1964-02-20

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of this house. It has to do with a reply to a question given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) yesterday which is to be found on pages 14 and 15 of Hansard.
The minister will recall that I directed a question to him concerning short run routes of T.C.A. and his reply, as it appears at the foot of the right hand column on page 14 of Hansard, reads as follows:
I was rather surprised to read what I was supposed to have said, myself. What I did in fact say was that T.C.A. had found in western Canada, as hon. members well know, that there are certain of these short routes which cannot be serviced with modern long range aircraft. I was not seeking to draw any inferences from that with regard to future policy.
My question of privilege has to do with the words "long range". I realize that the minister, who is very busy, would likely have his blues checked by his assistants and that certain words found their way perhaps inadvertently into the text of his reply. I was listening very carefully to what he said, and, of course, my supplementary question, which is to be found on page 15, was based on the actual reply he made, a reply which did not include the words "long range". My supplementary question, based on the words used by the hon. gentleman, was as follows:
Would the minister inform the house what runs cannot be handled by modem aircraft in use today?
I would not have used that form of words had the minister's reply contained the words "long range".
I suggest to the minister that he agree with me that those two words "long range" be deleted from the official record of the debates of yesterday so as to maintain the accuracy of replies. This would avoid the necessity of a remedial motion to have those words deleted from the text.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I cannot be sure whether I used those words or not, but I know that is what
I meant. If that is not exactly what I said, I am perfectly prepared to have the words deleted.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I wish to table copies in English and French of certain changes in the appointment of parliamentary secretaries since the prorogation of parliament on December 21, 1963. Other parliamentary secretaries remain unchanged in their assignments.
Perhaps I could indicate to the house what the changes are. Mr. Guy Rouleau, member of parliament for Dollard, to be parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister; Mr. Hubert Badanai, member of parliament for Fort William, to be parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Mr. Bruce S. Beer, member of parliament for Peel, to be parliamentary secretary jointly to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry; Mr. Alexis Caron, member of parliament for Hull, to be parliamentary secretary to the Postmaster General; Mr. Stanley Haidasz, member of parliament for Parkdale, to be parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs; Mr. G. Roy McWilliam, member of parliament for Northumberland-Miramichi, to be parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works; Mr. John C. Munro, member of parliament for Hamilton East, to be parliamentary secretary to the Minister of ^-National Health and Welfare; and Mr. John
B.	Stewart, member of parliament for Antigonish-Guysborough, to be parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members will have noticed, there are on today's order paper some 68 bills listed for introduction by private members.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Chair to review the provisions of these bills at this time. In view of that fact, may I suggest to the house that we adopt the same procedure which was agreed upon by

Introduction of Bills
the house at the commencement of last session, namely that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of these bills, with the understanding that each will be scrutinized between now and the time appointed for its second reading, when, if any defect be found therein so far as the practices and usages of the house are concerned, it will be brought to the attention of hon. members.
Second, that in order to save time, taking into consideration that perhaps more than two hours would be required to introduce each of these measures separately, by unanimous consent all the bills listed for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the house, subject of course to my prior remarks as to the examination and regularity of each bill.
Is it the pleasure of the house that, by unanimous consent, these 68 bills be deemed to have been introduced, read a first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, I declare that the 68 bills listed for introduction by private members on today's order paper are deemed to have been introduced, read a first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the house.



FINANCE


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations on or after the 1st day of April, 1964.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act to authorize the appointment of, and the provision of salary for, one additional judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order-government notices of motions.
That the treaty between Canada and the United States of America relating to co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river basin, signed at Washington on January 17, 1961, together with the protocol containing modifications and clarifications to the treaty annexed to an exchange of notes between the governments of Canada and the United States signed on January 22, 1964, be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES ACT AMENDMENT RESPECTING NAME OF COMPANY

Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-2, respecting Trans-Canada Air Lines Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-3, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (wage earners' assignments).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURE REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-4, to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act (Indian reserves).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-5, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-6, to amend the Indian Act (Liquor rights).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-7, to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION TO ENABLE CIVIL SERVANTS TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-10, to enable civil servants to engage in political activity.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR PREFERENCE OF BILINGUAL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Monfcalm) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-34, respecting employment of bilingual persons in the public service and in crown corporations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-ll, to amend the Criminal Code (a purge for the King's evil).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT EXCEPT FOR TREASON

Reid Scott: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-12, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO CHANGE RULE RESPECTING INSANITY

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-14, to amend the Criminal Code (insanity).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Introduction of Bills



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR PROVINCIAL LOTTERIES

Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-22, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING APPEAL IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS

Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-35, to amend the Criminal Code (habeas corpus).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING COMPANY HOUSING

David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-50, to amend the Criminal Code (company-censored housing).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-56, to amend the Criminal Code (The Judas-Tree Amendment).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING RAFFLES AND BINGO FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-65, to amend the Criminal Code (raffles and bingo for charitable purposes).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING BIRTH CONTROL METHODS

Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-48 to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO WATER POLLUTION

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-68, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SMALL LOANS ACT


David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-13, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising).

Introduction of Bills
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE

David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-20, to amend the Small Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ANNUAL VACATIONS ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-15, to amend the Annual Vacations Act (two weeks after one year).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR THREE WEEKS HOLIDAY AFTER FIVE YEARS

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-54, to amend the Annual Vacations Act (three weeks after five years).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR DISPOSITION OF GRADE EXCESS AND OVERAGE

Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-17, to provide for the restitution and distribution of the proceeds of grade excess and overage unlawfully confiscated and converted in 1955 and continuously thereafter under an act intituled an act to amend the Canada Grain Act to the use and purposes of the governor in council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-62, to amend the House of Commons Act (speaker on dissolution) .
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



IMMIGRATION ACT


Francis Andrew Brewin: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-18, to amend the Immigration Act (disclosure of reasons for deportation).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING PERSONS RECOVERED FROM MENTAL ILLNESS

Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-61, to amend the Immigration Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING ADMISSION ON RACIAL GROUNDS

Francis Andrew Brewin: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-69, to amend the Immigration Act (racial discrimination).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SWEEPSTAKES


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-19, with respect to hospital and university sweepstakes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GENOCIDE


Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-21, respecting genocide.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANK OF CANADA ACT


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-24, to amend the Bank of Canada Act (reserve).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



AMENDMENT TO CHANGE FORM OF BANK NOTES

Mr. Maurice  Cole@Chicoulimi: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-26, to amend the Bank of Canada Act (form and material of notes).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-27, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (12-mile fishing zone).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


Barry Mather: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-28, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANSPORT


Thomas Speakman Barnett: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-29, to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act (B.C. water carriers).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-30, to provide for pay for statutory holidays and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION OF MINIMUM RATE OF WAGES FOR EMPLOYEES

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-36, to provide for minimum wages for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
20220-3i
Introduction of Bills
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-33, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tortfeasors, and moieties).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT CAPTIVE SALES FINANCING

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-60, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (captive sales financing).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Robert William Prittie: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-9, to amend the Civil Service Act (collective bargaining and arbitration).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING WITHHOLDING OR REFUSAL OF RIGHTS

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-39, to amend the Civil Service Act (bureaucratic oppression).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGAL HOLIDAY

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-31, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TOBACCO


Barry Mather: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-32, to restrain the use of tobacco.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.

Introduction of Bills WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT



AMENDMENT RESPECTING SERVICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

John (Jack) McIntosh: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-37, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Francis Andrew Brewin: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-38, to amend the Canada Elections Act (limiting election expenses).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE AGE OF VOTERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr Reid Scott (Danforlh) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-42, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-8, to amend the Broadcasting Act (disclosure of C.B.C. service extension programs, cost, and estimates for five years).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE NAME OF CORPORATION Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-16, to amend the Broadcasting Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING PARTISAN POLITICAL BROADCASTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr H. C. Harley (Halton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-25, to amend the Broadcasting Act (political programs).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-40, to amend the Broadcasting Act (community antenna). 
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FLAG


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-41, respecting a national flag and a national anthem of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE ACT

David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-43, to amend the Post Office Act (hate literature.)
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-51, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases) .
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-44, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act (off-store instalment sales).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Reynold Rapp: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-45, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (agricultural employees' coverage).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
LABOUR conditions



ESTABLISHMENT OF 40-HOUR WEEK IN FEDERAL UNDERTAKINGS

[Stage Direction]
Mr Reid Scott (Danforih) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-46, to limit the hours of work for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Introduction of Bills
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT	RADIO ACT
David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-47, to amend the Weights and Measures Act (truth in packaging).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-49, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1960, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-52, to amend the Interest Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



APPLICATION OF INTEREST RATE IN SMALL LOANS ACT

Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-53, to amend the Interest Act (application of Small Loans Act).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


Robert William Prittie: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-55, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-57, to amend the Railway Act (abandonment moratorium).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR RETRAINING AND MOVING COSTS OF DISPLACED EMPLOYEES

Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-67, to amend the Railway Act (responsibility for dislocation costs).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING DEFINITION OF &quot;BROADCASTING&quot;

Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-58, to amend the Radio Act (community antenna).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANSPORTATION


Reid Scott: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-59, to provide for free transportation on the railways of Canada for senior citizens.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


Reid Scott: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-23, to provide for the control of consumer credit.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR CONTROL OF USE OF COLLATERAL BILLS AND NOTES

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-63, to provide for control of the use of collateral bills and notes in consumer credit transactions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-66, to amend the Representation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL ANTHEM

Sylvester Perry Ryan: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-64, to provide for a Canadian national anthem.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



INQUIRY AS TO THEFTS OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the breaking into the armouries at Shawinigan, Quebec, this morning and the removal of rifles, semi-automatic carbines and the like. Is the Prime Minister in a position to report what measures are being taken and have been taken to protect the armed forces and also the supplies in the armouries from dastardly conduct such as this, which can only lead to contempt and a continuation-this being the second case- of the belief that lawlessness reigns in the areas in which the armouries are located?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of National Defence to deal with that question.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do have a preliminary report with respect to this break-in this morning, but a number of the facts contained in the report have not yet been confirmed. I suspect that some of the earlier information in this report is also not accurate. Therefore, rather than make a report now which perhaps would not be borne out on confirmation, I would prefer to take this as notice and prepare a full report to give the house tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. gentleman seeks dependable information, can he not tell the house what is being done to prevent occurrences such as this? I said a moment ago that there had been two cases, but I understand that this is the third. What is being done? What protection is being given to our army-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -to our armed forces?


An hon. Member:: The minister should resign.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what is laughable about what I said. These men were tied up and I should like to know what is being done, apart from the smile being given the house now by the benign gentleman.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday certain precautionary measures have been taken. I presume that these measures were taken in this case. An effort was apparently made to blow the safe where the working parts of the weapons were stored, but this is one of the facts on which I am awaiting confirmation at the moment.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: A supplementary question to the minister. Will he tell the house when he makes his report whether there was anyone on duty at the armouries, any watchman; and did the persons who broke in do so prior to the staff coming on duty at 7.40 this morning? The minister is preparing a report for the house, so may I ask him whether he can tell us, either now or when he brings down his report, if it is customary to leave armouries overnight without anyone on duty, and is this a demonstration of the security measures which he told the house yesterday his department was taking?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thought I had made that clear yesterday. In some cases they are not given around the clock protection because it would not be feasible to do so; but in this case there were people on duty, and I understand three men were bound by the armed robbers before they made off with such equipment as they were able to get.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did these three men who were bound not come on duty after the robbers were already in the building?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not to my knowledge, but this is one of the things I should like to be sure about before making a categorical statement.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Souih Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement of the minister yesterday, in which he referred to "units where it is not feasible to provide armed guards", etc., is the minister not inviting robberies by stating publicly that some of our armouries will not be protected around the clock?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think almost everyone in the country who would be interested to know that already knows it, so I do not think that my confirmation of an obvious fact would make any difference in that respect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Can the minister give the house the assurance that no one will steal the Bomarc missiles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the question which comes to my mind is whether, in the mind of the hon. gentleman, he would think it was worth while.


Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister, in the course of his inquiries, also find out whether the working parts of these weapons were locked up in the safe?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. The minister has just informed the house that it would not be possible to give all these armouries protection overnight. Would he now explain to the house why it is not possible to get enough unemployed men in this country to protect these armouries?


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising out of questions posed to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would take the necessary precautions to place protection around the person of the minister in the event that he may be stolen, although it may be a good idea.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he is now in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday concerning the amount of FN rifle ammunition that was stolen, and the availability of that ammunition from commercial sources. I think this information is particularly important in view of the fact these thefts are continuing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I am. The total amount of FN rifle ammunition stolen at Montreal was 1,922 rounds. In so far as the second part of the question is concerned, this ammunition is the military equivalent of the .308 sporting ammunition, and in consequence can be purchased at any sporting goods store and can be used in the FN rifle.


Mr. Fairweather:: The stores are not open at night, though.



PARENT, QTJE.  INQUIRY RESPECTING RADAR STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Could the minister tell the house if his department intends to end or reduce its operations at the Parent radar station, in the riding of Chapleau?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. As has already been announced, a study has been undertaken of the ground environment radar systems we have in connection with the North American air defence,
Inquiries of the Ministry to determine if they can be reduced in any way without reducing the effectiveness of the system. So far no decision has been reached in respect of any individual changes that might be made.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question?
Does that mean that the radar station personnel could be reduced?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot say what the effect might be on personnel until I know what the decision is.



REPORTED FALLING OFF IN RECRUITING FOR NAVY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: In
view of the drastic falling off in recruiting for the Royal Canadian Navy, I wonder if the Minister of National Defence could tell us what steps the government is taking to restore public confidence in the future of the navy and thus to increase the intake of men.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am glad to advise the hon. gentleman that his question is based on an erroneous report. The R.C.N. took into the force in December precisely the number of men it wanted, the number for which it had vacancies. They have a long backlog, a long waiting list, and there is no shortage of applicants. They tell me they can get all the keen young recruits they need, and that they will have enough men throughout the coming year.



HALIFAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was the naval reserve unit at Halifax cancelled on the recommendation of the navy?


Mr. Speaker:: It appears to me that this is certainly the type of question which should be placed on the order paper, unless the minister has a ready answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My problem is this. I am not sure that I should confirm or deny on what basis ministerial action is taken. I think there is some constitutional problem with respect to that.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has said that he should not break a confidence, or something to that effect, but I would call to his attention the fact that it has already been broken in the city of Halifax.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is obviously not a supplementary question.


Malcolm MacInnis: But it is something for the minister to think about.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I may change the subject, Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Secretary of State, of which I have given him notice. The question is in these terms. In view of a delegation coming to meet the minister at Ottawa from the Vancouver city council relative to the disposal and use of the 28 acre Kitsilano R.C.A.F. station soon to be abandoned by the Department of National Defence, will the minister inform the house whether a decision has been made that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Vancouver will take over certain buildings and areas? Is it also correct that, failing the acquisition of same, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation threatens to move its production facilities from Vancouver to Toronto?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for giving me notice of this question. I am informed by the
C.B.C. that no decision has been made with regard to the possible use of a portion of the Kitsilano base or its facilities. Inquiries have been made by the C.B.C. to the Department of National Defence and Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, but these have been tentative only.
With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, there is no consideration being given by the C.B.C. to moving its existing production facilities to Toronto.



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: May I
ask the Secretary of State if he can advise the house whether the board of broadcast governors have arranged for a public hearing before the C.B.C. converts the Toronto CJBC station to an all French station?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and communicate it to the board of broadcast governors.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Could the minister indicate the time and place it would be held?


Maurice Lamontagne: As soon as possible.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Could the minister confirm or deny reports that seals are being killed off the coast of Nova Scotia in spite of the fact that the opening date for the killing of seals in the gulf of St. Lawrence is March 5?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that a few days ago I received reports to the effect that seals were being killed off the coast of Nova Scotia in spite of the fact that the opening date for the killing of certain kinds of seals in the gulf of St. Lawrence is March 5. I immediately requested officers of my department to investigate such reports. We found no evidence to show that harp or hood seals had been killed, nor had skins been delivered to the New Harbour plant. There is evidence that a number of harbour seals had been killed, but there is no season controlling the killing of such seals.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it true that the construction of the weather ship by Burrard Drydock Company Limited-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of this question, and I think it is the type of question that should be put on the order paper. There is not that amount of urgency.


Mr. Henri Lafulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Could he tell us whether he has taken or plans to take steps to bridge the gap between the demand for new homes and the shrinking amount of N.H.A. mortgage funds, thereby preventing a slowing down in construction due to a lack of lenders?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry
LABOUR CONDITIONS	URANIUM



NUMBER OP UNEMPLOYED NOT RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
According to an article published yesterday,
532,000	Canadians were out of work and were getting unemployment insurance benefits on December 31, 1963. Could the minister tell us whether his department keeps statistics on the number of unemployed who draw no unemployment insurance benefits, on those who just get social assistance benefits and on those who receive nothing at all?
Does the minister intend to publish those statistics also?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take the latter part of my hon. friend's question as notice. In so far as the numbers he has cited are concerned, I should like to advise him that at the end of January of this year the total claimants had been reduced by 15 per cent over a year ago, and the total claims paid from the fund had been reduced by 25 per cent.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
When the number of those drawing unemployment insurance benefits in Canada went down by 15 per cent, did the number of unemployed who were no longer getting them increase in the same proportion, that is by 15 per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that, last year, the minister claimed to have so many new projects to carry out in order to provide jobs for the 466,000 unemployed in Canada, could he tell us today if he still has new projects to put forth?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What are they?



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF STOCKPILING PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since July 1 marks the end of the government's $25 million uranium stockpiling program at Elliot Lake, will the Prime Minister inform the house if it is his intention to extend this program?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot make a statement on that matter at the moment, except to say that every possible effort is being made by the federal and provincial governments to give assistance to this community.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the current effort to remove improper patronage practices, will the minister assure the house that members will be informed of public works projects approved in their ridings?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelels (Minister of Public Works):: Well, Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken I do not think it is usual to inform members of the house of any projects before those projects are submitted to the house with the estimates. If the hon. member wishes to communicate with me in writing, I shall do the best I can to inform him of any projects that we might have in the future in his riding.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister at least consider providing members with copies of the press releases that are issued?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I preface it by extending my congratulations to him on occupying that important portfolio. The matter I bring to his attention today has to do with the resignation of judges while still having judgments not completed. I think of the situation in the Exchequer Court of Canada where the resignation of a judge was accepted, although he must have anticipated

Inquiries of the Ministry that they would be keeping him on for a sufficient time to complete outstanding judgments. Will the minister look into this, because he can realize how costly it is going to be for a retrial of these cases unless agreement is arrived at between both parties.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for his very kind words. Since he is familiar with the interest which I have always had in the Department of Justice and the judiciary, he may be assured I will look into the question he has raised.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON MAFIA OPERATIONS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi C. Coaies (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Is the minister in a position to inform the house on his department's assessment of the extent of Mafia operations in Canada?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not hear the last part of the question because my amplifier is not functioning properly.


