1964-02-28

Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I should like to lay on the table of the house copies in English and in French of the Prime Minister's letter of February 25, 1964 to Hon. John Robarts on the subject of pensions.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the hon. gentleman also table the letter from Premier Robarts?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I shall be glad to look into that.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: I am rising, Mr. Speaker, on a good point of order. A respected citizen of Canada, Mr. Eli Lindsay of Arborfleld, Saskatchewan, is today celebrating his 105th birthday anniversary. I am sure Your Honour and the house would like to be associated with Her Majesty the Queen in congratulating Mr. Lindsay and wishing him good health and happiness in the years to come.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the house joins with me in supporting this expression of congratulations to this distinguished Canadian. While we are doing that, and in the spirit of this ecumenical movement, may I say to the hon. member for Kootenay West that the house joins me m congratulating him on his birthday anniversary today.



MR. CHOQUETTE    REMARKS IN DEBATE BY MEMBER FOR THREE RIVERS

Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege hoping that the house will be kind enough to allow me to clear up a situation which is very important these days.
I am referring to page 309 of Hansard, which reports the speech made by the hon.
member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). In the course of his remarks, the hon. member put me among the extremists, saying: [Text]
The future of our ethnic group can certainly not be left in the hands of extremists like the Liberal member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who never fails to insult English speaking Canadians in what is dearest to them.

Mr. Speaker, that is an opinion, yet I cannot but rise on a question of privilege because there is no doubt that such a statement is injurious to me.
Mr. Speaker, never did I use words that could insult any of the ethnic groups which make up the Canadian nation. Never did I speak outrageous words about the person of our very gracious sovereign Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will very objectively give a few dates that will explain my position_____


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do think the interests of the hon. member will be sufficiently served if he raises his point of privilege briefly, succinctly and leaves the quotations in the record where we may look at them ourselves, and perhaps enjoy them.


Mr. Fairweafher:: Perhaps he might start by singing "God Save the Queen".


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the general tone of some of the speeches made here has tended to create a certain atmosphere these last few days, and that is what I want to dispel before all the house.
In no way whatever do I wish my name to be associated with that of Marcel Chaput, whom I consider to be one of the most harmful politicians of this decade.
I say, as regards the statements I may have
made concerning Canadian sovereignty______and
I am not afraid of repeating it-that I have a right to be 100 per cent Canadian, and it is with that in mind that I made my statements.
If Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II comes to Quebec, she must be welcomed with all

Inquiries of the Ministry the honours and the consideration due to a chief of state, but this should not prevent anybody from thinking as a Canadian and wishing that all symbolic ties of colonialism be some day set aside so that Canada can be essentially Canadian.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Following the remarks of the hon. gentleman in natural sequence, I now ask the Minister of Justice whether he is in a position to advise the house if he has secured a copy of the remarks by Mr. Chaput. Has there been an examination made by the law officers of the crown in this regard? Yesterday the minister pointed out how anxious he was to have action taken to meet the situation.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions over the telephone with Hon. F. M. Cass, attorney general of Ontario, yesterday and this morning. My officials and those of Mr. Cass' department have had conferences together.
After full consultation and study of the relevant parts of the transcript of the speech made by Mr. Chaput before the Young Men's Canadian club in Toronto on Monday, February 24, as taken from a tape recording of that speech, both Mr. Cass and I-and I have been authorized by him to state so-are satisfied that no charge can be entertained under the treason provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. These are the only provisions under which the time limitation of six days for laying an information, which has been alluded to by one of the hon. gentlemen in this house, is imposed.
As to other aspects or implications from the standpoint of criminal law, the attorney general of Ontario is now pursuing his study, and I think that it would be improper for me to comment, at least until such time as the attorney general of Ontario, who is charged with the administration of justice in his province where the alleged utterances were made, has given his final consideration to the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his statement. I ask him now the question that he has not answered. Have the law officers of his department been asked to examine the words used with a view to ascertaining whether they constitute not treason but sedition?


Guy Favreau: With all the respect which I have for the right hon. gentleman, I must
[Mr. Choquette.l

give the same answer I gave a few minutes ago, namely that in view of the fact that the attorney general of the province is completing his study of all the other implications it would in my opinion be improper for me as Attorney General for Canada to comment further.
I might add, however, for the information of the right hon. gentleman, that I have had occasion myself-and this is as far as I can go for the moment-to listen to the relevant parts of the tape recording in the presence of my officials and of certain members of the R.C.M.P. who under my instructions, had obtained the tape recording from a member of the club, in Toronto.
I might add also-and this is of great importance, I think, in the consideration of this matter-that the whole speech, including the question period, lasts one hour and 20 minutes and that the excerpts or alleged excerpts, on the basis of which the report was made, consisted of three paragraphs. I believe the house would agree that in the circumstances it would be improper for me to comment further.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: I had wished to direct a question to the Prime Minister, but in his absence may I direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has consideration been given to the sale of uranium to France? If so, would the minister tell the house what provisions are being inserted in any such agreement to ensure that any uranium sold to France will not be used for military purposes in the light of the fact that France is not a signatory to the test ban agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Beyond saying that Canada, as a member of the international atomic energy agency, is interested in the establishment of proper safeguards consistent with the statutes of that agency, I would prefer to give further consideration to this question and, perhaps, make a more detailed reply later.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I had
intended to address this question to the Prime Minister, but in his absence I address it to

