly. It was written in the papers and he said it on television. He told us, and he told the people, that he was approached by the organization of freemasonry and if he had joined that organization he would have been better protected in this civil service commission structure.


An hon. Member:: Rot.


Guy Marcoux: It is not an easy problem. That is what I want to explain. It is not exactly a question of language or religion or culture. It is a question of justice. It is a question of recognizing that the two main groups in Canada who formed the country are supposed to be, politically, the main groups, and those who wish to join them know they are coming into a country that is, or should be, bilingual. There is no question about that. There is no question of prejudice, no question of ultimatums, no

question of anything except justice and charity for the other people.

In closing, I shall make a short comment about the economic question. There are complaints to the effect that we deal with the economic question in a too illusory manner. The St. Lawrence seaway administration can no longer pay the interests on its debt and it has been said in the Winnipeg Tribune that the authorities of that agency are developing a plan under which the Canadian government would make loans without interest to the seaway administration. I suggest that if that plan is good in some cases, then it should be good in general, for other government agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I would have other things to say and I hope I will have the opportunity to do so another time.


Mr. Walter F. Foy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a few remarks concerning the implementation of the report of the MacPherson royal commission.
The Liberal government came to power with a promise by the Prime Minister to a nation-wide radio and television audience that our party would bring before the Canadian people new and imaginative policies. I believe we have done that. They would be policies which would lift this country out of the doldrums-and we are doing this-and make for a happier and fuller life for all our citizens. Many Canadians, including supporters of other parties, were impressed by that promise and took it seriously. To forget about it and continue in the same old way of doing things would leave us undistinguishable from the Conservatives. And, I would say, it might cost us a working majority at the next election.
During the years when the Conservatives were in power-and I am talking about the period 1957-1963-they had no national policy for dealing with our national transportation problems. The railways are the biggest problem in the transportation field. Whether it was a freight rate increase or a wage increase, the Conservatives had no answer but to tack on another subsidy. When they had finished the job they had added a total of $70 million per year to the total subsidies being paid to the railways; $20 million to hold down freight rates and $50 million to meet the wage increase in 1961. We have the job of sorting out this mess.
One of the industries that was infuriated by the railway policies of the Conservatives was, as hon. members well know, the trucking industry. I happen to know some people

in that industry. Some of the strongest voices that were raised against the policies of the Diefenbaker government were those of the leading Conservatives in the industry, and some of them actively supported us in the last election. Hon. members also know that while the Conservatives were busy putting on new subsidies for the railways they had a royal commission on transportation investigating the transportation problem. This was the MacPherson commission. Mr. Speaker, this commission came out with recommendations which, if they are put into effect, will cost the taxpayers of Canada $100 million in subsidies in the first year. Hon. members are well aware that this also drew a very adverse reaction from the trucking industry.
Another thing that greatly worried the trucking industry about the MacPherson commission report was the recommendation that most of the regulation of transport, including the regulation of trucking, should end. The third thing that worried this industry was the recommendation of the commission that the railways should be allowed to operate at will in the highway transport field.
The trucking industry filed briefs against these recommendations with both the previous government and the present government. However, Mr. Speaker, in reading the statements of senior officers of the industry it can be seen they appreciate that the MacPherson commission recommendations on subsidies are on a declining, self liquidating basis. To their credit the industry leaders, in their own meetings, have made every effort to make the industry realize that if railway subsidies have to continue, it is much better to put up with subsidies that decline annually rather than have subsidies that go on forever at the same rate. Indeed, under the Conservatives the trucking industry had every reason to believe that the subsidies would get bigger, not smaller.
I think it might be well if we stopped right here and looked for a moment at the trucking industry. There are well over 10,000 trucking companies in Canada. They range all the way from the smallest to the largest truck operators. About 6,000 of this number are represented in the membership of Canadian trucking associations. They account for close to 90 per cent of the trucking equipment that is operated. There are approximately 100,000 employees of the industry, including terminal employees and drivers. This is no small part of the labour force of Canada.
From reading the industry magazines that come into my office I can see that the people in the industry are worrying a great deal about their public image. They may have
The Address-Mr. Foy
reason to do so. Nevertheless, I think it should be recognized that the vast majority of people in this industry are responsible businessmen. They work hard; they have the same problems in obtaining capital to finance their businesses as anyone else; they survive and expand by providing a public service. If they fail to do that job properly, they go out of business; there is no federal government to come along and help them or tide them over another crisis.
An increasing number of trucking executives are prominent members of local service clubs, boards of trade, chambers of commerce, the community chest, and so on. Thousands of dollars are being contributed by the industry in Ontario and Quebec to needy students through contributions placed in their hands through the universities. The industry knows that despite its large labour force, one of the largest single groups of employees in Canada, it does not "register", from the employee standpoint, with federal politicians. The people in this industry trace this to two causes. The first is that the industry is partly unionized and partly not unionized, and even where unionization exists-and this takes in all the larger companies-there is not one large union group, as in the case of the railway brotherhoods, but a large number of locals of the same union spread all across Canada.
The second cause of political indifference to the trucking labour force is that of the unions the trucking industry does have, the teamsters account for about 95 per cent of the union membership. The trucking industry knows that it cannot rely on any imagined or political strength radiating from the teamsters; the reputation of that union south of the border takes care of that. On the other hand, the industry sees that the railway brotherhoods, despite shrinking employment on the railways, still have an attentive ear in the governments of Canada.
However, many trucking companies have company newspapers and bulletins which go to all their employees, briefing them on the problems that the industry faces. Therefore many thousands of trucking employees are becoming aware of what the trucking industry regards as its problems federally. In addition many goodwill meetings of employees are called by the management of the different trucking companies, and at these meetings the employees are briefed on the problems the industry feels it is up against.
For example, the other night in Montreal there was a large meeting of truck drivers, followed by a reception, which was attended by senior representatives of the trucking industry associations, the associations of the owners, not only from the province of Quebec