Robert Carman Coates: Is the minister in a position to report to the house on his department's assessment of the extent of Mafia operations in Canada?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice, please?



COFFIN CASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Will the government send an observer to sit in at the meetings which will be presided over by Judge Brossard in connection with the Coffin case?


Guy Favreau: We
have already sent an observer to the commission investigating the Coffin case. He is Mr. Gaspard Cote one of the legal advisers in the Department of Justice.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
press reports from Australia which suggest that a conference of commonwealth prime ministers may be held this year, can the Prime Minister say whether he has been in communication about such a conference, or has he any knowledge of it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was in Ottawa he raised with me in an informal way the question of the possibility of a conference of commonwealth prime ministers during the present year, having in mind the fact it is almost two years since one was held. We discussed, in this informal way, the advantages and disadvantages of a meeting at this time or this summer under existing circumstances. Of course we did not come to any decision, because this would be a matter for consideration and decision by 17, I think, prime ministers of the commonwealth.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF RESUMPTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is able to confirm the date of the resumption of the federal-provincial conference that was adjourned in November and, in the light of the statement he made yesterday concerning the Canada pension plan, is it the intention to introduce that legislation before the resumption of this conference or after?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is hoped that the conference will be reopened on March 31, during what I expect will be the parliamentary Easter recess here, and it is to be held in Quebec city on the invitation of the provincial government. We expect to proceed with the Canada pension plan at the earliest possible date, and I believe it will be introduced into this house before that conference is held.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: As a supplementary question, would the right hon. Prime Minister inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to introduce the legislation relating to loans to students, before the resumption of the conference in question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that would depend on the parliamentary time table and on the consultations with the provinces to which we are already pledged.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: As a further supplementary question, seeing that yesterday in the legislature in Quebec Mr. Lesage was asking himself if

this project was not a new violation of the provincial domain, would the Prime Minister tell the house whether he has given Mr. Lesage any assurance in this connection and, if so, what was the nature of the assurance given?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we do not consider this project to be a violation of provincial rights, but there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter with the provinces, and I hope to say something about it later this afternoon.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, as a further supplementary question I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that this conference is being held in Quebec, he hopes to persuade Mr. Lesage to change his mind in connection with the Canada pension plan.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which he might want to take as notice. In view of the rather unusual wording of section 6 of the Bank Act, can the minister advise whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with the usual decennial revision which normally would take place in 1964?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped that by this time we would have the report of the royal commission on banking and finance. It now does not appear that this report will be published for some weeks, perhaps two months. In the circumstances we shall probably be asking parliament to approve the extension of the Bank Act for a year, a course of action for which there are several precedents.



REPORTED REJECTION OF LONG TERM CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I did want to let members of the government hear representations from the labour organizations in question, and one proposal to which my hon. friend refers is a matter outside the scope of the Department of Labour.']
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: 
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, when I tabled yesterday a report in reply to a question from another hon. member I set out reasons why the government did not consider this was a propitious time to enter into long term agreements. I did not in that report set out precisely the offers made to the Canadian refiners by the commonwealth sugar producers, because I felt this was information that might prejudice the position of the commonwealth sugar producers themselves. I did say, however, that in our judgment it would not have been in the interests of the Canadian consumers to have entered into the sort of agreement they offered to us, and I think our judgment has been confirmed by the reduction in prices that has occurred since then, and by the reduction in prices that seem in prospect based on the future market.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: As a supplementary question, can the minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to easing the sugar situation in Canada by increasing production of sugar beets, thereby helping our adverse balance of payments and supplying many needed employment opportunities?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the increase in price that has already taken place there was this year a substantial increase in sugar beet acreage. I have every reason to think there will be another increase next year. I have also had representations from the producers for a floor price for their production in future, and this is under consideration.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, who is reported as having stated in Paris on January 17 that Canada rejects the diplomatic and economic ostracism of state behind the iron curtain. Does this statement apply to the Peoples' Republic of China?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it has been stated by me and by other members of the cabinet several times that we do not believe in the ostracism of any government or any country.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Labour. Can he tell us if he intends to set up a special Commons committee to study Canada-U.S. relations to implement a recommendation made yesterday by the C.N.T.U. which favours such an undertaking?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did want to let members of the government hear representations from the labour organizations in question, and one proposal to which my hon. friend refers is a matter outside the scope of the Department of Labour.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. When does the minister plan to visit Vancouver to inspect the veterans Fraserview housing project in order to make a personal study of their current grievances?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. He will perhaps recall that I dealt with the representations from the Fraserview home owners and tenants association in some detail in my answer to question No. 1728, asked by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), in Hansard of December 4 last. In the intervening period an independent accredited appraiser has been engaged by the corporation in order to appraise each type of house in the Fraserview project. I am advised this work is now completed and that a report, with recommendations, is expected within the next few days.
It is my intention to review the matter fully with officials of the corporation, and I would hope to be able to report the particulars of any final decision to the hon. member shortly.
I would remind him I have a competent staff of officials in the corporation which keeps me fully informed on these matters, including the views of the tenants, and I can see no useful purpose in my travelling to Vancouver at this time.



REQUEST FOR FINANCING OF EXISTING HOMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: I wish to direct a short question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister advise the house if the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act include the provision of funds for older homes, a policy to which the

hon. gentleman subscribed when he was sitting on this side of the house?


John Richard Garland: I am sure the hon. gentleman fully appreciates the fact that we cannot discuss the details of a bill before it is brought before the house.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs which is based on statements made yesterday by his deputy minister and also his assistant deputy minister, concerning veterans hospitals. Would the minister advise the house, and especially the one million veterans of this country, the intention of the government regarding the transfer of the Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals from federal to provincial or local control?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, because of the general shortage of hospital beds throughout the country we have had several proposals from a number of authorities, provincial, municipal and university, to assist in the solution of this problem. I think all hon. members will realize the inherent difficulties in these proposals. However, we are very seriously examining them with a view to assisting wherever and whenever we can. I do want to say this here, as I stated last year; that in assessing these proposals the principles outlined then will be very much in our minds, and these include the interests of the veterans, the standards of treatment, and the protection of the staff. These will be very much in our minds as we study the position. We are not yet in a position to reach any conclusion. As soon as we are, we shall inform the house.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Does this policy apply to the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary? There were some press reports that a decision had already been reached with regard to that hospital.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I can assure the hon. member that no decision has been taken. However, we are examining a proposal received from the city of Calgary.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In
dealing with this question is the minister taking into account the recommendation of the veterans affairs committee that before any decisions are made in this respect the veterans organizations should be consulted?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OP ADDITIONAL TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reynold Rapp: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether it is government policy this year to erect government grain terminals before the next crop year so as to expedite the shipment of export grain to and from Canadian seaports?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been looking at the terminal situation in various parts of Canada in the last few weeks and months. We have made no decision to build additional terminal facilities. It would be my hope that in Vancouver, where the situation probably justifies additional capacity more than in any other part of the country, some additional capacity might be built by private grain companies, which could feed those terminals from their country elevators.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. 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?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Many of the changes have been announced. I would be glad to take the question as notice and give the hon. member full details of the community pastures set-up.



APPOINTMENT OF MINISTER FOR EASTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether he has completely given up his electoral promise to appoint an eastern minister of agriculture? [Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have something to say about that shortly, too.



INQUIRY AS TO CONFERENCE ON MENTAL RETARDATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether she can report to the house what progress has been made in calling a conference on mental retardation, and what the date of the conference is likely to be.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. member the date at the moment. We have had correspondence with the deputy ministers of health of each province, and it is my recollection that all have agreed that it is a good idea to hold such a conference. We have also been in touch with those who are working in the private field, and plans are going ahead for a conference to be held, it is anticipated, some time following the summer recess.



ROYAL COMMISSION-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the number of times we have been told that the report of the royal commission on health services would be tabled soon, could he now tell us when it is expected that this report will be tabled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not had a recent report, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries this afternoon and reply to my hon. friend tomorrow.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the United States department of justice under its antitrust legislation was successful in getting a restraining court order to prevent the Schlitz brewery of Milwaukee from absorbing the John Labatt brewery of Canada, may I ask the minister, first, if he intends to take any similar action in the courts here? Has the hon. gentleman any legislative power to do so and, if he has not, does he intend to ask parliament during the present session for that kind of power?


Guy Favreau: course I can hardly answer the first question. As to the second question-and I say this with

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker due deference to the hon. member-it involves a matter of opinion, and I am not entitled to give a legal opinion to the house. As to the third question, this would be a matter of government policy which would be disclosed later. However, I can tell the hon. gentleman that I am having a report prepared for me on this matter and I expect to have it tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister received any request from any persons or organizations or companies asking him to take some action with reference to this absorption of the John Labatt brewery?


Guy Favreau: In view of the fact that I have been Minister of Justice for only a few days I have received no request personally. As I said a few moments ago, I have asked for a memorandum on all the facts and I expect to have this before me by tomorrow morning.



SUGGESTED INTEREST FREE LOANS BY GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance.
According to the speech from the throne, interest free loans would be granted to needy university students.
Does that mean that the ministry recognizes not only the possibility but the necessity of making interest free loans as Social Credit has been advocating for at least twenty five years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think there is any relationship between the two situations.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES SITE FOR NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PERFORMING ARTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: I wonder if the Prime Minister is
in a position to make the promised report concerning the proposed site for the national centre of the performing arts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I shall be in a better position to make a complete report on Monday next.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 19, consideration of the motion of

Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, following the traditional course-and I do it not because it is a formality-I extend my congratulations to the mover, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and the seconder, the hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) on the speeches they gave yesterday. Indeed, one of the happy privileges of parliament is to be able to witness the coming into the house of young men and women who by the ability and capacity demonstrated in their speeches augur well for their future and also that of parliament.
I want to first say a word on parliament. During the course of his remarks yesterday one hon. gentleman indicated that parliament would be effective if the opposition was effective. That was the interpretation I placed on his words. I can say that certainly the government will be effective if the opposition is effective.
I am glad to see that one of the daily newspapers-I refer to the Globe and Mail- today started a system, which I hope other papers will follow, of giving reasonably full information as to what has taken place in the house. I have particular reference to a summary of the speeches made by hon. gentlemen. This is a system that is followed in the United Kingdom by important metropolitan newspapers. It is one that is commendable, in that it gives to young members particularly the knowledge that the important things they have placed before parliament will receive attention, and at the same time it provides for the people as a whole information on parliament which would otherwise not be procurable excepting through the medium of Hansard itself.
I hope that at the earliest possible date the committee on rules will again be set up, to the end that under your distinguished leadership, Mr. Speaker, we shall be able, without in any way diminishing the rights of parliament to full debate, to assure a greater degree of efficiency and effectiveness than would otherwise be the case.
I know there is need for change. Your Honour has recently been in the United Kingdom and there saw at first hand something of the operation of the mother of parliaments, something of its tradition and of the degree to which, in the perspective of years, it has brought about an effectiveness that has preserved not only that nation but also, in large measure, mankind in two wars in which freedom was challenged.

I should like to point out in this connection that in this committee some action should be taken to assure that the course followed in the last session will no longer be followed. I refer to the way in which a rule of parliament has been used, evidently and designedly so, to prevent the answering of questions that may be embarrassing to the government, or the giving of information to which the house is entitled but which the government feels ought not to be given. Instead of allowing a vote, the procedure of sending motions for papers for debate has been adopted as a plan, a subterfuge if you will, to prevent questions being answered, so that in the process of time they expire.
I have here the list for last session. There were 13 notices of motion for the production of papers outstanding at the end of the session. These were all matters about which parliament had the full right to information but on which the government did not want to give information. The Minister of Transport, who always demonstrates that regard for parliament which he has, regularly rose and suggested, while he was house leader, that the motion should be transferred, and I point out that to do this is to circumvent parliament's rights. It means that the government is using a rule, not for the purposes for which the rule was established but for other purposes.
I have said that 13 such notices of motion died on the order paper. I am not going to read them, but they are of interest. Those 13 notices of motion dealt with important matters, and they were transferred for debate and did not come before the house. On December 5, 1963, the hour allotted for the consideration of notices of motions for the production of papers was consumed by Liberal members speaking against the motion of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Marti-neau), whose motion called for the production of correspondence with the United States government regarding the trusteeship over maritime unions on the great lakes. That was the last occasion in the last session when notices of motions were called, leaving untouched the number to which I have referred.
The hon. member who seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne indicated that one of his objectives was to make parliament effective. I suggest that a good place to start is to whisper into the ears of the front bench the fact that parliament should not be treated as contemptuously as it was in those 13 matters in connection with which the house was entitled to information.
I want to extend my congratulations, Mr. Speaker, to the new ministers. I am not going to do it individually. I particularly extend my congratulations to those who have
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker taken a portfolio for the first time and become members of the privy council. However, there are one or two of the appointments to which the words of John Wilkes, a great leader of freedom 200 years ago, might apply:
There has been nothing like this since Caligula made his horse a proconsul.
History is a great teacher. I also note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), while he is still in the cabinet, has had a great deal of control taken away from him. The government has set up, or it intends to set up, a president of the treasury board, which office is to be filled by a very distinguished member of the house who came in at the same time I did. He will exercise many of the functions ordinarily pertaining to the Minister of Finance. In other words the government has taken away from the Minister of Finance the control of expenditures. That indicates to me a loss of confidence in him, much of which is general across the country, and which I realized before it was shared by the Prime Minister as well. Last session the government brought in a budget. By the time the session had ended the budget was about gone, but the minister remained. About all that remains now for the Minister of Finance is that he will be able to continue in his course of drying up the sources of American investment in Canada by the nonsensical nostrums which he brought before this house and had passed by parliament.
I am not going to cover a variety of subjects today, Mr. Speaker; my colleagues will do that as they speak on the several matters of which they have particular knowledge. There have been all kinds of descriptions of this speech from the throne, but I think one of the best quotations which could be applied with regard to it are words used by Lincoln-and he has been dead 100 years- when he said:
As thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved to death.
I must say that those words show that vision, that greatness in statemanship, which make them so applicable today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the speech from the throne? I am not going into the repeat portions, which are mainly warmed up left-overs from the last parliament. And reheating, Mr. Speaker, does not improve the ingredients. "Dialogue" has become one of the favourite words of the Prime Minister. Well, this speech from the throne is a dialogue in disillusionment to the Canadian people. It gives no indication and shows no intention of the government's desire to repair the disastrous errors of the last session; the blunder of its anti-American investment measures, or
44	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker its 11 per cent sales tax. The Minister of Finance was in Washington recently. There he met with members of the administration, and indicated that some miraculous information was given to him which might mean certain changes in the legislation that was passed by parliament at the last session over the protests of the opposition.
Then one looks back over the last session and thinks of the highly advertised programs which came before the house. They had to be modernized, revised or even withdrawn. The last speech from the throne did give an indication that something was going to be done. This speech from the throne totally lacks imagination. If one can mix one's metaphors, it is a speech of skim milk masquerading as cream. It reveals a government which has lost confidence in itself, confidence in its plans; a government which cannot overcome its irresolution by decisions, its incoherence by consistency, and which tries to lead the Canadian people into believing that retreat means progress. There is no indication in the speech from the throne that the exploratory surgery on the Canadian economy practised by the government at the last session is not going to be continued. These are serious matters when one has regard to what has taken place in the last few months in this country in practically every field of endeavour.
Mention was made a moment ago by the Prime Minister that there is an intention that there be a meeting of the federal and provincial governments in March; I am not sure of the date, but it is very close to the Ides. We know what that meeting will be like. Mr. Levesque is in town today, I understand. He has already stated that at that conference there will be a full course meal, and that the last one was merely an appetizer. I will be interested in hearing today from the Prime Minister of the plans he has; for certainly the course of action of this government in the short time it has been in power has been one of protestations of good will, uneasy concessions, and a creeping centralization described as co-operative federalism. As a matter of fact, during the last nine or ten months this government has been in office the fabric and structure of confederation has been weakened by having it dragged into the arena of partisan politics by the Liberal government in its desire to derive political advantage from division between the races. While the Prime Minister may smile, the fact remains that whenever he smiles I realize that the point I have made has been well taken.
This government by its action has actually given rise to sectionalism. This is a government which believes in centralization, which has still not learned its lesson that confederation must be built through the process of


Mitchell William Sharp: I was not sneering.