the Secretary of State. Does the hon. gentleman not consider it an unfair commercial practice that a foreign owned periodical in Canada should be permitted to dump millions of dollars worth of editorial material into the Canadian scene?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: I will refer that question to the Prime Minister.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: I should have liked to address this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Perhaps in his absence the Minister of Finance would answer. Does the hon. gentleman anticipate any recession in the Canadian economy similar to that predicted yesterday for the British and European business world by Sir John Wedgewood in an interview with Mr. Fraser Robertson of the Globe and Mail?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Canadians think the prospects for this country are very bright indeed. Among other things, unemployment is lower than it has been for years, and the prospects for 1964 are excellent.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand, then, that the minister has not received any studies or information of the kind suggested by Sir John Wedgewood?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: From the report I read in the newspaper this morning I thought Sir John Wedgewood was talking about the situation as he sees it in the United Kingdom, and I wondered whether in so doing he was perhaps a little concerned about an election that might be taking place there in the near future.


An hon. Member:: What about an election in Canada?



MEASURES TO ASSIST THOSE RECEIVING LOW INCOMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Prime Minister but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
According to this morning's edition of he Devoir, more than one quarter of Canadian adults earned less than $1,000 in 1961.
Could the Acting Prime Minister inform the house as to whether he intends to take
Inquiries of the Ministry steps to remedy such an intolerable and alarming situation and, if so, what steps will he take?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and the Prime Minister will undoubtedly answer it next week.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is one consideration that never enters into the thinking of this house. May I ask the Minister of Finance, who is in an unusually expansive mood this morning, to answer this question. In view of an increase of $80 million in imported automobile parts in the first ten months of 1963, according to the latest d.b.s. release, and an increase of $4,300,000 in November alone, is the minister now prepared to make modifications as suggested by the auto parts manufacturers, and I hope joined in by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), in order to produce a plan that will help rather than hurt Canadian industry?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I was not too sure whether that was a speech or a question but I think there is not much doubt that the policies to which the right hon. gentleman referred are working out extraordinarily well for the Canadian economy and for the employees in these industries. As far as we are concerned we are very pleased with them.



PRESENTATION RESPECTING FILM INDUSTRY IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a further answer to the question put earlier this week by the hon. member for Port Arthur concerning a brief sent to me, giving 22 reasons why the government of Canada should encourage the establishment of a feature film industry and concern itself with present means of Canadian distribution and exhibition of feature films.
I want to tell my hon. friend that I have now seen and studied this brief, and have written a reply to Mr. Claude Jutra, president of the association professionnelle des cineastes, who sent the brief.
A while ago the government set up an interdepartmental committee under the

Inquiries of the Ministry chairmanship of the commissioner of the national film board to study the possible development of a feature film industry in Canada. I will send the association's brief to this committee for their attention. The government will have no further plans or policy to announce on this subject until we receive the report of that committee.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week, as reported at page 260 of Hansard, the Prime Minister answered a question of mine by saying that by Friday he hoped to indicate the priority of government business for next week. In the absence of the Prime Minister I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister or the house leader can give us this list of business.


Guy Favreau: If the house pleases, Mr. Speaker, I am ready to do that now. Beginning Tuesday next the first order of business we propose to deal with is the resolution referring the Columbia river treaty and protocol to the standing committee on external affairs. We will then proceed with the government's motion to set up the special committee on procedure; then the motion of the government to set up the special committee on defence, the motion of the government to set up the special committee on food and drugs, we will then take the proceedings to establish the joint committee on consumer credit.
After that we will be proceeding with the electoral boundaries readjustment bill, following which we will take the resolution introducing a measure to amend the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act to authorize the appointment of one additional judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada; that is, to authorize a judge of the exchequer court to discharge the duties of the commissioner of divorce. Then we will proceed with the resolution preceding the bill providing for the Canada pension plan, following which we will be taking the resolution to introduce the measure to provide for the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
May I ask the leader of the house whether, before the pension plan is introduced, a copy of the bill on the same subject to be introduced in the Quebec legislature could be
[Mr. Lamontagne.l

made available to members of the house? The present government should either wait until the Quebec government introduces its bill, or the leader of the house could ask for a copy so that hon. members may study it.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the normal procedure will be followed. The government intends to avoid any unnecessary delay in the introduction of the resolution concerning the Canada pension plan.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, in his capacity as leader of the house. Inasmuch as two bills will be presented with respect to pension plans, one by the Quebec government and the other by the federal government, besides perhaps another, can the leader of the house, in order to facilitate the work of the 75 members from Quebec give us the assurance that we will have the opportunity of seeing both measures, before the federal bill is put before this house?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, of course we have not seen the text of the Quebec pension plan which, I understand, has not been tabled as yet; so at least one part of the question of the hon. member for Lapointe might be directed to those who are responsible for the activities of another government, instead of to me.
However, insofar as we may be able to obtain the text which contains the provisions of the Quebec pension plan, we will do so, but, I repeat, the government intends to proceed with all appropriate consultations, but without undue delay.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the house leader. Could the hon. gentleman take the necessary steps with the Quebec provincial government to facilitate the task of the 75 members from Quebec in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not
think this question is in order.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as leader of the house. In view of his announcement this morning that the special committee on defence is to be reappointed, may I ask the hon. gentleman if it is the government's intention, in connection with the resolution to reappoint the committee, that the recommendation contained in the interim report