The Address-Mr. Foy
but from Ottawa as well. At this meeting more than $5,000 in cheques was distributed to drivers who had good safety records and who had passed the St. John's ambulance course. I am told that at the reception afterward the senior association representatives passed among the drivers discussing with individual groups the fact that this is an industry and that all who make up the industry, whether they own the trucks or drive them, have a stake in its future and in fair government treatment of it.
If the dominion bureau of statistics figures indicate the correct story, the total investment in the Canadian trucking industry is well over $1 billion. A few weeks ago the former minister of transport, Hon. George Mcllraith, was quoted as saying that the Liberal government would soon announce a national air line policy for Canada. To the best of my knowledge the Liberal government

indeed, any federal government-has never announced a policy for the trucking industry of Canada; yet parliament has jurisdiction over the entire international and interprovincial section of the industry, which is a very large part of the industry. Thus it has responsibility for what happens to the industry by reason of existing federal policies.
The investment in the Canadian air line industry, including T.C.A., C.P.A. and all the other scheduled commercial air lines, does not begin to approach the more than $1 billion of investment in the Canadian trucking industry. So right away I begin to wonder, where does the government stand in bringing together a national transportation policy for Canada. I have every confidence that this government will do so. However, to date it has said nothing about a national trucking industry policy.
One may say that this is not a new situation, that it has been going on for years. I do not think anyone in the Liberal party should take the negative attitude that what went on in the years under the Conservatives makes a continuation of the situation under the Liberals justifiable. Surely it should be the opposite. I notice that in volume III of the report of the MacPherson royal commission, which is the volume containing a number of special studies conducted at the direction of the commission, a consulting economist, Dr. E. W. Carr of Ottawa, made this statement which appears at page 90:
The federal government has been so little involved with highway transport that it has not been concerned either with policy in this field or to a sufficient extent with the substantial range of information which would be needed to develop .an effective federal policy. It is notable that the first recognition of the trucking industry in federal legislation came only on June 9, 1961.

The closing of the door in the face of the trucking industry by the federal government in the past is action difficult to understand. In the submission of the Liberal government of Quebec to the MacPherson royal commission on transportation it was stated that:
Transportation policies are largely national policies....The government of the province of Quebec stands ready to co-operate with the other provinces and the federal government in the development of transportation policies which will best serve the interests of all Canadians.
That quotation can be found at pages 65 and 66 of the submission of Quebec to the MacPherson commission. Yet this development of a national transportation policy has not materialized. There can be no claim truly made that a national transportation policy exists when the Canadian trucking industry has never been a part of that policy.
When Mr. John Magee, the executive secretary of the Canadian trucking associations, was being examined before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines on December 13, 1962 he was asked about continuation of the 1959 subsidy of $20 million to the railways, and he replied, as reported at page 138 of the proceedings:
Well, we suggest you reject the legislation. When we first appeared we were met with the problem, well, it is only going to be one year, and now we are met with the statement that it is only going to be a little while until the MacPherson recommendations come into effect, so they ask us to hang on a little longer. One other thing: I do not feel in all the years I have appeared before this committee that I really have made very much of an impression on behalf of the trucking industry.
To this the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) replied "But you have". Mr. Magee's answer was:
I wonder why the truckers send me back. I invited them not to do so this year. I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that I still cannot understand why, after all these years, the parliament of Canada will not recognize this industry and take into account its problems in the consideration it gives to these matters.
The trucking industry has asked for permission to make submissions to the government, and these submissions have been made. But one cannot claim that merely permitting an industry to make a submission means the government has recognized it. Recognition occurs only if there is tangible evidence in the national transportation policy of Canada that there is a trucking industry and that the industry is not ignored in any measure that affects it directly.
I have spoken about the trucking industry's reaction to the $100 million in subsidies recommended for the Canadian railways in the MacPherson report. I have also expressed a belief based on what I can get from the industry's statements, that they might feel