John George Diefenbaker: A sneer is still a sneer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he should not make personal remarks of this kind. It is unbecoming to the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: When the hon. gentleman starts giving lessons in unbecoming conduct, I will start to learn. Let me say this. This has been his attitude throughout in connection with commonwealth trade.
Now I pass to the next item. I suggest that at this time we ought to do something within the commonwealth to bring about the establishment of a commonwealth loan and development fund, so that the nations of the

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker commonwealth will be able to help one another and, in particular, the underdeveloped countries within the commonwealth. Unless action is taken in this regard, the gap between the have and have not nations will continue to grow as it is growing today, and world-wide difficulties will be the result.
Now, sir, in so far as the international situation is concerned, this is one matter upon which we can all be in agreement. Recently, as has been pointed out in the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was here. He said that war is unlikely since the deterrent of nuclear annihilation restrains both sides. I gathered from his remarks that in his view it was necessary to do everything we could to raise the economic standards among the nations as a primary purpose and objective of the western world. Today we see coalitions breaking up or in grave danger. CENTO and SEATO lack the strength that results from a clear understanding. NATO is subject to stresses and strains. I am hoping the Prime Minister, when he speaks, will deal with this particular matter in some detail.
The U.S.S.R. and communist China are engaged in a division that seems to be widening. The U.S.S.R. has removed most of its economic and technical aid from China. Strange things are happening. The U.S.S.R. is giving aid to India against China. Some of the NATO countries are trading with communist countries, while others are not. I was most surprised a few days ago when the United States decided to bar certain countries-I speak now of Britain and France -from aid because they dared to follow a policy that was not acceptable to the United States. We had the same experience when we were in office. Strong objection was taken to the fact that we dared to deal with communist China. We proceeded to carry out what we believed to be the right course, and that we were right in that regard is shown by the fact that today the United States is trading in wheat with the U.S.S.R. Canada today is following the policy that we followed of selling wheat to communist countries. Indeed, the wheat sales of the last year and a half or two years have been directly the result of the policies of the former government carried into effect by the present government.
The other day an announcement was made about the wheat payment for the 1962-63 crop year. There was some boasting about the fact there was a final payment of 40 cents a bushel or a little over. As a matter of fact, I should point out that this represented the results of a year in which the former government was in office for nine of the

twelve months. I know what we were subjected to when we decided to advance credit. The idea was ridiculed and condemned, but now it is being followed. The United States took a strong stand in this regard. In so far as Cuba is concerned, one of our major offences was that we said to the United States, in effect, you will determine your policies and we will co-operate at all times in the interests of freedom, but when we think a course is right, that course we shall follow as a sovereign state.
Then I should like the Prime Minister to tell us something about his trip to Paris and Washington, because we want to get an authentic report. We have had to depend upon the press. I must say the reports we received indicated that there was a different stand taken by the Prime Minister in Canada from the one which he took in Paris. Of course one understands that he was in the position of a suitor, and naturally intent on pleasing. Certainly he left the impression there that the recognition of communist China would take place; that was the diplomatic thing to do, because after all he said that General de Gaulle gave him an enigmatic smile, that in return deserved some suggestion that the course followed by France would be followed by Canada. It was so reported in the press, and there were enough newspaper reporters along. The United States press so reported, and the French press so reported. When the Prime Minister got back he said there was nothing to that.
Then he went to Washington, and he was asked what was going to be done. The answer given by one of his officials was that the Prime Minister had not given an undertaking not to recognize communist China. That was a double barrelled denial open to any interpretation one wished to place on it. Then we remember how the invitation was going to be extended for them to meet in Canada, and that the honest broker was bringing together General de Gaulle and President Johnson. That was until President Johnson heard of it, until General de Gaulle heard of it, and that was the end of that; and the Prime Minister on his return denied it. Naturally one asks what is the reason.
Then there was the strange thing in Paris which was reported in the Ottawa Citizen by its representative, who went along and who is not unfavourable to the Prime Minister, that Ambassador Bohlen bowled over the Prime Minister. We would like to have details on this, and we would like to know what happened in that conversation. What was the ambassador angry about, and what had been said by the Prime Minister that caused that anger? I am not going to quote

from the article that appeared in the Citizen but certainly it was made very clear that this hapened.
Then what about uranium? "If it is good for Rio Tinto it is good for Canada," is not an effective policy for Canada. Again I ask what about uranium? All I have before me are the reports that over there an indication was given that uranium would be sold because General de Gaulle needs uranium for his independent deterrent force, but when the Prime Minister returned he said there had been no discussions on the subject of uranium. It is strange how matters like this become so involved, and how it becomes necessary not only to deny what allegedly he said but even to deny the denial. Here are some of the reports in my hand; "Ready to sell to France, P.M. reveals; Canada sets policy pending aid pact."
I ask what took place. What is the position of affairs with regard to uranium? Did the Prime Minister change his view after he got to Washington? You remember that there the Prime Minister gave the President a saddle; I think Canada took the ride. All these things are very interesting, and I am sure the Prime Minister will tell us about them this afternoon.
What of our relations with the United States today? Do you recall how they used to say that we were anti-American? All one has to do is read the United States press today to note the cleavage between our countries, a cleavage never before equalled. What took place in Washington? So far as the communique was concerned it contained nothing and conveyed nothing. The secretary to the President of the United States was asked what happened, and he said Prime Minister Pearson called on President Johnson, period. What happened there? What discussions took place with regard to uranium?
What discussions took place between Canada and the United States in reference to the great lakes difficulties and the action taken in United States ports against Canadian ships? What representations did the Prime Minister make to the President of the United States? Early in January, at a meeting of representatives of the Canadian lake shipping industry in Montreal, a resolution was unanimously passed condemning interference with Canadian shipping in United States ports and calling on the Canadian government for prompt and effective action to bring such interference to an end.
What was done over there? I am told the only reason that we do not have difficulties on the great lakes at the moment is because of the icy peace of winter. What happens when navigation begins? Did the Prime
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker Minister do anything to persuade the government of the United States to protect Canadian ships from waterfront violence in American ports and from the practice of boycott? Did he make clear to the President of the United States the fact that the government of Canada does not view with appreciation the situation in which certain unions in the United States can take punitive action against Canadian ships in United States ports because they do not approve of Canadian policy? Will he tell the house what was said in this connection, for we have had no report on this matter as yet?
Hal Banks was to go. Well, Mr. Speaker, he is still there. We are to get a report some time as to what the trustees are doing. They have been abroad finding out what they could do. We in Canada know what they should do, and that is remove Banks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot go into the cases that are being heard against him because they are sub judice. I would like to make some references to the last prosecution, but I cannot.
What is the nature of this questionnaire to the thousand seamen? I endeavoured to get an answer to that yesterday but was not successful. I know this, though; that after some of these people were visited by the questioners they were immediately approached by representatives of one of the unions within the C.L.C., endeavouring to secure the membership of these people in their union. Where did that information come from, and how was it made known? Was it given by the trustees? Was there not some reason for complaint in the appointment of the trustee board when Mr. Millard, a most estimable gentleman formerly connected with the C.L.C., was appointed thereto? Where do these names come from and how are they known? There are misgivings, and those misgivings have been repeated over and over again. Recently, on February 1, these words appeared in a special editorial in Canadian Transport:
The relative restraint of the three maritime union trustees has begun to disturb us. We would be less than frank if we did not admit that we now have some doubts about the trustees' chances of discharging their assignment satisfactorily.
Then it said what should be done.
...this means "cleaning up" the S.I.U.-ousting its hoodlum leadership... and putting the democratic control of the union in the hands of its members.
Why has this action not been taken? Is the fact that this action has not been taken connected with what I shall deal with on some future occasion, the courtship between

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker certain members of the N.D.P. and the Liberal party? Why are these things taking place?
We want the government to tell the people of Canada, on the basis of the information it now has, that there is going to be no more of this sabotage, this interference, this blackmail, if you will, practised against Canadian ships in United States ports when the new shipping season opens. These are some of the things on which we want to be assured.
I shall not deal with defence on this occasion, but I presume we will have the opportunity of doing so when further amendments are moved.
I now come to the question of the economy for, after all, this was the basic argument against the former government, that we had not kept the economy rolling. Well, what has happened? The Liberal party promised that if they were elected the deficit would become a surplus. Now they have become respectable. They promised that expenditures would be cut. Now the Minister of Finance says they have cut off $200 million but expenditures are going to be greater than ever. They said taxes would be cut. Oh, I remember that speech. Taxes would be cut; yet they have been increased since this government came into power by over $300 million. Every Canadian, they said, would soon be working; and there are almost 500,000 out of work now.
What would hon. gentlemen opposite say if they were over here? They were the ones who claimed they had the solution for these problems. They said they had the planners and the planning. Last session they produced a speech from the throne with something for everyone. However, by the time we came to the end of it, most of it was grounded or abandoned. The program in the last speech from the throne looked good but did not stand up. This one does not even look good. Where is the bold and imaginative action which the Prime Minister promised? Oh, the right hon. gentleman is most effective when he gets to use expressions such as that. What we need for Canada, he said, is bold and imaginative action. I can just hear him. Well, where is this bold and purposeful action? Where is there a declaration of anything in this speech from the throne apart from a faltering announcement of cloudy intentions? It is a strange thing. This is a government that likes to be loved. They are afraid to ask lest they offend. They are afraid not to promise for fear they also offend. The result is that they end by producing the document which is before us.
Where is there anything in this speech from the throne, with the exception of one line, to deal with the preservation of confederation and the advancement of modern Canada? Where is there anything in this

mixture of shopworn nostrums to indicate any measures to meet unemployment or inflation and the rising cost of living? Where is there, in this tally of a tired government, anything to rectify the loss of investment capital from abroad or to provide for alternative sources?
Where is there anything in this plan to provide for national development. Let us turn to Frobisher. Jurisdictional arguments are going on between departments of government, and while they continue Frobisher fails to receive attention. What about northern Canada, represented by the hon. members for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume) and Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski) ? Northern development is to all intents and purposes, a thing of the past. What about the Gaspe railway in the province of Quebec, so greatly desired by so many people for so long? The legislation is there, but the government refuses to go ahead. Where is there anything in this speech which shows an interest in the real problems of our country? Where is there anything to ensure that the legislation introduced this session will not be the rudderless mess of last session?
What about agriculture? The minister is not here. I am not surprised. While he is outside the house, what is happening to the price of Canadian cattle? What is being done to ensure the maintenance of cattle exports? I have the figures available in this connection, figures to which I shall make reference. Our exports have fallen to levels unheard of in the last six years, and this has happened in the past seven or eight months. What about prices? What about the decline in the price of cattle by about 5 cents a pound? While these things are happening the Minister of Agriculture is addressing what he says are more intelligent audiences. He refers to the Herefords. But what is being done? I ask the government, what course is to be followed? Is there any action, within the knowledge of the government, which can be taken? The answer is that if there is anything it does not appear in the speech from the throne.
What about the record of the economy? I am not here to preach blue ruin. We have not followed that course, and do not intend to. I am glad to see any economic gains that are taking place. But I would point out that what has taken place has not been the result of the policies of the present government, but the result of policies brought in by the previous government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who is now removed from anything of

a political nature-he has nothing left but his smile-is never querulous any more; never questioning what goes on. I remember him in the days when he was in politics. He said "Why don't we do something in Canada"?
What about employment? We said when we were in office that the unemployment situation in the United States was just as serious as that in Canada. We said automation had made it difficult for anyone to meet the problem. Hon. gentlemen opposite said no. Let me direct attention to what has been said by the organization for economic co-operation and development. That organization pointed out that Canada's economic sluggishness during the three or four years after 1957 was directly related to the weak expansion in the United States. The organization also stated that, similarly, Canada's improved prospects are largely related to the United States improvement.
In addition to that improvement, we took action. The economy is advancing; it has been advancing since 1961. We inherited a Canada in which economic preparations had been avoided for political purposes. We inherited that situation. What about the economy now? Imagine the Minister of Finance speaking in the city of Toronto on January 6; imagine what he said at that time and compare it with what he said when he sat on this side of the house. This is what he said in January. He said Canada's economy has been advancing since 1961. That is what he said when he was speaking non-politically. What did hon. gentlemen opposite predict? After all, by their predictions ye shall know them. What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce predict? I quote from the Toronto Star of January 23, 1963. At that time-in the year before-Canada experienced an 8 per cent increase in the gross national product. The report says:
Mitchell Sharp, who describes himself as an aspiring politician, said last night that politicians should stop deceiving the public about the state of the Canadian economy.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I go on to paragraph 2. The hon. gentleman will find that physicians should heal themselves.
Mr. Sharp, former deputy minister of trade and commerce, announced yesterday that he would seek nomination. He predicted a mild recession in 1963. And he said the unemployment issue- "which promises to get worse"-must be treated as "a separate problem from general economic activity."
Then he went on to say what was going to happen. These are the prophets of yesteryear -and they feel pretty sorry that things did not turn out as expected. What was said by the Minister of Finance? I am reporting what he said according to the Globe and Mail:
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
The present upswing in the current business cycle began three years ago.
How they ridiculed the devaluation of the dollar. They said that was terrible. But not the Minister of Finance. Having denied that it was good, he now claims the paternity. They said it was terrible, yet the analysis of the O.E.C.D. for 1964 says:
The devaluation of the Canadian dollar and relative price stability had been the key factors in bringing about an improvement in Canada's deficit balance of trade with other countries.
They said that things had gone to pieces, that an 8 per cent growth was stagnation. Then it became 6 per cent, with an increase in cost of living representing about 2 per cent of that in 1963 and it promises to be less, I am informed, in 1964. They talked about the gross national product. They said "Why are we growing so slowly?" The latest figures show that the increase in gross national product in Canada from 1957 to 1963 was 23 per cent. In the United States it was 23 per cent, and they were not talking about ruin in that country. I have not the latest returns in respect to unemployment. With regard to reducing expenditures, I have already mentioned what the Minister of Finance said, that while they had cut off $200 million there would be greater expenditures this year than ever before.
What is the position? In 1963 corporation profits, outside of manufacturing, declined 4 per cent between the second and third quarters; bankruptcies in the first nine months were up 14 per cent over the previous year. Yet they say they have a solution. With regard to money supply, from time to time, I read that book "Troubled Canada". It is a soothing book. If you suffer from insomnia, Mr. Speaker, read it. They were going to meet the problem of inflation. They said, "Something must be done in this regard". How did they meet it? By increasing the amount of Canada's money supply by $1,300,000,000 in 1963. That must have been on orders from Washington, because these are words that have been used two or three times by the minister; "The spread between Canadian and United States interest rates has narrowed". Was the reason for the increase in the money supply the carrying out of a proposal made by Washington? That is a question to which we have never been able to get an answer. In 1962 the money supply of Canada was increased by 3.45 per cent; in 1963, by 8.87 per cent. I am not going to place all these statistics on the record, except to say that to a considerable degree the reason that Canadians today face the danger of inflation, which has ceased

The Address-Mr. DiefenbaJcer to be creeping inflation, is the manipulation of the money supply at the direction of the Minister of Finance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He got it from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).


John George Diefenbaker: What about United States investment? I want to hear the minister on that subject, because that is one thing that still remains with him; he can still block United States investment even though some of his other prerogatives have been taken away. We said that punitive and unrealistic measures would worsen the atmosphere between Canada and the United States. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) dealt with that subject over and over again. We said they would not work; that they would bring about a drastic curb on United States investment; that they would shake the confidence of business in the Canadian economy.
Sir, all these measures were theories enunciated in the book "Troubled Canada". In this day of sequels I can see the hon. gentleman writing a book entitled "Nobody knows the trouble I've seen". He does everything he can to curb United States investment and then he announces in Toronto, when speaking to responsible businessmen, who have some of the answers for the questions that he does not understand, "We shall require large inflows of capital for many years to come".
What did he do about it? He first brought in the proposal with regard to the 30 per cent tax. This was it, Mr. Speaker; this represented the quintessence of economic wisdom-and they left it as a foundling within a week or ten days. Then they brought in further legislation to provide for the 20 per cent tax. What about that? I know that Dillon and Hodges are not officially members of the cabinet of Canada, but what did they say to him when he made the pilgrimage to Washington recently? They told him something of importance, Mr. Speaker, because when he left there he said "Things are changing". That means they told him "You are changing, and the legislation you brought in will have to be withdrawn". There is no doubt whatever that this happened. As a matter of fact there have been various reports in connection with it.
We believe in the Canadianization of industry. We believe it can be achieved in the manner in which we set out to do it, by providing encouragement to Canadians rather than by the implementation of discouraging legislation and curbs, causing discrimination and retaliation. The policies this government has brought in cannot work; they have not worked. I have not the latest figures-I have not been able to get them-and

perhaps they are better than those for the three month period which I have available, the period to the end of September. But in those three months after this legislation was introduced, United States investment in Canada was reduced by an average of $100 million a month.
Now the minister says "We have to have investment". I think, though, that after his visit to Washington the last remnants of the budget in that connection will disappear. He has prepared the public for another withdrawal. I was reading just the other night about Napoleon, who used to prepare the French public for military reversals by articles in "Le Moniteur". That is what happened in Washington. The minister said the matter was being looked into. Today the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) raised the question of Schlitz and the proposition regarding Labatt's, and the answer was that nothing could be done. What about investment? What did Mr. Kierans, who is now a member of the cabinet of Mr. Lesage in Quebec, say? He said that the Canadian attitude toward foreign investors is despicable, purposeless and a threat to invigoration by provincial authorities of their backward areas. Then he went on to condemn it in even stronger language.
What did others say? I am going to quote several because I like to call witnesses to the floor who give evidence in favour of the other side, and the one I am going to refer to belongs to that group. I refer to Mr. R. M. Fowler, president of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, one of the brain children of the Liberal government. It has even become too much for him. Let me read what he said in his speech of January 31. I should like the Minister of Finance to hear this because this is one of his friends, but I see he is not listening. Perhaps it is the name "Fowler"; because, as it says in Proverbs, "Beware of the fowler with his net". Mr. Fowler says:
The fact surely Is that we-
That is, those who sit over there-
-are badly mixed up in our policies toward foreign investment in this country. We say we are glad to have had a good deal of foreign money coming in, and we are going to need more of it in the future.
They are almost the epitome of the words of the minister.
But we are terrified over the sheer size... And we tinker with discriminatory taxes only to discover that they produce, in particular cases, results which we never intended. This is surely a weak and inconclusive and slightly disgraceful posture for national policy to take.
Note that he would not say of his friends over there that it was a disgraceful posture,

just a "slightly" disgraceful posture. I never knew, sir, that there were degrees of disgracefulness, but apparently there are when applied to one's friends. Then he goes on, and I repeat this for the edification of the minister, and also of the Prime Minister who has now taken the Minister of Finance unto his bosom:
It is not surprising if governments and investors in other countries are confused and irritated and lack confidence in Canadian policies.
What better evidence can I call to support the stand that this opposition took; and when we took it we were criticized as holding up the business of parliament. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants says this:
They-
-meaning the policies of this government-
-tend to undermine the confidence of foreign investors in Canada.
This is what the president of the Royal Bank of Canada says:
Let us by all means encourage Canadian investment in Canadian industry, but the answer is certainly not to hamper foreign investment by discriminatory measures designed to force Canadian participation in existing enterprise. Surely the answer here is to encourage new Canadian investment by removing the handicaps which now beset the Canadian investor.
That was the stand taken by the government of which I had the honour to be head.
What would have happened without foreign investment in Toronto? In a recent article the Globe and Mail said this:
If Mr. Gordon's policy of "Yankee-go-home" were put into effect, instead of 53 new industries in the Toronto area last year, there would have been only six.
This is what the president of the Royal Bank of Canada said:
Discriminatory tax gimmicks are simply not the answer.
There is another source, Mr. Speaker, and I refer to the Winnipeg Free Press, to an article entitled "The Delphic Oracle"; and lest there be any rush among the ministers over there to have the title applied to them, it was applied to the government as a whole. On February 12 the Winnipeg Free Press said:
So long as they obey Canadian laws, foreign investors have every right to buy securities, operate business concerns and make profits in Canada, generally to the benefit of the Canadian people-
What about Mr. J. T. Bryden, president of North American Life? He says:
There is no doubt that greater ownership of Canadian business in Canada would be desirable... it can't or won't be corrected overnight, least of all by tax gimmicks or other measures which, although designed to speed repatriation, penalize the foreign investor.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
The president of the Bank of Montreal says this:
...there is no doubt in my mind that policies which seek to discourage an inflow of development capital would seriously hamper our efforts to achieve the economic gains projected.
I could quote from others in this connection. One after the other they point out that the economic nostrums produced here last session and forced through parliament brought about a situation that will cause this government to have to retreat once more and follow the policies we advocated and advanced when we argued the case against them.
I am going to conclude by dealing very shortly with the subject of the 11 per cent tax. The Prime Minister used these words in Montreal on September 27, not with reference to this matter but they are very applicable:
This is the kind of problem which makes political life and office in Canada so fascinating, so frustrating and so fatiguing.
I simply point out this fact, that the 11 per cent sales tax legislation was opposed by us, and we stood alone in voting against it. Others vocalized their objections but put their votes in cold storage or supported the government.
One of every 22 jobs in Canada is in the forest products industry, and 30 per cent of our foreign exchange is dependent on this industry. And what has happened? The cost of logging has gone up. There is a serious situation in all parts of our country in this regard. I think if I were able to hold a private Gallup poll, members in all parts of the house would agree with what they say privately but will not voice publicly, namely that this tax on building materials and production machinery should be removed.
The Minister of Finance smiles. That is the response he has generally given to such a request. That was the response he gave us when we opposed the tax; and those sitting opposite, phalanx after phalanx, lined up and voted for that which they knew or must have known was not appropriate. Revenue is necessary, but not revenue which results from taxes which apply the brakes to development and employment.
It has been said that a very considerable portion of the increase in construction costs over the last few months is made up of increases in the tax. There has been a chorus of condemnation-I know of nothing to equal it-against the economic blunder made by the government in this connection. I challenge the Prime Minister to produce evidence of one reputable newspaper or economist across Canada who agrees with this tax being imposed, and I give him the opportunity to answer. As far as the Minister of Finance

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker is concerned he remains aloof from these things, secure in the knowledge that the Prime Minister has endorsed his policies and given him security of tenure. The other day the Globe and Mail said in its business section:
Mr. Gordon is following a foolish policy and also a dangerous one. He is asking us to concentrate on buying up old businesses while new foreign owned ones are seizing the new growth opportunities.
Then it went on to deal with this tax as well. What is the government going to do about it? I asked yesterday whether the Minister of Finance had given any assurance, implied or explicit, that there were going to be any changes, and he said he had not. When he says that I accept it, but it is strange that he did not pass that on to the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson); because the Postmaster General was speaking the other day and he followed the diplomatic course for which this government is so noted. When he talked to the lumbermen he held out hope, but he had no basis for that. What the Postmaster General said was simply taffying up these people, because the Minister of Finance has made it very clear that such is not to be the case.
They talked about auto parts, the improvement in the situation in Canada and the building up of the industry here. We brought about an increase in automobile production in Canada by incentive legislation. What have they done? I can do no better than quote from the representations of the automotive parts manufacturers association of Canada of January 24 What do they say about the sales tax?
Two events have occurred during the past eight months that have upset the balance between United States and Canadian parts manufacturers very heavily indeed. United States tariff reclassification is one. It has adversely affected millions of dollars worth of actual and potential export business for Canadian automotive parts manufacturers, by rendering them non-competitive in the United States. This, of course, is an act of the United States government over which the Canadian government has no control. It is indeed difficult not to be cynical and to suggest that this is just another example of the United States government offering lip service to GATT while legislating behind the scenes to destroy concessions negotiated in good faith by other countries.
The second shock, a heavier and much deeper one, was the imposition by the Canadian government in the federal budget of June, 1963, of a sales tax of 4 per cent rising to 11 per cent on the tools of production. This was an incredible move. We know of no other industrial nation in the world that taxes the tools of production. It has pointed up more clearly than ever the competitive advantage of automotive parts manufacturers in the United States. They are not subject to this tax at all on their sales in the United States or on their sales in Canada. How can we reconcile this move with the $400 million additional production target mentioned earlier in this brief?

You remember the promises. "Give us the power and we will bring prosperity to Canada". I remember the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) saying while he was still in politics, "We will fix this up". The answer of the automotive parts manufacturers association is that it is another mess and that Canada has been adversely affected.
I wonder whether the United States reclassification was the retaliation promised by commerce secretary Hodges, when he said that action would be taken if these measures were carried out.
Who is there that supports this? Go across Canada. What about the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities? Listen to their words in their submission to the royal commission on January 14 last:
The dismay and disappoinment expressed by the municipal governments when this added tax was imposed earlier this year has not been in any measure alleviated.. .The tax on building materials ... will outweigh to a substantial extent the stimulant to employment which other federal measures were intended to make possible.
The Canadian Construction Association has dealt with this matter. This is what Thomas
A.	Somerville, president of the association, said on February 3 last:
This year the federal government applied sales tax to many construction materials, production materials and equipment previously exempted and it raised other taxes. In the sales tax field it is safe to say that at no previous time in Canada has such a large tax been applied to such a large sector of the economy in peacetime. This federal sales tax policy was completely unexpected and at variance with stated government policy objectives designed to increase the rate of economic development and is working against the efforts of some ministries endeavouring to expand trade.
Then he goes on to say that the impact of the federal sales tax is heavy and that the association is opposed to it as a disincentive to expansion. He continues:
We read that the biggest capital spending splurge in Canadian history is poised to start in 1964 if proposed increases in federal sales taxes on machinery and equipment do not cause postponement.
The Canadian Lumbermen's Association, representing 8,000 lumbermen large and small all across Canada, has this to say:
.. .the apparent upsurge in construction activity and in the lowering rate of unemployment is really nothing more than an indication that Canadians are trying to beat the deadline and the government before the tax is increased from 4 to 8 per cent on April 1. The association also feels that what is likely to happen is that following the first quarter of 1964 there will be such a drop in buying and building activity that the problem of unemployment which used to be evident in the winter will instead be noticeable during the spring and summer months... The tax was ill conceived and ill timed and the government has in fact perpetrated on the industry and the public in general the worst tax jungle imaginable.

I could read further from their submission. They say that a severe blow has been struck. They go on to say:
An increase in costs must inevitably bring with it a slowdown in building.
They refer to the gimmicks that have been introduced by the government as not being beneficial under the circumstances. Then they go on to say:
The mechanics of application of the sales tax to lumber has already seriously affected the efficient operation of the forest products industries. From coast to coast and at all levels of distribution in the trade, it is the unanimous feeling in our industry that never has such a chaotic tax jungle existed.
Then they point out how difficult it is to get refunds. They are told that all they have to do is write in order to get refunds, but then there is a lot of talk and no refunds are ever forthcoming. They go on to say:
-hundreds of thousands of man hours have been expended by industry officials and their employees in an attempt to make some sense out of the numerous ambiguities, contradictions and plainly incomprehensible rules and regulations which the government has produced.
They go on to speak about the confusion and frustration. What about labour? What does it say? I have been speaking about industry. The association of international representatives of the building and construction trades co-operated with the Canadian Construction Association in a representation, and I read what labour has to say about this matter from page 6:
*-we cannot avoid reiterating our joint dismay regarding the building materials sales tax imposed by the 1963 budget. It is quite erroneous to believe that industrial, commercial and private construction generally are not affected by the cost implications of this measure.. .The staging of the tax reduced the initial impact of the tax and the volume of work during the past six months has been stimulated by a desire to expedite projects before the balance of the increases are imposed...
This situation has so far tended to convey a false impression. These factors will not apply if the schedule increases in the federal sales tax rate on construction materials and production equipment are put into effect and the end result will be a decidedly adverse effect in reducing the capital investment and employment potentials.
What greater warning could one have than the warning of labour coupled with the warning of business? What about the Ontario sheet metal workers council? They had this to say in a resolution adopted by them:
Adding a further tax burden to a proposed industry before it has begun producing could be the factor that would cause expansion plans to be abandoned...
Therefore be it resolved that the government of Canada be implored not to increase the sales tax on materials, machinery and equipment used in the construction industry from the present 4 per cent to 8 per cent in April of 1964 and to 11 per cent in January of 1965 as is presently proposed.
The Address-Mr. Pearson
Finally, in the Globe and Mail of February 19 there is an article by Fraser Robertson headed "Ottawa Can't Ignore Long Term Effects of Fuzzy Policies." Who created the fuzz? They are sitting over there. They created the fuzz.
Then the article goes on to deal with the visit of Mr. Nicholson, and reads as follows:
Mr. Nicholson was singularly indiiferent to the idea that confused policies and hasty legislation might be hurtful to business. The moon did not fall down-
It is about the only thing that has not.
-the Canadian economy did not come to a stop, we are not on the brink of a financial disaster, he told the lumbermen.
This is the time to bring up this matter.
I	know it will be argued that we should wait until the budget is presented. Well, we had experience with the budget last year. They brought it in, and do you remember the blare of trumpets, Mr. Speaker, the pride and exultation? Then, in the light of experience, within a few days they started to run for cover. They have already given notice indirectly, through the Minister of Finance, that the iniquitous tax on United States investment which is to come into effect later this year will not come into effect. There has been no such suggestion regarding this matter which affects Canadians directly. Whenever the United States say they want a change, the government bends. It is time for parliament to have an opportunity to say to the government, this is something that is wrong; this is something upon which we want action. If we wait until the budget is presented in April the increase will have taken place. Now is the time for action.
Every institution in Canada from which I could quote, and I could quote from many more, says that this tax is unjustified; that it is a brake on expansion; that it is detrimental to our export trade; that it places added burdens on the cost of production and the cost of living of the people and that it means fewer jobs for Canadians. Is there a more important matter for parliament to deal with than that?
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):
That the following be added to the address:
But we respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the repeal of the
II	per cent sales tax imposed as a result of action by the present government in 1963, on certain building materials and certain machinery and apparatus to be used in manufacture or production which is, and will continue to be, detrimental to various segments of the Canadian economy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I must begin as my right hon. friend began, and like him I do so in no

The Address-Mr. Pearson formal sense, by congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address. I have now, Mr. Speaker, listened to this historic function being performed, not as many times as the right hon. gentleman has but 14 or 15 times since I have been a member of parliament, and I do not recall any occasion when it was performed more impressively or with greater credit to those who undertook this difficult task.
I should like also to associate myself with the right hon. gentleman in his remarks about parliament, the part that parliament has played and must continue to play as we face difficulties in our country. We should not in the face of these difficulties forget, and I hope to have something to say about this in greater detail before I finish, that in this parliament all the people of every part of Canada are represented. We are the spokesmen for all the people of this country. We have been given an obligation to protect and advance within the constitution the interests of the people of Canada.
Perhaps he will not misunderstand me if I congratulate the right hon. gentleman on his speech this afternoon. We always listen to him with great interest, as his remarks are based on many years of parliamentary experience and indeed on several years of responsibility as the head of the government of Canada. He gave us this afternoon a demonstration, not that one was necessary, that he is still in politics. In my own contribution to this debate, Mr. Speaker, I hope to deal-I apologize in advance for the length of time I might find it necessary to take-with the speech from the throne and explain the proposals that have been made in that speech and what we have in mind in making those proposals.
I then hope to deal, as the right hon. gentleman did but perhaps my approach will be somewhat different, with the economic and financial situation of the country. This will be a sort of state of the nation analysis. I should like to deal with parliamentary procedures, as he did briefly, and what can be done to make our work more effective and perhaps to expedite it. Finally, I should like to say something about a matter which is very close to us all and deep in our hearts, national unity and the working of our federal system. There will be things mentioned in the speech from the throne about which I will not be talking.
The right hon. gentleman said some things about the commonwealth with which I agree. I hope before long to have an opportunity of discussing this matter at greater length. If a commonwealth prime ministers' conference is summoned, is agreed upon for this summer,

we on this side will be happy to be represented at that conference. We are looking forward to a very large and important commonwealth meeting to be held in Canada this summer where all the 17 nations of the commonwealth-there may be more than 17 by that time-of Asia, Africa, Europe and North America will be represented. I refer to the commonwealth education conference. This conference would not have been held, and I am happy to admit it, if the initiative to that end had not been taken by the right hon. gentleman and his government of that day.
He asked me a great many questions about my trip to Paris and my trip to Washington, and I hope also to have an opportunity-although perhaps it will not arise in this statement-to deal with those questions. Certainly some of my colleagues on this side will deal in detail with a number of the points he raised regarding international affairs and defence, which I will not have an opportunity to deal with this afternoon. Meanwhile, until these questions are dealt with, I leave the right hon. gentleman to the happiness that he has obviously secured from his clippings and his quotations and his deductions and his interpretations. I confess at once that I have in my day, and no doubt will again in the future, received a good deal of comfort and satisfaction from clippings and quotations and interpretations and deductions myself.
Mr. Speaker, the legislative measures referred to in the speech from the throne, measures which have not made a very deep impression on my right hon. friend or no doubt on his friends, are not the whole of the government's program for this session but they are major, priority measures; and if some or them are holdovers from the last session I do not think we should be blamed for that. If parliament was unable to pass them in the last session, that is no reason why they should not be passed this session if they commend themselves to parliament. I believe these proposals in the speech from the throne indicate a businesslike and forward looking pattern of work which the government has put before this parliament. They embody a substantial share but not the whole of the program for a parliament, with which this government took office.
These measures, I would like to point out, are a balanced program. The speech from the throne contains measures to improve the efficiency of government. It contains important political reforms. It contains measures to promote economic advancement. It contains measures to improve the security of Canadians and to provide broader and more equal opportunities for all our citizens.
These are all major objectives of this government, as I know they are of parliament.

In parliament we did make some progress in achieving them last year, especially the one which is, in some respects, the most pressing because it makes others, if we succeed in it, easier to achieve. I refer to measures to continue the expansion of our economy and measures for increased employment opportunities which that expansion, and only that expansion, can create for Canadians. This year we should make further economic progress, and I will return to that shortly.
What has already been achieved, and the measures that are already operating, I believe at this time make appropriate some shift in the emphasis of our approach to this problem. The reduction in unemployment and the improvement in national income gives, if I may put it this way, somewhat more elbow room so that we can go on to make important progress by a balanced program of action over a wider field.
Probably the most important of all the items of legislation which the government will submit this session is the Canada pension plan, the contributory pension scheme to which my right hon. friend and his friends are opposed; and indeed the right hon. gentleman is opposed, as I interpreted his words this afternoon, to any system of registration which would make such a scheme possible and effective.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not want to misinterpret me. There is no question at all of our opposition to the pension scheme. We were the ones who asked that a pension scheme be set up, a contributory one, and endeavoured to get it through.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I of course accept the right hon. gentleman's statement, but I would point out that it is not possible to put into effect a contributory pension plan, or indeed an unemployment insurance scheme,
' without a system of registration for those who ^benefit from such plans.
I am fully in agreement with those, both friends and critics of the plan, who have urged that it is of such long term importance as to require the most careful study; and to that end we will propose that it go-and we will do this as quickly as the house permits us to do it-to a special committee of this house with full power to call witnesses and examine every aspect of the proposals in detail.
Our proposals have already been discussed with the provinces and, as a result of that discussion, we have made some revisions in the plan as it was first presented to this house. After all, this plan deals with something in a field in which jurisdiction is shared between the two senior levels of government in this country, and to have a satisfactory plan, one
The Address-Mr. Pearson that is to work effectively in Canada, it must reflect the best practicable consensus. In order to secure that, and after the discussion to which I have referred, we have made two main revisions in the plan as originally submitted.
We are now, in the scheme we are putting forward, providing for bigger reserves, a substantial part of which will be available for provincial investments, and we have somewhat reduced the scale of the pension benefits. They would have ranged between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of earnings, depending on the age at which a man began his pension. The average would have been 24 per cent or 25 per cent of earnings. Now the pension scale will be 20 per cent at whatever age between 65 and 70 a man retires. This reduction is not large. It does not change the essential nature and value of the plan, but it will mean a significant saving in the long term cost of the plan.
Our consultations with the provinces have led us to accept this revision as a reasonable one, but I must say that I am considerably less impressed by certain criticisms of the plan recently made by the premier of Ontario, which turns not on the eventual nature of the plan but mainly, as an examination of his letter will show, on the transition period. Premier Robarts apparently would like us to lengthen the 10 year transition, that is, to slow down the development of benefits under the plan.


Mr. Kindt:: May I ask the Prime Minister what the premier of Quebec is saying, too?


Mr. Starr:: Isn't he in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The premier of Quebec has his own attitude toward this plan. He has a provincial plan, but I am now talking about the national plan. It is perhaps at this stage of greater importance what the members of the House of Commons say about this plan than what the premier of any province has to say.
It is, of course, true that the longer the transition period the smaller will be the adjustment problems which are created by any pension plan. This is true of any major reform in any field. In particular, in this case a longer transition period would minimize the adjustments in contribution rates and future benefits under existing pension plans. This seems to be in the mind of the premier of Quebec. It is an important consideration, and I do not underestimate its importance. But it is also important that only about 30 per cent of the Canadians now at work are beneficiaries under existing plans. The urgent social need is surely to provide for the other 70 per cent, who are not now

The Address-Mr. Pearson covered, an opportunity to make more adequate provision for their retirement and for their old age security. That surely is the main purpose of any public plan. I am sure we in this house are all in agreement as to that purpose, even though we may not be in agreement as to how it should best be achieved. Greatly to slow down its achievement would not seem to me to be reasonable, unless it were the only way to avoid a crippling disturbance of existing plans.
I believe there is no such danger in the plan we are putting forward now. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that in Canada, as in other countries which have introduced public pension plans, the existing schemes can readily take in their stride the moderate adjustments which will be required. This is the kind of thing which will be discussed and debated in the committee which will be set up, and I hope we shall be able to convince those who are now in some doubt on these points.
The pension plan will do much for security. At the other end of the age scale, our proposal for interest free loans to students will do much for opportunity. Nothing is more important to us than that every young Canadian should have access to all the educational opportunities which he or she is able to use to advantage. In this increasingly complex and scientific world, investment in our human resources is the most important of investments for the growth of our material welfare. This investment is important to all of us and its fruits will benefit the whole country. Loans to students, though an innovation, are clearly of federal concern as are such banking measures as farm improvement loans, small business loans, and home improvement loans.
I know it has been suggested that interest free loans to students constitute a federal subsidy to education and are, therefore, an indirect intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction. That does not seem to me to be the case. The loans constitute assistance to individuals in the same way as farm improvement loans and the similar measures I have mentioned. However, we certainly take the view that loan assistance to students is a measure which should be developed in close consultation with the universities and with the provinces. We have already indicated our desire for such consultation, and we shall be working out the details of this measure after such consultations have taken place. I am confident that it can be flexibly arranged so as to avoid any suspicion of federal intrusion into education.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? Did he have any


preliminary talks or communication with Mr. Lesage before announcing, in the speech from the throne-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish the hon. gentleman would wait until I have finished. But I can tell him at once that there was an indication of our plans received by those in Quebec.