that something had been gained if such subsidies were spelled out as declining, self liquidating subsidies, as recommended in the MacPherson report.
With regard to the two other recommendations in the MacPherson report to which the trucking industry objected strongly-and I refer to the removal of most regulations on transportation, and to the recommendation that the railways be allowed to enter at will into the field of highway transportation-the industry does see in the MacPherson report certain qualifying recommendations. This is clear from a careful reading of the industry's statements that have appeared, from the president of Canadian trucking associations, Mr. D. A. Chapman, and others.
For example, the commission recommended that where such subsidies as the Maritime Freight Rates Act continue to be paid, truck shipments as well as rail shipments should be included, giving the shipper a free choice of transportation agencies. Another such subsidy is the federal feed grain freight assistance subsidy, paid only on rail and water shipments, which the MacPherson commission found not only discriminated against the trucking industry but discouraged the use of the lowest cost transportation agency. The government announced on August 22 that a new federal feed freight assistance policy would be adopted and that truck shipments henceforth would be included. This policy has not yet been implemented.
Turning to the question of unrestricted entry of the railways into the trucking field, it is to be noted that the commission's view that this was desirable was qualified by the recommendation that railway regulations in Canada should require that the accounts of railways and railway-owned truck lines be completely separated, and that the board of transport commissioners should be empowered to look into the situation at any time. In other words there should be no hidden subsidies from the one railway agency to the other.
Another aspect of this situation is the recommendation by the commission that there should be no discrimination in the rates charged for piggyback by the railways; that the rail freight rates for the transportation of trailers of independent trucking concerns must be equal to the rates charged for railway-owned trailers, and the equality must be enforced by law.
Turning to the question of regulation of transportation, the commission was explicit on the need for minimum rate control, minimum rate control over competitive rates of the railways under the Railway Act and minimum rate control over agreed charges under the Transport Act. Such minimum rate control 20220-9
The Address-Mr. Foy
would be enforced by the board of transport commissioners on the basis of the out of pocket costs of the railways being the lower limit for such rates.
Why did the MacPherson commission state that rate regulation of the railways must continue to stipulate a minimum limit? That stipulation is to be found at page 66 of volume II. The answer is given on the same page, as follows:
Because of their relatively enormous size and resources, and the relative permanency of investment compared to firms engaged in other modes, the railways could create intolerable uncertainty in the trucking industry by sporadic rate wars, so that an efficient trucking industry could not persist.
With all this background I find it almost impossible to believe a report carried on the front page of the Financial Times for January 13, 1964, under the heading "MacPherson report will be only partially implemented." The article was under the byline of a respected parliamentary correspondent, Mr. Warren Baldwin. It was somewhat chilling to read part of the report, which was as follows:
Railway legislation implementing parts of the MacPherson report on transportation will be ready for parliament when it reconvenes... It has lifted the hard core of the railway problem out of the report, shelving the rest temporarily or permanently.
I was even more amazed to find that the report contained a list of recommendations that were not to be implemented. How the writer acquired this knowledge I would not know. First on the list of things that have allegedly gone out the window is the amendments to the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


Mr. Winkler:: May I raise a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce on a question of privilege.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If I may have-


Walter Frank Foy: I only have two minutes left.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am asking the consent of the house, with deference to the hon. member who has the floor, if I might have the privilege of speaking very briefly prior to the division to outline our position on the subamendment. This would be done without interference with the hon. member's address, either now or after. I hope I may be given one or two minutes immediately upon completion of his address. This would be satisfactory.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The Address-Mr. Foy