Paul Raymond Martineau: What kind of indication?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not interrupt the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking, though there were many occasions when I would have enjoyed doing so to ask for further information. I hope I shall be given the same privilege-


Paul Raymond Martineau: We on this side wish to give to the Prime Minister all the courtesy he deserves, as we always do, but in view of the fact that Mr. Lesage has been left in the lurch wondering about these questions I should think the Prime Minister would want to take this opportunity to allay the seeming concern on his part.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I submit to the honourable and learned member that I am surely, at this point, the best judge of the occasion.
I am sure that the extension of opportunity for the individual is an objective on which we are all united and which we want to achieve for young Canadians in all parts of the country. I am sure, too, that this can be worked out without any infringement, direct or indirect, or any field of provincial rights, because no such infringement is intended. It is hardly too much to say that a program to ensure that everyone has full access to education opportunities will, in the long run, with the increasing importance of education, be just as valuable a social reform as universal contributory pensions.
This government-and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this in his speech- would like to see loans supplemented by a broader provision of scholarships and bursaries for qualifying and deserving students; something to which, I agree, this government is committed and which it expects to discharge in its program before this parliament comes to an end. A parliament lasts, normally, for four years, though this one might conceivably run for five years.
The extent of the need in this respect, however, has not been studied in as much detail as it should be before action is taken. The government has therefore invited the Canadian universities foundation to examine the whole question of student aid as a basis for offering its recommendations as to what further measures, in addition to interest free loans, are financially necessary and would

be constitutionally acceptable. There will also, of course, be consultations with the provinces on this matter.
A third measure of social reform which we will be proposing is the institution of minimum labour standards for work under federal jurisdiction. Our objectives in this field were set out while we were in opposition. Now we will be proposing at this session a minimum wage, maximum working hours, standards for holidays and for occupational safety. We recognize, of course, that what is done in these matters in the area of federal jurisdiction can have important repercussions for industries under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because we are always anxious to consult the provinces on matters of this kind, my colleague the Minister of Labour will shortly be discussing his proposals in detail with his opposite numbers in the provincial governments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn for a moment to the measures of political reform which were mentioned in the throne speech. We had hoped that the matter of redistribution could have been provided for in the last session. I am sure that every member of this house, no matter to what party he belongs, must share a sense of inadequacy as long as we have failed to make provision for the representation of the people according to the census which is now nearly three years old. Until that overdue duty is discharged we as a parliament are, in a very real sense, in constitutional default. I hope we can all cooperate in giving the highest priority to correcting that situation, on lines which have already been widely discussed and which command, I think, general agreement among all parties.
I think it is also no monopoly of any party to be aware that the financing of election campaigns is becoming more and more unsatisfactory. Television and the increased scale and cost of communications methods generally have enormously increased this problem. To set effective, enforceable limits to campaign expenditures obviously is the first step, on which other steps would depend. There is no point in attempting anything else unless we can first make sure of establishing limits that will be entirely genuine. We therefore propose to establish a very small committee of inquiry, the members of which in our view should be people with practical political knowledge but who a^e not now active politicians.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Martin?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs could be the chairman of such a committee.
The Address-Mr. Pearson


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is my hope that by this method we will be able to find an agreed and non-partisan solution to a problem which certainly concerns us all as members of parliament. The committee will be asked to concentrate first on the question of what the limits to expenditures should be and how those limits can be enforced. The committee would then be invited to go on to consider other aspects of election financing.
The establishment of an age of retirement from the Senate is a less complicated matter, but I hope it is equally one that can be approached in a non-partisan spirit both in this house and in another place.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the same cannot be said of a subject about which there is need for me to speak now at greater length, and I apologize in advance for the length of time that will be required to deal with it. It is, among other things, the discharge of a commitment I made earlier and which I regret I have not been able to discharge before now. I refer to magazines, on which there is an uncertainty that needs to be ended.
The last Liberal administration attempted to act for the preservation of Canadian magazines. The measure which it introduced to that end was perhaps not a perfect one, but it was something. The government which took its place repealed that measure and two years later appointed a royal commission to deal with the same problem. This royal commission was told to work very fast, and it did. The commission reported in May, 1961, but nothing has been done since that time. In the meantime the economic position of Canadian magazines has continued to deteriorate. The uncertainty which has prevailed has itself been harmful to the Canadian periodical press because of its effect upon advertising programs, which are customarily prepared and planned many months in advance of publication. A clear statement of government intentions is therefore necessary in order to dispel uncertainty and permit the industry to base its plans on a clearly defined policy in so far as government action, or lack of action, makes that possible.
The royal commission to which I have referred, which is sometimes called the O'Leary commission, reached the conclusion that a genuinely Canadian periodical press can only exist if Canadian publications are assured of most of the magazine advertising that is directed to Canadians. The commission's two principal recommendations were, first, that a taxpayer should not be allowed to deduct from his income, for tax purposes, expenditures incurred for advertising directed at the Canadian market in a foreign periodical; and second, that the entry into Canada from
58	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson abroad of any periodical containing Canadian domestic advertising should be prohibited under the Customs Tariff.
The government recognizes that the financial problems of Canadian magazines are not due only to the attraction of Canadian advertising by non-Canadian periodicals. There are other causes, including of course the competition of television advertising. Nevertheless, the government accepts the view that in order to survive-and I think the necessity for such survival is admitted, if it can possibly be brought about-Canadian publications must be assured of a reasonable share of the magazine advertising that is directed to Canadian readers.
The importance of maintaining a periodical press as one of the essential means of Canadian self expression hardly needs to be reiterated in this house. That importance was stressed by the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences as well as the royal commission on publications to which I have referred. It has been recognized by many people in and out of parliament. I am confident, therefore, that there will be support for the legislative action which we now propose.
That action is as follows. First, the Income Tax Act will be amended so as not to allow a taxpayer to deduct from his income, for tax purposes, expenditures after December 31, 1964, for advertising specifically directed at the Canadian market in nonCanadian periodicals. Non-Canadian periodicals will be defined so as to include any future special Canadian editions of foreign periodicals not in existence today. Canadian advertisers in Canadian editions which already exist, for example Time and Reader's Digest, will continue to be allowed to deduct their expenditures for advertising in those periodicals. In making this exception we are taking into account the fact that these special editions have been established in Canada for some years and have made a place for themselves with Canadian readers. This was also recognized in the resolution which the then minister of finance put forward just before the dissolution of the last parliament.
Second, schedule C of the Customs Tariff will be amended to prohibit the entry into Canada of split runs or regional editions containing advertising specifically directed at the Canadian market, and of other magazines, including trade papers, if more than 5 per cent of their advertising space is specifically directed at the Canadian market. I should emphasize that although this proposal relates to the Customs Tariff, it is not designed as a measure of commercial policy. Magazines generally will continue to enter Canada freely and without payment of any customs duty.


It will be recalled that the royal commission on publications recommended that any magazine containing any Canadian domestic advertising should be denied entry into Canada. The government is of the opinion that this step would be too rigorous. Many foreign magazines are imported into Canada and are widely read by Canadians. Many of these magazines contain a limited number of advertisements directed at Canadian readers. The government does not wish to interfere with the reading habits of the Canadian public, nor with the free flow into Canada of magazines containing a modest amount of advertising directed at Canadians. The point of the 5 per cent provision is to avoid disrupting the normal advertising pattern of genuine foreign magazines coming into Canada on their own merits, while guarding against the possibility of abuse in future.
For the purpose of both these measures a periodical will be defined to mean (a) any publication which appears not more frequently than once a week but not less frequently than four times a year; (b) an annual edition of such a publication; and (c) a weekly newspaper supplement not restricted to one particular newspaper but inserted in several newspapers. Journals of learned societies, universities and other like organizations will not be regarded as periodicals.
The government recognizes, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the house recognizes, that there is no perfect solution for this magazine problem. We must avoid any measures which would interfere with the free flow of information and opinion. That principle sets strict limits to the possible action in this field. At the same time we cannot permit our Canadian periodical press to disappear if we can prevent that disappearance. I believe that the action the government will propose is a proper balancing of these two essential considerations, and I hope it will be recognized as such.
Before leaving this general subject, Mr. Speaker, there is one other comment I would make. Magazines are not the only media of communication which encounter difficulties more or less unique to Canada. In fact I do not know of any other two countries in the world which have this particular problem of communications relationship. Certain other media are also vulnerable to somewhat similar kinds of competition for the advertising which finances them.
The government has already referred the question of community antenna television, which is one aspect of this problem, to the board of broadcast governors. There are also a number of television stations in the United States close to the Canadian border which solicit advertising in Canada and weaken the

position of the private and public Canadian T.V. stations. Finally, there are some signs that metropolitan newspapers in Canada may before long be in danger of coming under foreign ownership and control. These are difficult and complex issues; I do not know of any issue which is more difficult or more complex. The government is giving them careful examination at the present time, and they deserve very careful examination before any decisions are reached with regard to them. But in the meantime it would be wrong to delay action in respect of magazines, which action is urgently needed, so we are proceeding with the magazine aspect of this problem at this time.
It is natural, Mr. Speaker, to pass from this topic to another measure involving our identity as Canadians. It may be recalled that when in opposition we in this party urged that the Canadian Citizenship Act should be amended to remove the apparent discrimination and anomalies concerning loss of citizenship under part III of the act. As a matter of principle, naturalized citizens should surely have an equality of rights and status with natural born citizens. The amending measure referred to in the throne speech will therefore seek to remove these provisions, which could be construed as discriminatory. In essence, the principle of our law should be, and I hope will be, that a Canadian citizen will not be deprived of that status unless he voluntarily accepts or utilizes the citizenship of another country.
I shall refer next, as part of this balanced and wide-ranging program, to the measures by which we will seek to improve the organizational efficiency of government. The establishment of the treasury board, which was referred to by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon, under the presidency of a separate minister was, I would point out, the central recommendation of the royal commission on government organization, the implementation of which is something very dear to the heart of my right hon. friend. And it should be; he set up the commission, and I believe the commission did a very good and valuable job for the country. We think it is a good recommendation. The growth and complexity of government has made the problems of balancing priorities in expenditures greatly more complex than in the past. It has equally multiplied the importance of good management in the public service, and has increased the obstacles to good management. The new minister, who has had long experience, will give his full attention to these and related problems, and in that setting will be responsible for implementing other recommendations of the royal commission.
The Address-Mr. Pearson
The second major change that we will propose in government organization concerns the use of our land resources, about which I was asked a question this afternoon. No two activities are more important to this country than agriculture and forestry. The problems of agriculture are inevitably diverse. We all recognize-indeed the former minister of agriculture has spoken and still speaks quite eloquently on this subject-that many of the worst problems of low farm income are problems primarily in eastern Canada, and that these ought to have more attention than a single minister has been able to give them.
That is one side of the picture. The great and increasing burden of work properly associated with the Department of Agriculture as now constituted under a single minister. The other side of the picture is a paradox. The forest industry is in some respects the major industry of this country; certainly its contribution to our trade and our economic wellbeing is enormous, and the right hon. gentleman put some figures on the record this afternoon which indicate the extent of that importance. And yet, in the apparatus of federal government, it is a comparatively light portfolio; at least it is lighter than some other portfolios.
The explanation of this paradox-the importance of the forest industry yet the lighter work load of the forestry portfolio-is of course due to the fact that the range of federal action relating to forestry is limited by constitutional considerations. This inevitably limits the role which can be played by even the most able and dedicated minister of forestry. Yet surely it is most important that forestry, which is so vital to our economy, should not be regarded as a minor portfolio. What the government properly can do in this sphere must be well done.
The solution we propose is to match up these different, indeed opposite, problems in agriculture and forestry. We will bring the load on the agriculture portfolio to more reasonable proportions and at the same time increase the importance of the forestry portfolio by combining forestry with an important, a growing and a related aspect of the work of the Department of Agriculture; that is to say, with the work of rural development, and we will have a ministry of forestry and rural development.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this reorganization will have three good results. It will mean a better balancing of the work load for ministers and officials and will therefore improve efficiency. Second, it will increase and improve the attention which in the past could be given to certain agricultural matters. Third, it means that forestry will occupy a more important place in the structure of

The Address-Mr. Pearson government and will get the best possible care within the limits of the federal government's constitutional responsibility.
The throne speech also indicated that it is our intention to bring forward further measures to assist in the improvement of farm income and the progress of our agricultural industry. We will be dealing with the details of this on another occasion, but I may indicate now that we hope to broaden and expand substantially the scale of farm credit. We expect also to be able to undertake a major improvement in crop insurance which we have been discussing with the provinces, and also to introduce measures to meet the problem of the cost of farm machinery.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the Prime Minister goes on, would he tell us something about this farm machinery plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker, in due course. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture has already made some very interesting speeches on this particular matter out west, and I will see that he sends them to my hon. friend to add to his press clippings.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the best answer you can give? That is about how uncertain the speeches were.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have referred to rural rehabilitation and development. In Canada, as in other countries, we also face increasingly difficult problems of urban renewal and development. The government therefore considers it urgent to proceed with the measures which we proposed to the house last session and which will substantially increase the usefulness of the National Housing Act in assisting urban renewal programs and in enabling people to buy existing homes on N.H.A. mortgages in renewal areas.
The measures that I have referred to, Mr. Speaker, are, I believe, a substantial and constructive program. They are, I believe, far from being all that we will submit to the house this session. There is certainly much more that we would like to do if the house permits. Other legislative proposals will be ready and waiting. Exactly how much we will bring before the house in this session will depend on the rate at which the business of parliament progresses.
One of the many examples of pending measures-it is one not only of importance but one which is very close to many members, indeed to all members-is the reform of unemployment insurance. The large reduction in unemployment which has been achieved in recent months has made this a less dramatically urgent problem than when the unemployment insurance fund had to be rescued

from bankruptcy, but reforms certainly are required. The house was informed at the start of the last session that legislation was under consideration, and that consideration has been proceeding. If the parliamentary timetable permits, we will be ready with legislation later in the year.
We also expect to introduce legislation- indeed, it was begun last session-to implement the major recommendations of the Mac-Pherson commission on railways and, if good progress is made in this regard, a measure effecting the recapitalization of the C.N.R.
I think it is not using the language of exaggeration to say that the proposals I have mentioned and which are all in the speech from the throne do represent an important and well balanced program of progressive action. I hope, and I am sure members of the house will join me in this hope, that by the time this session ends these measures will have become law with the approval of the house, and perhaps other measures along with them.
I should like to deal now with another matter entirely, the economic situation in this country; but as it is one minute to six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you might permit me to call it six o'clock so that I may begin a new section of my statement at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about the state of the economy, and fewer words about the prospects for the forthcoming year. In recent years in Canada we have not had the vigorous economy that our people need in order to maintain the employment which is desirable. Without wishing now to give any suggestion of complacency about our economic situation, it is gratifying to be able to say that it is better, that prospects look more promising, than when we convened for the first session of this parliament. The year 1963 was one of considerable gains in almost all economic sectors. Business operated closer to capacity than it has for years. Industrial production rose appreciably, especially automobile production where the shipments of Canadian made vehicles increased to an all-time high of over 630,000 units or some 23 per cent above the 1962 figures.
The textile industry, which is one of our most important industries, also increased its output and stepped up its sales. Indeed, the production of almost all kinds of goods rose to meet both increasing domestic demand

and to supply our markets abroad. Another very important sector of our economy which registered substantially increased activity in 1963 was the house building industry. This industry plays a major role in creating employment opportunities, particularly during the winter months when seasonal unemployment is at its highest. The number of housing units started last year totalled 148,000 units as compared with some 130,000 in 1962, and the estimated value of residential construction reached a new high of approximately $1,800 million, which was roughly more than $300 million above the previous year. The winter construction incentive bonus, about which some hon. members opposite were sceptical when it was announced, has been an undoubted success and some 32,000 units have already been approved under this program.
We take great pride, and justifiably so, Mr. Speaker, that our country is one of the foremost trading nations of the world. Last year's improvement in Canada's foreign trade is particularly encouraging. Our trade with all countries exceeded $13,500 million and was the highest value ever recorded, according to most recent information. Exports rose by 10 per cent to reach a new high of almost $7 billion. Imports increased by some 5 per cent over 1962, so our commodity trade surplus last year was the largest since 1952. A welcome and very important aspect of this improvement in export trade has been the reduction in total current account deficit. The estimated deficit for 1963 is some $500 million, as compared with $850 million of a deficit a year ago or an average deficit of some $1 billion recorded annually over most of the last 10 years.
Turning now to agriculture-and the right hon. gentleman had something to say about that this afternoon-I may say that Canadian farmers harvested and sold the biggest wheat crop in history. Preliminary reports indicate that farm cash income in 1963 will have reached a record level of over $3 billion. Labour income in 1963 also rose substantially over 1962, while the number of employed increased significantly. The unemployment rate in December, seasonally adjusted, was under 5 per cent, the lowest level in many years.
In short, Mr. Speaker, 1963 was a year of substantial economic achievement by the people of Canada. I do not intend to claim that this achievement, this improvement, was due merely to the efforts of the government. However, I do claim that the measures introduced to date by the government have helped to move the economy forward. Having said this, let me repeat that there is much to be done before we can be satisfied with economic conditions in this country and before we can 20220-5
The Address-Mr. Pearson be confident of steady progress in the future. Unemployment particularly remains one of our most urgent problems. Despite the progress made in 1963, the present level of nearly 5 per cent is still much too high in comparison with a number of other industrially advanced countries, and all our efforts must be directed toward reducing unemployment.
Unemployment is not, as we all know, a simple problem. We have introduced measures, both short and medium term, to improve the situation. We have, amongst other things, provided incentives to attract new industrial facilities and revive economic activity in areas of chronic unemployment. There are still too many such areas in this country. It does not help very much to tell someone unemployed in Cape Breton, where the percentage may be higher than the national average, or in Quebec, that there is no unemployment in some other part of Canada 3,000 miles away. We have recognized these area problems. We have also introduced measures to reduce winter unemployment. We have encouraged the re-employment of older workers. We have increased federal assistance for the training of both employed and unemployed workers. We have established a manpower consultative service to assist employers and unions in effecting manpower adjustments resulting from industrial change. In one way or another, Mr. Speaker, our economy must continue to expand fast enough to take care of our rapidly growing population and to provide for the increasing needs of all sections of the community in all parts of the country.
If we are to continue the reduction of the deficit in our international current account, and that is our objective, we must increase our exports even further, not only of agricultural products and partially manufactured products but also completely manufactured goods. We have therefore welcomed, as I am sure all hon. members of the house have welcomed, the United States trade initiative that has come to be called the "Kennedy round negotiations, and we look forward to our participation in the forthcoming trade and tariff conference to be convened at the beginning of May, under the auspices of GATT, in Geneva, as an excellent opportunity for bringing about a substantial reduction of world trade barriers. Canada has already indicated that it is prepared in any such negotiations to make concessions that match the benefits that may come to us. We are also prepared to play our full part in the United Nations economic conference which will be opening before that in March.
A third problem that exists, and has always existed in Canada, is the differences__
and I have just mentioned this in passing- in the levels of prosperity, income and

The Address-Mr. Pearson employment in different sections of our vast country. In a diverse country like ours there are bound to be such differences. We have, however, taken steps through the area development agency, and other agencies, to stimulate economic activity, in co-operation with provincial jurisdictions, in those areas which have lagged significantly behind the rest of Canada.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, there was a reference by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to another aspect of our economic problems, the rising cost of living and the dangers of inflation. I would like to put the facts in this matter on the record, and in order to remove the impression that we are facing dangers now in excess of those that existed in recent years I think these will be illuminating facts.
In the past nine months from April last year, when we took office, to January this year the index of consumer prices has risen by 1.4 per cent. Of course we regret that increase, but I would point out as a comparison that in the first nine months of the administration of my right hon. friend, from June 1957 to March 1958, the price index rose not by 1.4 per cent but by 2.2 per cent. Of course, Mr. Speaker, having said that I recognize that comparisons over as short a period as nine months can be misleading, so let us take a longer period in order to put this situation in perspective.
The right hon. gentleman was in office for almost six years, two months less than six years, and in that time the consumer price index rose by 8.8 per cent, from June 1957 to April 1963. What had happened in the previous six years less two months, a parallel period, from August 1951 to June 1957? The price index had risen by 5.3 per cent.
I am not saying that this comparison means we have nothing to worry about. Of course we have, and I do not get any particular satisfaction out of showing that we did better in one period of time under a Liberal government in this particular matter than was done in a similar period of time under a Conservative government; but if this is taken as a major danger and a major reflection on the policy of this government, then I think it should be put in perspective.
I would make this point. We all know that it is harder to keep prices stable when the economy is buoyant. The years of the previous government were not years of a buoyant economy. The years before, over which I compared prices, were years that included the Korean war and the 1955-56 boom in this country, and the period since we took office in April last has been a period of the strongest economic activity since 1956. In these

circumstances then we can take some satisfaction, without ignoring the dangers that exist, in the fact that prices under Liberal governments have risen less than when the party opposite was in office.
Looking now at the year ahead, 1964, the latest economic forecasts indicate that economic activity in Canada is expected to continue to expand at about the same rate as in 1963. The preliminary reports suggest that capital expenditures will again rise and consumer expenditures on goods and services should continue to advance as well.
Canada's prospects for the year ahead will also depend to a large extent, as they always do, on world conditions. These conditions seem now to be favourable for sustained growth, especially in the United States, so that we may expect foreign demand for our exports to remain high in the months ahead. This will naturally have a sustaining effect on employment and incomes, and should contribute to the further strengthening of our balance of payments position.
In the months ahead the government will continue, by appropriate measures, to assist our economy in the necessary process of adjustment to new conditions, and to foster an economic climate in which the process of industrial development may be smooth and speedy. I think we can say, without complacency, that the economic activity has now been stimulated to the point where we can proceed to attack the tough and persistent problems of chronic unemployment, of regional economic underdevelopment and of continuing deficits in international payments with better prospects of success than in the last few years.
Until recently the relatively low general level of activity of our national economy greatly reduced the possibility of dealing effectively with these special problems. That deficiency has been remedied, and we can now look forward to making faster progress on the problems of regional development and also, I believe, on the fundamental problems of our payments balance with other countries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by saying something about parliament, its place in our national life, what we might do to improve its procedures and make it more efficient

a matter which was mentioned this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman-and then say a few words, if I may, on the problem of national unity.
As the throne speech indicated, the house will be asked, and I am sure the house will be glad to do this, to agree to the re-establishment of the i committee on procedures and the organization of parliament. I am sure all of us are anxious to see that committee at work again, Mr. Speaker, under your distinguished

chairmanship, so that it can make recommendations for the more effective dispatch of public business.
The complexities of government, and of the issues which we will be discussing and attempting to solve here, are creating problems which the architects of our confederation could not have foreseen. Today there is more scheduling and more organization involved in mail delivery or, if you like, garbage collection in Montreal or Toronto than was needed for the whole country in the days of the fathers of confederation. And in this growing complexity problems no longer occur in simple shapes, compact packages, or predictable rhythms. I believe, sir, that this very complexity, as it is developing in public affairs, is creating inevitably a new approach to politics.
Now this does not mean, nor does it require, the abandonment of party politics. The party system and the parliamentary system are absolutely inseparable, and sparks from the honest and vigorous clash of party opinion in parliament will continue to light beacons showing us the path to reform, toward better government and toward men's betterment. But I believe there is a growing area of parliamentary action, particularly as it affects national purpose, national security and human welfare which, involving all Canadians, transcends partisan or parochial interests. I am convinced that underlying much of the criticism and some of the cynicism about what goes on in parliament is a compelling desire on the part of millions of Canadians to see greater recognition given by politicians to the fact that there are many issues on which all Canadians must unite if a strong and united nation is to survive. Canadian parliaments have often shown in the past that they can agree on important issues and operate quickly and effectively in an emergency. It is my hope, and I am sure it is the hope of all hon. members, that the critics of our conduct will see increasing evidence of this trend in the coming months.
I believe that in re-establishing our committee on procedures and the organization of parliament all of us share a sincere concern that its work will be fruitful. But I should like to see something done now, pending the report of that committee-and the committee work may take some time. I should like to see agreement now, if it could be arranged, on some procedural changes in the interests of greater efficiency.	*
All party leaders spoke at length last October when the motion for the appointment of the select committee was introduced. All of us expressed concern that nothing should diminish the rights of the opposition and of private members. That concern is a
20220-5J
The Address-Mr. Pearson very valid one, vital to the life of parliament, but I hope all hon. members will agree that without minimizing this concern there are things which we could do at once. Fundamental changes-and perhaps the one suggested by the right hon. gentlemen this afternoon could be included in this category- could only follow the committee's report. What I propose is that at least three agreements could be reached now which would expedite and streamline our business from the very beginning of this session.
The first is the allocation of time to specific legislation. I realize this is a most important concession for an opposition to make, but I would remind the house that it is a concession which the party I lead was prepared to make in 1962 when in opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: H'm.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, that just happens to be the case. If it were not the case I should be a great deal more diffident in making the proposal now. The proposal would mean that by agreement we would allocate a certain number of days to each piece of legislation and, at the end of the agreed allocation of time, the vote would be taken on the various stages of the legislation. That is the procedure followed at Westminster. The period would naturally vary with the legislation.


Mr. Nowlan:: Closure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Someone said "closure". It is just the opposite of closure. It is the allocation by agreement of the time, the necessary time, to legislation. By doing that we should expedite our procedure and make it more efficient without compromising in any way the rights of members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A second change which could be considered would be, by agreement, the limiting of oral questions on orders of the day to 30 minutes. This proposal-a self-denying ordinance, as the Leader of the Opposition described it when speaking on this matter as prime minister in 1962-is another agreement which we could surely consider now when its implementation for the full session would, according to the Leader of the Opposition's own reckoning, save 15 full days.
Third, there could be a continuation by agreement of each day's sitting beyond the normal time for adjournment if that should be necessary in order to complete the business currently under consideration by the house or by the committee of the whole.
These three specific suggestions were considered by all parties during the course of parliament's deliberations both last year and previously in the twenty fifth parliament. They are proposals which I believe would

The Address-Mr. Pearson increase the effectiveness of our work while the select committee is studying ways of improving our normal procedure and organization. I believe the earliest possible discussion of these suggestions by representatives of all parties might be helpful; and perhaps an inter-party agreement, if it could be secured, would serve a useful purpose in expediting and making more effective our discharge of parliamentary business. I put them forward to the house in that spirit.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister allow a question? If there is a limitation on the time for questions in the house, does the Prime Minister agree that if the answers received are not satisfactory, or if they are regarded by the opposition as being incomplete, there will not be an automatic adjournment but the same situation will prevail that prevails today in the British House of Commons whereby any member who is dissatisfied may, at the time of the adjournment hour, proceed for half an hour to deal with the problem from his own point of view?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that could certainly be looked into. I know it is the procedure at Westminster, and perhaps it would be an additional protection for the rights of the opposition. It certainly should be considered in any discussion we would be having on this matter.
I have talked about the economic state of the country, but I should like to add that, as man cannot live by bread alone, a nation's progress must be measured by things other than national product and national income. There are national values that must be strengthened and national unity that must be made secure. All of us here in this house know that there are strains on that unity. There is evidence of this every day before us. These strains are being widely discussed in the context of federal-provincial relations and, increasingly, in the context of confederation itself. I believe some of these strains were eased by the spirit which prevailed in November's federal-provincial meetings. The desire and, indeed, the determination of the ten provincial premiers to work with the federal government in keeping a strong and united nation was reassuring and heartening.
Consultation and co-operation in this federal state of ours is growing as the need for it grows. Since this government took office there have been several important federal-provincial conferences. There have been two meetings of heads of governments-prime minister and premiers-in 1963 up to January, 1964; and there have been four meetings of ministers-ministers dealing with the Canada pension plan, ministers of trade and industry, ministers of agriculture, and ministers of

fisheries. Other main federal-provincial conferences to take place in 1964 include meetings of the ministers of labour in March, a meeting of the prime ministers on March 31, a meeting of the ministers responsible for Indian affairs in May, a meeting of the Minister of Justice with the provincial attorneys general at a constitutional conference, a meeting of ministers responsible for dealing with civil emergency planning, a meeting of the ministers of agriculture, and of trade and industry. Later this year there will be a meeting of forestry ministers and a meeting of the resource ministers council in June. There is also to be a meeting of the federal-provincial committee on the centennial of confederation. There are, in addition, to be numerous meetings throughout the year at the official level in all fields of government activity. Also, to improve this consultation and co-operation, the government is establishing within the privy council office a small unit responsible for general liaison arrangements with the provinces, which will be under my direction.
Hon. members may be aware that in our reorganization of cabinet committees we have established a standing committee on federal-provincial relations, which is also under my chairmanship. But in spite of organization, and indeed in spite of good will, the problems of federation will remain. They are inevitable in our kind of federal government, and they are particularly complicated in a country like Canada.
The foundation on which the problems of our federation must be resolved is acceptance, in the first place, of the full partnership of English speaking and French speaking Canadians. In our national federation each province has its own rights, its own resources and its own jurisdiction. This is particularly significant, surely, in the case of Quebec which, as well as being a province, is also the home of most of our French speaking Canadians, the guardian of their language, their traditions and their way of life. The solution, on the essential foundation which I have mentioned, to ouf problems must be found in what we call co-operative federalism. That means to me that the federal government must of course always seek the approval of provincial governments, when that is necessary under our constitution, before decisions are made. That is obvious. But there must also be consultation on matters which, while within the jurisdiction of the federal government, are shared constitutionally with provincial governments, or are of such great and immediate importance to provincial governments that, for good results, provincial support and co-operation must be obtained.

At the same time the federal government nas obligations to discharge to the people of Canada as a whole. The necessity, which is admitted, of increased consultation with provinces need not and must not interfere with the discharge of those obligations. The issue is not, and must not, become "provincial rights" versus "Canada first". These slogans and any others which represent competing approaches to national unity are dangerous and could be destroying; and they misrepresent the actual position. This is how Professor Corry of Queen's University puts it in an article on "Constitutional trends and federalism":
We are likely to have to live for a long time with the equivocal structure called co-operative federalism. It has arisen because several separate governments share a divided responsibility for regulating a single economic and social structure. It is most unlikely that any constitution could be devised which would enable each to perform its specific functions adequately without impinging seriously on the others. So their activities are inevitably mingled, and co-operative arrangements must be worked out. In the result, formal powers are not co-terminous with operating responsibilities; the two levels of government as well as the several state and provincial governments interpenetrate one another in many places and ways. Under the heat and pressure generated by social and economic change in the twentieth century, the distinct strata of the older federalism have begun to melt and flow into one another.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that, Mr. Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it was about a year and a half ago, and appears in a book by Professor Paul Fox. This is only one reason why any government in Ottawa must confront forces which would separate or divide us, with the aspirations of all Canadians and the determination of the vast majority of them in every part and province of our country to remain Canadian citizens; citizens of no mean country; citizens of a nation which is greater than the sum of its parts. The dream of a strong and united Canada, as we all know, is older than confederation itself. Indeed, it motivated confederation. It was in the mind of an hon. member of this house, Louis Honore Frechette, in 1875 when he made this statement:
We will form but one great nation with deep-rooted patriotism and noble aspirations, working as one to common prosperity, and advancing together towards a great and productive future.
Mr. Speaker, on this ideal alone can we find the solution to the problem of the relations between English speaking and French speaking Canadians. It is a problem which by its very nature is highly emotional and particularly sensitive to gusts of passion and prejudice. There is no easy, magic solution to it. Diatribes in either of our languages will contribute nothing to national unity but much to national disunity. No magic will
The Address-Mr. Pearson dissolve hostilities which are engendered by extremism on either side. No magic will educate the suspicious, satisfy the legitimate aspirations of Quebec, remove understandable anxieties outside Quebec; in short, make the problem go away. Moreover, the problem is complicated by loose talk and misunderstanding about the meaning of such words as "biculturalism" and "bilingualism".


William Heward Grafftey: "State" and "province".


Lester Bowles Pearson: What do we mean by biculturalism? Not, surely, that our nation has or will have only two cultural sources, French and English, each exclusive of the other. For one thing, English culture and French culture are not, and cannot be, separate and distinct from each other or from other cultural strains in Canada. Above all, biculturalism does not mean that these other cultural strains in our society, non Anglo-Saxon or non-French, should be discouraged from making their own strong and enriching contribution to what we are trying to develop in Canada.
Cultural segregation, or cultural separatism, is no more welcome than some other forms of segregation or separatism. Equally to be rejected would be any attempt at cultural absorption by social or political pressure. This is especially the case when the political foundation of a federal state is based on two language groups, with a consequent emphasis on duality which might seem to depreciate the cultural importance of other racial groups in our population. Bicultural does not, as I understand it, and must never mean this kind of exclusiveness, with any assumption or appearance of superiority. What biculturalism in our country does and should mean is that there are two strains, French and, for want of a better word, English, which were the foundation of our national society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There must be no pressure on one to absorb the other, but they should develop alongside each other; each, I hope, influencing and improving the other and each influenced and enriched by the cultural contribution of other racial groups and strains which are to be encouraged.
Similarly with bilingualism. Surely it must not be given a restrictive or coercive meaning. It does not mean, as I see it, that every Canadian will be forced to learn two official languages, or that the two official languages, English and French, must be used in every part of Canada in official texts and public declarations. That would be impracticable and unnecessary, and in any event is a matter for the provinces to decide. The federal government, however, has an obligation in this linguistic field to ensure that the rights

The Address-Mr. Pearson of the French language, as guaranteed in our constitution, are preserved and can be exercised; an obligation to ensure that a Canadian using French in federal offices and in respect of federal activities and services will not be discouraged from such use or made to feel a foreigner, especially in his own capital, by another Canadian refusing to acknowledge his right to use the French tongue. Eventually, I believe it must become normal and accepted for all federal services to use both languages interchangeably wherever there are Canadians of both languages living and working.
1 also hope that eventually in dual language regions and communities the provincial educational systems would be able to give all children the opportunity to become fluent in both languages. Surely this should be considered as a privilege, as a positive asset, rather than as a burden. We are a very fortunate people in Canada in that our two official languages are two of the world's greatest universal tongues, English and French. We should be proud to make the most of that privilege.
I repeat, however, that this evolution toward genuine bilingualism which is taking place should not be forced or coercive. It should recognize that there are parts of Canada where French is not spoken at all because the French speaking population is nonexistent or almost non-existent in those areas. A department of education is likely to take a very different attitude to bilingualism in such a part of Canada than one where each language group is strongly represented. Furthermore, even in the civil service, where the federal government has a direct obligation, the long overdue move to real and accepted bilingualism must not, in my view, be made in such a way as to create a feeling of injustice among those in the civil service who are now unilingual and were known to be so when employed. It would be wrong and unfair to penalize such persons now. Efficiency and experience must be the overriding factors in advancement in the federal services. But policies should be adopted so that in the future a third factor, bilingualism, will become normal because unilingualism will be the exception rather than the rule.
There is one thing more on this subject I should like to say. Because we recognize two official languages and must make that recognition a reality in practice wherever that is necessary and desirable, this does not mean that the same official recognition should be extended to any other languages. Such languages can, and I believe should, be used and studied and kept alive in a cultural

sense. But we have only two official languages which require official sanction for Canada as a whole.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of all hon. members of this house to overcome rather than create misunderstandings at this time, to avoid rather than engender resentments, and to repair rather than tear. This, it seems to me, is the only possible attitude for honourable men who really believe in Canada and Canada's future as a great nation. All of us here are called upon to present the case against prejudice, against dissension, against extremism at every opportunity, and beyond this place across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I know that every hon. member of the house, to whatever party he belongs, believes sincerely in that. I know every hon. member of the house feels in his heart that we will not be unworthy of our forefathers as we face this problem. I refuse to believe, as I know you refuse to believe, that we cannot rise to the occasion, match our problems and be equal to our opportunities. I refuse to believe that when the crying need is for unity in the world, for peace and security for all men, for the growing recognition of the realities and rewards of interdependence, with men in all continents coming together or being driven together, we in this country must move apart.
On a Canadian grave in France there is an epitaph which I believe captures what all of us in this house seek. It is on the headstone over the grave of a Canadian boy who won the Victoria Cross and who was buried in the first of far too many war cemeteries. Whether he was English speaking or French speaking I do not know; some of both races lie in all those cemeteries side by side. The epitaph on the grave of this particular young V.C. boy, which was chosen by his Canadian mother, reads:
How blessed it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.
It is for us, sir, to seek that unity too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members in all parts of the house have listened with keen interest to the two very excellent speeches made today by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. I think all hon. members will agree when I say that the passionate and eloquent appeal of the Prime Minister for unity, understanding and mutual good will will find a ready response in the hearts of the members of the house and in the hearts of people in all parts of Canada. I was interested this afternoon when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned that Caligula had once appointed his