Eric Alfred Winkler: May we then allow the hon. member to finish his address? Is this the desire of the house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What would this do to the apportionment of speakers? Would this be a Conservative speaker on the list?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I judge, then, that I have permission to proceed. I should like to say this, prior to 5.45. On January 20, 1961, there was a press release issued by Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, prime minister of Canada, announcing the membership and terms of reference of the royal commission on health care. As had been previously indicated, the commission was under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Emmett Hall of Saskatchewan. I will not go into the details of the membership of the commission.
The prime minister stated that the task of the royal commission would be to make a comprehensive and independent study of the existing facilities and the future needs for health services for the people of Canada and the resources to provide such services, and to recommend such measures, consistent with the constitutional division of legislative powers in Canada, as the commissioners believe would ensure that the best possible health care was available to all Canadians.
In this connection, a number of specific areas are singled out for attention. I should like to quote from the press release:
(a)	The existing facilities and methods for providing personal health services including prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation.
(b)	Methods of improving such existing health services.
(c)	The correlation of any new or improved program with existing services with a view to providing improved health services.
(d)	The present and future requirements of personnel to provide health services.
(e)	Methods of providing adequate personnel with the best possible training and qualifications for such services.
(f)	The present physical facilities and the future requirements for the provision of adequate health services.
(g)	The estimated cost of health services now being rendered to Canadians, with projected costs of any changes that may be recommended for the extension of existing programs or for any new programs suggested.
(h)	The methods of financing health care services as presently sponsored by management, labour, professional associations, insurance companies or in any other manner.
(i)	The methods of financing any new or extended programs which may be recommended.
(j)	The relationship of existing and any recommended health care programs with medical research and the means of encouraging a high rate of scientific development in the field of medicine in Canada.
(k)	The feasibility and desirability of priorities in the development of health care services.
The commission is further empowered such other matters as it deems appropriate for the improvement of health services to all Canadians.

In view of the fact that the last couple of lines of the subamendment, which read as follows-
-a government sponsored and government operated medicare program for all Canadians.
*-are not more specific, the members of this party will support the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: It	being 5.45 p.m. it is my
duty under standing order 38, subsection 3, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the subamendment now before	
the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock next Monday morning.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
20220-9i


[Stage Direction]
I would like to take this opportunity to give hon. members a report concerning the robbery which took place at Shawinigan Falls yesterday morning.
Some time before 7.45 a.m. the bandits entered the armoury at the rear security door by breaking a thick, glass plate panel in this door. When the caretaker entered at
7.45,	he was met by the armed men, bound, blindfolded and taken to the basement. Later in the morning at different times, two army personnel, a warrant officer and a captain, entered the armoury and were in turn bound, blindfolded and taken to the basement.
There were five bandits in the gang, armed with 9 mm. pistols, but no shots were fired nor were any wounds inflicted on the three victims. They wore no masks, appeared to be between the ages of 18-22 years, and seemed unfamiliar with the armoury. Before leaving at about 11.15 they wrote the letters "ALQ" on the armoury floor.
There were no other known visitors to the armoury between 7.45 a.m. and 11.45. At about
11.45,	the warrant officer freed himself and notified the police. Q.P.P., R.C.M.P. and C Pro C are investigating.
The following items were stolen:
33 FN rifles (without breech blocks),
3-	9 mm. pistols (without breech blocks),
1-C42 wireless set,
4-	No. 510 wireless sets,
7-No. 26 wireless sets,
7-field telephones,
1-Gestetner printing machine,
1-signals switchboard,
3-wireless generators,
3-wireless power units, a quantity of telephone cable, some batteries for wireless sets, magazines for the FN rifle, and military uniforms.
There was no ammunition nor explosive material in the armoury at the time of the robbery.
Damage done to the armoury consisted of many broken windows and broken door locks. The thieves damaged the filing cabinets and locks when they tried to break them open by the use of tools, when searching for the bolts and breech blocks of the stolen weapons. The gang was not successful in this attempt.
Although the caretaker stated that he saw a three-ton standard military pattern vehicle at the armoury, none of the victims heard the sound of a car when the thieves left.
As a result of the theft in Montreal, all ammunition, including ,22-inch, had been withdrawn from 62 Fd. Regt. R.C.A. Other security measures included the physical separation of bolts and breech blocks from weapons. The bolts and breech blocks were securely locked in a metal filing cabinet which thieves were unable to break into. Although the armoury is not occupied at night, all doors and windows are securely locked.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 24, 1964