horse to the cabinet. It occurred to me there had been prime ministers who had done that for part of a horse on many occasions.
One of the things that has impressed me most about the speech from the throne is its colossal failure to say anything about the problem of insufficient economic growth and unemployment. On the first page there is this one sentence:
My government will attempt to make its full contribution... to fostering the full employment of our people and the efficient growth of our economy.
There is nothing mentioned about what the government intends to do, no stirring program set out as to what the government is going to undertake to combat unemployment. When the Prime Minister assumed his present office he said to the people of Canada in a national broadcast that this was "a time to excite the daring and test the strong". Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I can find nothing exciting in this very pallid phrase to indicate that the government is going, as it says, to make its full contribution to fostering the full employment of our people and the efficient growth of our economy.
Instead of outlining a bold and imaginative program the Prime Minister has told us with some pride, and justifiably so, that the economy has improved during the past year. This is quite right. Increased exports and fortuitous sales of wheat to China and the Soviet union have given our economy a shot in the arm with the result that this has improved our balance of payments position and has reduced slightly the total number of unemployed.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that there are two factors which we must not overlook. The first is that this economic growth has been erratic and promises to be sporadic. In the three years prior to 1962 our economy was virtually at a standstill. In 1962 the gross national product, in real terms, rose by 6 per cent. All the figures are not in for 1963, but the latest estimate is that the gross national product in 1963 will have grown by 4J per cent. The national industrial conference board, as reported in the Financial Post, estimates that in this year 1964 the gross national product in real terms will rise 3.1 per cent. My own feeling is that this is too low an estimate, and I think it will be higher. But the important thing to realize is that there is nothing in the speech from the throne and nothing in any action taken by the government that will introduce fundamental policies to provide for a steady and sustained economic growth and full employment.
The other thing we have to keep in mind is that unemployment has not dropped correspondingly with any increase in economic
The Address-Mr. Douglas activity. We find that in 1961 the average unemployment throughout the year was 7.2 per cent of the labour force. In 1962 this had dropped to 6 per cent and in 1963 the average for the year was 5.6 per cent. At mid-January of this year there were 466,000 unemployed, or 7 per cent of the labour force. But this was not distributed very evenly. It consisted of 9.1 per cent of the labour force in Quebec and 12.6 per cent of the labour force in the Atlantic provinces. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an economy in which on the national average one person in 15 is walking the streets, and in Quebec almost one person in ten and in the Atlantic provinces one person in eight is out of a job, is an economy that ought to give us some concern.
I suggest that the government has never really come to grips with the root of the problem of insufficient economic growth and unemployment. We have been poking around at the edge of it. We have not even got close to the root causes. We in this party suggest that the problem does not lie primarily in production. We have in Canada idle men, idle plants, idle resources. Our major problem is the inability of large sections of our population to purchase the goods which our economy is capable of producing.
One of the outstanding economists in the world, certainly one of the best on this continent, is Leon Keyserling, who was one of Roosevelt's young braintrusters and was later chairman of the economic advisory council to President Truman. Just recently he has written an article in "New University Thought", and I want to quote some of the things he says because they constitute a keen analysis of our North American economy. He said this:
We don't have a production problem In the United States: we have a distribution problem. We will never make any sizeable progress against the unemployment problem.. .unless we recognize that the reason for the unemployment problem, the cause of the unemployment problem, is the bad distribution of income.
He goes on to point out that in the United States there are 38 million people living in a state of poverty and another 39 million people living in a state of deprivation, or two fifths of the population of the United States who are living below a decent standard of living.
If we take the trouble to look at Canada we will see that there is some similarity. The latest year for which income tax figures are available is 1961. We find that in that year the total labour force was 6,518,000, and that of that number more than two million or about 30 per cent did not earn enough to pay income tax. Of the 4J million who are left, the top 25 per cent received nearly 45 per cent of the total income after paying

The Address-Mr. Douglas their taxes and the bottom 25 per cent of the income taxpayers received less than 12 per cent of the total income after they had paid their taxes.
Fifty five per cent of the income taxpayers did not earn $4,000 a year, and 34 per cent did not earn $3,000 a year. Thirty four per cent of the 44 million is roughly li million. If you add to that the two million who did not pay income tax at all, if you add their wives and children, if you add the unemployed, the old age pensioners who have very little other income beside their pensions, widows and their children, the small farmers and the fishermen whose incomes are low, it is probably not too large an estimate to say that there are between seven million and eight million people in Canada who are living either on or below the borderline of poverty. Two fifths of the nation is living below a decent subsistence level.
We in this party say that the time has come for the government to mount a massive assault, and make a declaration of war against poverty. In such a war we will find that our economic interests and our humanitarian instincts coincide, because any war on poverty will turn out not only to be good economics but also to be good social ethics. If I may quote Keyserling again, he says in his article that "the best kind of attack on poverty is full employment and economic growth. The only way to get full employment and high economic growth is to make a massive attack on poverty. There is no distinction between the two problems."
It is interesting to note that President Johnson in his state of union message to congress said this:
This administration, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.
Last week, speaking in New York, President Johnson said that "A nation that cannot care for the many who are poor will not have the strength to care for the few who are rich."
We are not suggesting a share the wealth program. What we are suggesting is a distribution of our idle capacity to meet the needs of a large segment of our population who live in fear and insecurity. Professor Keyserling suggests that in the United States there is idle potential capacity of between $60 billion and $75 billion. Estimates have been made by economists in this country that the potential here is between $4 billion and $7 billion. We submit that to put idle people to work in idle plants and on idle resources with a potential production of between $4 billion and $7 billion a year in goods and

services would adequately provide for enlarged educational institutions, for the building of hospitals, for getting rid of slums, building good homes, urban renewal, and the things that this country needs. You can have not only poverty of individuals but communities can have social poverty, they can have collective poverty. We need to make an assault on poverty within our entire country.
I should like to suggest briefly the five things we have advocated in our program as being the best way to wage war on poverty in Canada:
1.	To improve our social security measures. Keyserling said in his article that we need to direct a larger part of our national income to those who consume. Social security measures are not only humanitarian, they not only consist of trying to be our brother's keeper, but in economic terms they are important because they redistribute income and help to maintain purchasing power. They therefore help to maintain full employment.
2.	Higher wages. We do not believe that wages should grow faster than productivity. In recent years, for most industries, wages have lagged behind productive gains. When people speak of wage increases being disastrous they fail to recognize that unless there are increased wages there cannot be increased consumption.
3.	We say we ought to have higher incomes for small farmers and fishermen and such self employed people whose incomes are inadequate.
4.	We think there ought to be the right kind of tax reductions. Tax reductions aimed at the rich who do not need them will not increase the consumption of consumer goods. If we are to have tax reductions, they ought to be tax reductions for the low and middle income groups who will use this additional money in order to purchase consumer goods.
5.	We say that one of the best ways to wage war on poverty is by a massive public spending program to provide schools, technical institutes, university facilities, and to provide the retraining which is necessary for easing the pressure of structural unemployment.
It is known by every member of this house, Mr. Speaker, that Canada faces an educational crisis; that we are competing in a world in which scientific training, research and technical know-how are important if this country is to survive. According to the last available figures, out of every 100 children who started in grade 1 only 14 got to the last year in high school, and fewer than five got to the last year in university. No country can really be great in this scientific age unless it

trains more scientists, more research people, more engineers, more architects, more doctors, more nurses and more teachers, in order to fit more of our people to take their place in a highly automated society in this era of cybernation.
We are told by the best educational authorities that in the next three decades we shall have to double or treble our university and high school facilities. Unless we do this we will fall behind into the backwaters of the world. We shall obtain, by making war on poverty, by massive public spending, the increase in our educational facilities necessary to harness the scientific revolution for the purpose of increasing production, raising living standards, providing social security, and giving to our people a chance to enjoy the good life.
I know, of course, that someone is going to immediately say, if you talk about spending where are you going to get the money to do this spending? I am sure members have seen the report of the O.E.C.D., the organization for economic co-operation and development. I should like to quote from the Globe and Mail for February 7, and the date line is Ottawa. The article reads in part as follows:
Although the business tempo has stepped up in recent years, the stimulus of higher budget deficits may be required to bring about full employment in Canada, the organization for economic co-operation and development has suggested following a second look at the Canadian economy.
Farther down the article reads:
The time may come when the Canadian authorities would wish to inject a more direct stimulus to domestic demand.
This is exactly what we are saying, that the problem is to balance consumption with production, not to balance figures in a book. The problem is to balance the economy so that it provides full employment for every ablebodied person so that we provide sufficient demand for the volume of consumer goods which we are capable of producing.
Mr. Speaker, we think that Canada should be launching an all out war against poverty. That is why, when we look at the speech from the throne, we are a little disappointed that it has nothing to say about this very important matter.
Yesterday the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said I had been telling people for 25 years that the Liberal party was not a genuinely progressive party, and he refuted my statement by saying "Look at the speech from the throne; it is bringing down a labour code with a minimum wage and with some minimum provisions to protect the workers who come under federal jurisdiction". Mr. Speaker, the pledge to give the workers of Canada a national labour code was made by the Liberal party in its 20220-6
The Address-Mr. Douglas convention of 1919, 45 years ago; and now, when it looks like it is going to deliver what it promised after 45 years, the hon. member wants me to crown its members with a laurel wreath for finally getting around to it. As a matter of fact I strongly suspect that if the government were not in a minority position we might not even be getting this, 45 years later.
I want to know where is the government's program for economic recovery. One of the things that was promised in the election last year was the Canada development corporation. It was described by the Minister of Finance as the keystone in the Liberal program for economic recovery. I have the Liberal program here, and this is what it said the Canadian development corporation was for:
To finance new enterprises in Canada; to increase Canadian production and to reverse the trend toward absentee ownership of Canadian industry.
Where is it? The minister introduced it and put it on the order paper last session. Now it has been dropped. Yesterday the minister said they were' going to wait for the royal commission to report. Why did he put it on the order paper last year if he was going to wait for the commission's report? As the Financial Post said a short time ago, and I am inclined to think it right, the investment companies of this country were putting pressure on the minister with the result it is to be discarded or so badly emasculated that its own mother won't recognize it. This great keystone of economic recovery has now gone into the discard.
Then there is the Canada pension plan. Mr. Speaker, we have had three Canada pension plans. First of all we had the plan presented to the people of Canada by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the Liberal party on January 30, 1962. It was a program in which participants were to pay one half of 1 per cent of their income up to $6,000, both by the employer and the employee, and the contributory pension was to be $167 a month at age 70 after they had paid for at least 10 years.
Then on July 18 last year the Minister of National Health and Welfare brought down a plan providing for a 1 per cent contribution by employer and employee. The earnings-related benefits were to constitute 30 per cent of the amount paid up to a maximum $4,000, and at age 70 the maximum pension after contributing for 10 years would be $100 per month.
Now, on January 11, 1964 we got the third version announced by the Prime Minister, and the earnings-related benefits have been cut from 30 per cent down to 20 per cent and at age 70, providing a man has paid for 10 years or more, the maximum contributory

The Address-Mr. Douglas pension will be $75 per month. So we have gone from $167 a month to $100 a month down to $75 a month.
I want to point out that there is no excuse for cutting the benefits. The government will get more money now, under its present proposal, than under the proposal it made last July. First of all, the proposal of last July suggested that the $10 increase in old age security pension was going to come out of this fund, but now it is going to be paid out of an increase in the old age security tax. Also, the 1 per cent premium was to be on $4,000. Now it is going to be on $4,500. Therefore this plan will have more money coming into it than would have come into the plan submitted on July 18 last, yet the benefits are going to be cut and, as the Prime Minister said in writing to the provincial premiers, the cost of the plan will be reduced by at least one fifth.
Why has this change been made? We know there has been a lobby by the insurance companies, led by Mr. Kilgour, who has said "Let's raise a storm." We have seen the storm, but it has been mostly wind. We have heard the protests of the premier of Ontario, who seems to have offered himself as the spokesman for the insurance companies; but what disappoints us most is the Prime Minister's statement to the provinces when in his memorandum to the premiers he said this:
Some provincial governments have, however, put forward the view that a pension of $175 for a single person at age 70, or of $250 for a married couple at 70, in a plan with a 10 year maturity period, might incline some people to withdraw from private pension plans.
To meet this concern, the federal government is prepared to propose that the eamings-related pensions be reduced from 30 to 20 per cent of pensionable earnings.
Well, Mr. Speaker, all I want to say to the Prime Minister is that cutting the eamings-related benefits to please Premier Robarts and to please the insurance companies has not done any good at all. In spite of this appeasement they still object to the plan. I hope the Prime Minister will revert to the plan of July 18 last, put it on the statute books, and let the premier of Ontario accept the responsibility for taking the people of Ontario out of a plan that will give better benefits for the money paid than any provincial or any private plan can do. What I am saying is that I hope the Prime Minister will adopt the slogan of Admiral Dewey, "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes."
Mr. Speaker, I now want to mention another item and, if I may, move an amendment. The third item that I am disappointed to see missing from the throne speech is any mention of medicare. The Liberal party's program is a very interesting document, and it promised a medicare program that would-

-cover costs of doctors' and diagnostic services in the office, home or hospital by general practitioners, surgeons and specialists.
It goes on to say that these services will be free for children up to the time they leave school and for people over 65, and for other Canadians will cover doctors' bills above $25 per year per person.
There is a growing feeling across Canada that private plans, doctor sponsored plans and insurance company sponsored plans, cannot meet the health needs of the Canadian people. These plans have rendered a great service in the past, but they have now come to the point where the amount they must charge per family is so high that a great many of the middle income and low income groups just cannot stay in them, so that more and more people are left out; and the more people are left out, naturally the cost for those who remain in goes up. The time has come when the government, in co-operation with the provinces, has to step into the field of medicare and do in the field of medical and surgical care exactly what the governments have already done in the field of hospital care.
I therefore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the following words be added to the amendment immediately at the end thereof:
This house also regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for federal participation, in co-operation with the provinces, in a government sponsored and government operated medicare program for all Canadians.
There are some other things which are missing from this speech from the throne. There is no mention of raising the age limit for family allowances to 18 years where children are still attending school. There is no mention of the two price system for wheat, which was to give a measure of stability to prairie farmers and which was promised by the government on several occasions during the last election.
Before I sit down I should like to say a few words with reference to international affairs. I should like to express the position which this party has consistently taken, and the position upon which we stand. We believe that the government ought to recognize mainland China. We think we ought to end the farce of trying to pretend that General Chiang Kai-shek represents and speaks for the 600 million people of mainland China. We think the old excuse that we cannot recognize mainland China because it would mean accepting the concept of her sovereignty over Taiwan is not valid. We believe we can recognize the Chinese government on our own terms as being the government of mainland China, and the nationalist government as being the government of Formosa. We believe that China should be seated at the

United Nations, and that Canada's representatives in the United Nations should vote to have China so seated. There can be no nuclear disarmament or general disarmament as long as a country with 600 million people stays outside the community of nations. We cannot expect her to obey the laws of the community if we will not let her become a member of that community.
I want to repeat what I said to the Prime Minister yesterday in referring to a question, and say this. We trust the government will make no commitment to send Canadian troops to Cyprus unless those troops are under the aegis of the United Nations. We were glad to hear the Prime Minister make some statement on this point yesterday. We do not think Canada should get drawn into a power play between Great Britain, Cyprus, Turkey and Greece. If Canada is to take part in a peace keeping force then we think our troops should be there as the servants of the United Nations and not become embroiled in what could be a bitter and bloody family quarrel.
We in this group will insist that if the government is to sell uranium to France, as has been suggested in the press, it should have the necessary inspection service in order to be absolutely sure that such uranium is not used for military purposes. France is one of the few nations which have refused to sign the partial nuclear test ban agreement. Canada, which is a signatory, owes it to the other nations which are signatories to see that we do not sell uranium to any country, least of all to a country which has refused to sign a test ban agreement, unless we have the necessary facilities to make sure that the uranium is not finding its way into the hands of military forces.
I should like to tell the government that I think many people were disappointed that since parliament last met this country has acquired nuclear weapons in North Bay and La Macaza. As a matter of fact the nuclear warheads at La Macaza arrived, I understand, on New Year's eve, which I do not think was a good way to wish a happy new year to the Canadian people.
I do not intend to argue over again the trenchant case which I think can be made for Canada not becoming a nuclear power. I shall not take the time in which to do so on this occasion because the time available to me is fleeing. But I do wish to say that anything, whether nuclear arms or anything else, which ties us too closely to the United States in the present situation in the western hemisphere ought to make us pause and consider. There is the situation in Panama. There is the Cuban situation, in which a ridiculous embargo is being imposed on the people of Cuba because 20220-6i
The Address-Mr. Douglas the United States does not agree with their government. Only recently we heard of the farcical fishing episode in which 29 Cuban fishermen were thrown into a cell 20 feet by 25 feet in size, without bunks or chairs, and charged with an offence under a state ordinance of fishing without a licence. This was done in complete violation of international law. As one daily newspaper in this province said, when a gnat can stampede an elephant nobody is safe. We ought to be very careful that we do not tie ourselves to any program by which hysterical governments could precipitate this country into a war.
I wish to express the hope that the Prime Minister, although he accepted nuclear weapons because he thought the previous administration made a commitment-I do not think they did, but the Prime Minister is probably in possession of facts which I do not know anything about-but when he accepted those nuclear weapons he told the Canadian people he was prepared to negotiate this country out of them. I want to say to him now that should he decide to do this he will have the wholehearted support of the great majority of the Canadian people. We say to him "Start negotiating". Let us get rid of nuclear arms.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise hon. members that I have doubts as to the relevancy of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. In this connection I would refer those who are interested to citation 203 of Beauchesne, paragraphs 1 and 3 and also to citation 170(3). Technically this subamendment, it seems to me, enlarges the scope of the amendment. It does not appear to be relevant and subamendments under our rules have to be relevant. There is a provision by which the hon. member could move his subamendment as a new amendment, but only after the amendment has been disposed of. If any hon. member would care to comment I would be glad to hear him but, as I say, I have serious doubts as to whether this subamendment is in order at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might point out that it is known to some of us that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) would like to make his speech tonight. I wonder, therefore, whether consideration of this point of order could not, by mutual consent, be deferred? I am always ready to speak to a point of order, but I wonder if consideration of this one could be deferred.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is obviously my duty, as
Speaker, to call the attention of hon. members
72	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Thompson
to any irrelevant, in my opinion, subamendment. However, I am in the hands of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if we are to
defer the study of this subamendment until tomorrow


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will put the subamendment, subject to what I have said. Moved by Mr. Douglas, seconded by Mr. Her-ridge.
That the following words be added to the amendment, immediately at the end thereof:
"This house also regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for federal participation, in co-operation with the provinces, in a government sponsored and government operated medicare program for all Canadians".
The hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for agreeing to delay the decision on the subamendment, thus permitting me to make my contribution at this time. First of all I would extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, to the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford). I likewise would extend to the new ministers and the new parliamentary secretaries my congratulations upon being appointed to their new positions.
We listened with considerable interest this afternoon to the speech of the leader of the official opposition and to that of the Prime Minister. We realized as we listened to these capable contributions that we are again back in parliament, faced with the responsibilities we were elected to cope with as members of this house.
Briefly commenting on the speech from the throne, it certainly was not the statement of progress and reform that some of us had expected and particularly hoped for. There was little evidence of the Are, enthusiasm and dynamic courage that we heard so much about prior to the government assuming office. The promise of new paths has far too quickly turned into what is apparently a decision to go along with the status quo. When the first session of this parliament assembled we were stirringly promised a government that would lead us along new paths. We were promised 60 days of action. I do not think any of us then thought that those memorable 60 days would be the only days of action of this twenty sixth parliament. None of us
[Mr. Speaker.!
dreamed, I am sure, that within a matter of a few months this picture of challenging new adventures in the field of government would be no more charged with leadership than the speech from the throne that was delivered this week.
Looking at the throne speech constructively, there are some positive points which I think are worthy of mention, even though a number of them are carryovers from the last session. It is with some degree of satisfaction that we have seen that a new defence policy is taking shape. It is also encouraging to know that the defence committee will be enabled to continue its work this session, that a white paper on defence will be laid before this house before too long, and that at last we are to have a long term defence policy. I think this is urgently needed.
It is also interesting to note that there is new interest in the working conditions and welfare of Canada's work force. Much has been said today about the announcement that interest free loans will be available to those studying in our institutions of higher learning. When speaking this afternoon the Prime Minister mentioned that this was an innovation. I am not sure that it is; the province of Alberta for many years now has carried on this policy, as has the province of Saskatchewan. However, it is a commendable step. Certainly we must make our institutions of higher education available to those who show initiative and capability and wish to further their education in these institutions.
The government has spoken very firmly with regard to the Canada pension plan. While we understand that there is a tremendous need for a permanent, positive pension scheme for the Canadian people, we recognize that one of the most important aspects of this scheme is its portability. I hope the government will not move too hastily with the Canadian pension plan, because for it to be successful it is imperative that there should be the complete agreement and co-operation of the provincial governments.
A definite assurance has been given that legislation will be introduced into this house relating to the recommendations of the Mac-Pherson report with regard to transportation, and the O'Leary report with regard to the publications industry of this country. I was particularly pleased to hear the Prime Minister state in some detail this afternoon the situation relating to our publications. Just the other day I read a report which gives the loss in advertising revenue of seven of our major Canadian magazines during 1963. Two of them have since gone out of the publications business altogether. This report shows that there has been a drop since 1962 of

nearly $1,200,000 in advertising revenue alone. I would say to you, Mr. Prime Minister, that we will give our complete support to the program outlined this afternoon, because I think it is something that is long past due and should have been introduced a couple of years ago.
We are also interested in the fact that the ratification of the Columbia river treaty will be made possible in the near future. This is one project that can give a tremendous boost to the economy of this country, and top priority must be given to it and to the decision of the government to change the boundaries of our coastal waters as they relate to fisheries and our territorial waters.
The decision to extend farm credit is something that farmers across the country will welcome. The farm credit restrictions, as they were laid down ten years ago, no longer meet the needs of our farmers today simply because of the increased cost of farming operations at every level. This is something that is also very urgently required. I also say to you, Mr. Prime Minister, that we are pleased you have taken the lead in announcing this afternoon that procedural reforms are to be discussed and, I trust, decided favourably upon, by this house. Certainly there are many ways in which we can improve the functioning of parliament and make it more efficient and effective as we go about that work which we have before us from day to day. Again, we are more than pleased to give our full co-operation to any reasonable suggestions that are made along that line.
However, what does concern me is the government's conspicuous silence on many matters of great national importance. There was no mention of the Bank Act revision, which is supposed to take place this year according to the act itself. This afternoon the Minister of Finance recommended or suggested that there will be a recommendation that this revision be postponed for a year in order to permit the royal commission on banking and finance to submit its report. That is a good suggestion if it means that we will get down to some serious thinking, with the intention of bringing about some of the changes which ought to be made in the Bank Act.
No mention has been made of any permanent legislation relating to the extension of the municipal development and loan fund. Probably there is no government level in our country so urgently in need of capital funds as our local governments. The legislation introduced last year, while it had some effect for the immediate future, certainly was no long range solution to this problem. It is essential that our social capital needs be met
The Address-Mr. Thompson not by bringing in more capital from the outside at high expense, but by using our own Bank of Canada to provide the capital for the public segment of our economy.
No mention has been made of the Canada development fund which a great number of Canadians hoped would make possible a greater participation of Canadian capital in the development of our own resources and our own industry and commerce. Nothing has been said about the new fiscal and economic approaches which I am convinced are necessary if this old system of ours, which is showing itself so weak in so many places, is to continue to function. I am reminded of the story of the man who threw out a devil and cleaned up his house; but because he did not make provision for putting something else in its place seven worse devils came in to occupy the house. It is absolutely necessary that the problems we are facing in Canada today be met with realistic and dynamic and courageous solutions if we are to expect a change in a situation which has been limping along ever since the effect of the prosperity of world war II wore off about eight or nine years ago.
This government has done well to clean up some of the administrative confusion left by the previous administration, but now it must set a firm and definite direction for the country, particularly if its fiscal and budgetary policies let Canada's economy slip back to an even more difficult position than it was in in the past, and which we tend to neglect because we see that at the present we have a fairly prosperous year ahead of us. Positive and courageous action is necessary if Canada is to keep moving forward.
The motto that is hung before our eyes at the present time spells out in words of one syllable "Don't rock the boat". The cold war is said to be thawing. The economic situation seems to be improving. Action on our part is at least as likely to make matters worse or better. We should forget stout leadership and carry on housekeeping. I do not think that is good enough, even though in itself it is desirable. This humility on the part of the government is commendable; but it is a government that won an election campaign, or at least won a larger membership than any of the other parties, by criticizing the devaluation of the dollar and is now steadily maintaining that same policy. Where are the new paths? What are the new paths? Are there any new paths? This nation would like to know.
Canadians look to this parliament to give the leadership which will reaffirm our own stability and solidarity, both politically and economically. Our responsibilities begin for each of us here in this house. As members of

The Address-Mr. Thompson the opposition and of the government in a house of minorities there is a peculiar responsibility placed on each one of us which is not so evident or perhaps so needful in the case of a large majority. It is in this particular situation that all of us carry a load of responsibility to the people of Canada whom we represent.
All of this adds up to the simple fact, which I think each one of us admits, that Canada is at the crossroads. We have just three years left before our centennial, and in those three years there is a great deal that must be done if our centennial is going to be worth celebrating. We must ask ourselves, what is Canada? What do we want Canada to be? It has been said that Canada is a nation without a purpose, full of quarrelling and disunity. If this is so, then we must have faith in our future before we can take the right action today.
Therefore I think this parliament's top priority must be predominantly domestic, simply because our most important problems are right here. Too often we speak in negatives. We are happy we are not Americans; we are equally happy we are not British; but too seldom we are nothing in our negative approach. I am concerned because we do not have any real awareness of nationalistic feelings. Some tell us that Canada needs a rebirth of that spirit which existed 100 years ago; that we must return to the partnership which originated confederation. But I ask this house and every Canadian, what is that spirit?
If we go back and study the debates which took place at the Quebec conferences of 1864, and refer to the discussions and debates which continued through to confederation in 1867, we will find that there were two basic purposes behind the discussions of the fathers of confederation. One was simply that there was going to be a nation called Canada, independent of the United States, independent ultimately of any colonial connection with the mother countries across the Atlantic. The American civil war was just in its final stages, and there was the fear that this tremendous military might which was represented in the victorious part of the United States would look northward and want to take in Canada. So they wanted to be a country. This is something we want to be today much more than we are speaking or even thinking about.
The second predominant thought, it seemed to me on reading through those debates, that record of what was the thinking of those fathers of confederation, was that they wanted to give a guarantee to the minorities, whoever they were and wherever they were to be found. This is something which today, is underneath the disunity and unrest which
[Mr. Thompson.!
exists in our nation, simply because too many are afraid of those rights and privileges which we regard as essential in a democracy to a minority. What is necessary for us to do is to come back to basic essentials. We must establish a horizontal base across our nation on which our provinces can rest. There is no sense in talking about provincial autonomy unless there is a sense of national responsibility first, unless there is across the country a solid foundation to make Canada a nation, then any vertical divisions into which we might cut ourselves will amount to nothing at all.
I believe the question can be summed up briefly by saying that we need a new awareness of national responsibility and a new guarantee of provincial autonomy; that we need not just platitudes but action. There has been too much talk. What we need now is something which will prove that we mean what our words have said.
I submit that legislation alone will never bring this about. The scriptures say "The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life". That is something which was very real and evident to the fathers of confederation. Perhaps one of those who 100 years ago understood this best was Hon. George Brown. He was a man of strong religious convictions who did not pretend to understand those with whom he willingly entered into confederation. With a spirit of vision he said:
Our scheme is to establish a government which will seek to turn the tide of European emigration into this northern half of the American continent -which will strive to develop its great natural resources-and which will endeavour to maintain liberty, and justice, and Christianity throughout the land.
Yes, facing facts realistically one might say it is true things are not so bad. The F.L.Q. is less active than it was. Nobody has dynamited any bridges or armouries of late. On the other hand, enough firearms and ammunition have been stolen in well planned armoury raids in the last few weeks to enable some people to cause a great deal of trouble at an appropriate time.
I do not think, however, that the long term future of the province of Quebec or any province has come any nearer to a solution. Rather I feel that there has been a hardening of attitudes in Quebec and in other parts of Canada as well. Therefore the time has come when by action we should lay down what is the responsible attitude to the nation at large, and a guarantee at the same time to the provinces of the autonomy which they regard and respect.
The Prime Minister has talked eloquently tonight about what is necessary in Canada at this time. If these are the sentiments of

the government then I think we can all agree with them. But they carry with them the responsibility to put those sentiments into actual effect and practice. We are troubled, we say, because Canada seems to be a country without unity. Yet how can men be united except they have some common purpose to hold them together? How can we plan lor the future and invest and work today to make those plans come true unless we know the sort of future that we, the Canadian people, are planning for ourselves through our elected representatives in parliament?
It is time that we as a nation realized the simple economic power of a strong desire to be a nation that knows what it wants. The communist nations of the world know well enough what they want. Year after year for the past 20 years, if not longer, we have seen them slowly and steadily achieving their aims, creeping like an evil fungus across the globe. We knew it in wartime. At the first outbreak of hostilities Canada's unemployment began to disappear like magic. Our factories, our mines and our people started working together as never before. Provincial and federal governments worked together in a common cause against a common enemy.
Why can we not fight like that in peacetime for those things that we say we believe in? If we would take an idea like this to heart we could make Canada's centennial a year of rejoicing across the whole globe.
As we look from this base, Canada, at the world we can understand that the world also is in turmoil. The prime minister of the United Kingdom during his visit a few days ago said that he thought the cold war was over, and that we should now be trying to convince the communist countries to cease their subversive activities and local wars. I say it would take a well trained ostrich to be really hopeful for a world in which the President of the United States was assassinated by a self confessed Marxist on November 22 last, and in which revolutions and disturbances against established forms of government taking place every week since then in Panama, Viet Nam and Cyprus in the northern hemisphere and along a strategic line across Africa around the 10th parallel of latitude south of the equator in Zanzibar, Tanganyika, Ruanda, the Congo and Gabon, all in a short period of less than two months.
Thus we do have a responsibility abroad as well. It was good to hear the leader of the official opposition and the Prime Minister refer to the commonwealth. It seems that all too often the commonwealth is something that we relegate to the upstairs attic. I am convinced that if we really want to make the commonwealth work as a team it could be
The Address-Mr. Thompson much an influence for good today in the world such as the British empire was 50 or 100 years ago. But we have to do something to convince ourselves of that. It is interesting to note that we are going to have a commonwealth conference here in Canada this summer. I think it might be a good suggestion to make to the Prime Minister that, as far as Canada is concerned, he make participation in the commonwealth conference completely non-partisan by bringing all parties into the discussions, so that we may come back to the realization that the commonwealth has yet a very important part to play.
I think we should be very careful about judging our country's welfare all the time simply by reference to abstract statistics such as the rate of economic growth. Economics can be a very good servant for men, but it can also be a very bad master. Our frenzied pursuit of a higher and higher gross national product is really nothing less than a glorification of more and more human effort, quite apart from whether that effort is well or badly directed, whether it is useful or whether it is just the effort of two men tugging at opposite ends of a rope in a tug of war.
We tend to worship statistics today when we should be thinking about people. We should be thinking about people at home and abroad; and when we do think about them, their daily worries, their debts, their incomes, their jobs, their need for more food, better clothing and better housing. I think we are at last forced to shake off our complacency. We are a rich country with more food than we know what to do with, a vast construction industry working well below capacity, and a textile industry not working full time while keeping our foreign clothing import quota. Yet at the same time some 40 per cent of our Canadan people are living below the poverty line in actual need of better food, better clothing and better shelter. Is this the climate in which we are letting complacency prevail?
The burning question today so far as our economy is concerned is summed up in the problem of automation. Here is a tool that can bring man wealth beyond him dreams, and all we do is worry about what it does in taking away employment. We shackle automation to try to make it conform to an economic system of the horse and buggy age. This cannot go on forever. Automation is too strong for it.
The mistake of our economic system today, one mistake at any rate, is that although production comes from a combination of land, labour and capital, and in this combination labour is going to become progressively less important, we still expect 95 per cent of our population to gain their living from nothing else than the sale of their labour. To do this

The Address-Mr. Thompson even up to the present point has led to terrible distortions in our economic system. We build houses at the worst time of the winter to maintain employment. We try to move industries to uneconomic locations, again to keep up employment. I am waiting for the day when it is moved in this house to authorize the federal government to pay farmers a special subsidy of $50 a ton on potatoes provided they are grown between the months of November and March. It might certainly keep up employment for the farmers.
I say this not because I lack sympathy in any way for the unemployed. I say it because we are attempting to bend our economic system in an entirely impossible direction. Sooner or later we are going to reach the breaking point.
I just have a few more remarks to make, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder whether the house would grant me the privilege of continuing.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you. What we
should be doing is taking a long, hard look at the ownership of land and the ownership of capital in this country. We should be finding out who is receiving the unearned income from these sources. We should be seeing that the average man in the street is receiving a fair income not only from his labour but from his nation's capital and its natural resources. This is what the Social Credit provincial governments of this country are striving to do as much as is within their power, and I commend them for it. This is what the national government of Canada should be striving to do as well.
I think we have to face up to the fact that the economic system we inherited from our forefathers is at the point of breaking down. It came to us from an age of scarcity. We live in an age of abundance. The economic question of our time is, by what means is this abundance to be distributed? Our present system certainly is not doing it satisfactorily.
There are two possible answers. There is the one toward which we are actually drifting in this country at the present time. It is the answer that the state starts distributing all needed services to the citizens free, that is by taking away a progressively greater share of income by taxation. In the end the man in the street finds that the state takes everything and provides everything in the form of free services, that is soup kitchens, medical plans and handouts in every shape and form. In effect this is to abandon the money system altogether, and so abandon one of the finest instruments mankind has


ever devised for obtaining individual and personal satisfaction of his wants, no matter what they may be.
The other choice, and it is the one our party favours, is to adapt our financial system to work in this new age of plenty that is upon us. There is no middle ground to tread between these different policies, and I make no bones about expecting them to form the dividing line of the two party system in this parliament some time in the future. The question is, are we to master the economic machine we have created or let it master us? Are we to bask in the sunshine of economic prosperity or button our coats to economic adversity, as if economic trends were as uncontrollable as the weather? If we do we are making a big mistake, because the workings of our economic system obey understandable rules. Man has made the system, and man can control it if he has the will.
It is a question of will, because many in this country do not have the will to see things changed. They sit at the top of the heap and cannot see the misery underneath. They hold the reins of financial power over governments and citizens alike and see no reason for change. When we reflect on the economic miracles that can take place so easily in wartime, is it not time we caught a vision of what a genuine war to end want on a world scale would really be like? Is it not time we caught a vision of Canadian task forces in all parts of the globe bringing techniques of the twentieth century to nations that are now underprivileged and in want? I do not believe we realize in the least the power for good that Canada could be in this world at the present time. It is not so much a matter of immense expenditures as of having the right men available with the right ideas at the right times. With the right amount of organization and good will we could make Canada's centennial year a blessing to the whole world and set back the advancement of communism a thousand years.
We meet here once again in parliament with a minority government. I believe that this, too, places a clear choice upon us as members of the House of Commons. We are a representative cross-section of the Canadian people at the present time, with all the conflicts of interest, special concerns and differences of policy that characterize the Canadian people outside this chamber. One choice we have is to determinedly learn to carry out the task our country has sent us here to do, that is to act as advisers to Her Majesty in carrying on the government of this country. Our other choice is to confess our unwillingness or our inability to do this, and ask the nation once again to replace us.

It remains my firm belief that this minority parliament can provide good government for Canada, better government in fact than is being achieved at this time or than would be achieved by an over-all majority. In the complex task of deciding on our nation's future, I believe it is providential that we are in a situation where every voice must be heard and considered and where the views of the minority cannot be swept aside.
I believe that the immense strides forward that have been taken in this house during the past year toward meeting and mastering the problems of defence are only an indication of what can be achieved when members meet, not as politicians but as Canadians in a serious endeavour to understand the problems and do what is best for their country. I hope it will be possible to extend this spirit of constructive, forward thinking into other fields during the coming year. Let us achieve this, avoiding unnecessary partisanship and this may yet prove to be one of the finest parliaments Canada has ever had.


Mr. Speaker:: In the past few minutes I have had an opportunity to consider the subamendment. I must point out to all hon.
Business of the House members that in the past considerable latitude has been given on the address. I have considerable doubts as to the relevancy of the subamendment, yet at this late hour it may be rather discriminating against the possibility of the various groups putting their points of view before the house if the subamendment is ruled out of order, so in the circumstances I will accept the subamendment.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, we might not recognize the new house leader, who is alleged to be completely non-partisan and who is reputed to be a non-controversial figure. Does the government intend to carry on this debate on the address to its completion without interruption?


Guy Favreau: Now that I am in order, Mr. Speaker, I will say yes, the government intends to carry on tomorrow with the leaders' speeches and then with the debate on the address.
It being eight minutes after ten o'clock the-house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, February 21, 1964