Inquiries of the Ministry of that committee shall be acceded to and I should like to express a view until we have the committee would be empowered to em- received the report of the royal commission ploy technical assistance?	on banking and finance.


Guy Favreau: For the moment I can announce only the government's intention to set up the committee. I am not in a position today to comment further.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister say whether the government has set any policy in regard to applications for bank charters, which are being submitted in increasing numbers?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the Bank Act provides for that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the question I just posed to the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask him, in view of the announcement made earlier that the revision of the Bank Act would probably be deferred until the report of the royal commission is received, whether he can say if he will take any measures to defer the applications for bank charters which are presently being submitted to the government agency.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for giving me a slightly different version of the question that has just been put, and perhaps I might answer them both together.
I have indicated publicly that the government is not opposed to further competition in the banking field providing that any new bank is adequately financed and is supported by financially responsible people, and that provision is made for retaining control in Canada. The government has not given its endorsement to any application for the incorporation of any bank which may be made, as I mentioned a moment ago, pursuant to the rules laid down in the Bank Act, the procedure following its normal course.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. What provisions to ensure the retention of Canadian ownership of any new chartered bank has the minister in mind?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will make that clear at the appropriate time. I do not think



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Possibly he has not yet had an opportunity to acquaint himself with this aspect, but I should like to ask him whether consideration has been completed and a decision arrived at with regard to the request contained in the brief of the distributive trades advisory committee that the government set up a marketing advisory council and repeal section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act.


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



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster asked a question last Wednesday which is reported at page 258 of Hansard. The answer is that we have no proposals with respect to Shaughnessy hospital, and none is contemplated at present.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Minister of National Defence can provide answers to the questions asked by me yesterday, as found on page 282 of Hansard. Among other things I asked him in how many cases following searches have the arms been returned. Second, what happened in Windsor?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister certainly should be able to answer now with assistance from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Finally, would the minister advise whether these sensitive areas are located in all provinces, in view of the fact that yesterday he stated he would not tell us which areas were sensitive, a matter to which we will come back shortly?
348	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not yet have answers available to the first two questions. In respect of the third question, I understand there will be a question on the order paper in relation to this matter and it will be answered in the normal course.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday the hon. gentleman gave an answer that was in contempt of parliament, and now he is trying to shift and say he will not answer the question now but will wait until it is on the order paper. Yesterday I asked him this question:
Would the minister table a list tomorrow of the areas that have been designated as sensitive and would he at the same time give us a list of those areas that were considered sensitive but which have now become-
It says "anomalous" in Hansard but I used the minister's own word and it should be "anomalies". The house has a right to this information, and I rise to urge most strongly that no minister has a right to answer in this way and thus postpone giving an answer to a question that must be answered now and with respect to which we cannot wait for the answer in view of the fact that the government has acted so improperly in so many ways.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, unlike the right hon. gentleman I take this matter seriously, because I think it is serious.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think it would be in the public interest to spell out those areas which are considered sensitive, and I have no intention of doing so.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot challenge the minister when he says it is not in the public interest, although I believe it is the political interest of the government he is thinking about. I ask this question. What happened in Windsor? Can he answer that? Did Paul tell Paul what should be done?


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is he now in a position to answer my question of yesterday, in which I inquired under what authority a sub-lieutenant of the Royal Canadian Navy ordered a reporter and photographer of the Thompson press that pictures taken in Woodstock, Ontario, during the removal of rifles from the local sea cadet unit could not be published until a later date? At the same time I would like to express my thanks to the minister for having the ammunition returned


to the Woodstock collegiate this morning, the ammunition which was removed earlier this week.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there was no order sent out from headquarters or, so far as I know, from any regional unit, but I would be glad if my hon. friend would give complete details of this to me so I could look into it.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Have any arrests been made or informations laid with respect to the break-ins at the various armouries in Quebec?


Guy Favreau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that for the moment I am not aware that there have been any.


Erik Nielsen: Then I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence, and I ask him whether any arrests have been made or charges laid under the National Defence Act in regard to service personnel, in connection with these break-ins?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



POLICY RESPECTING CONTINUATION OF NAVAL RESERVE UNITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Associate Minister of National Defence indicated that he might have a statement today with respect to certain naval stations, and I wonder whether the minister is in a position to make any comment about that matter at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dan-forth.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have directed my question to the Minister of National Defence in the absence of the associate minister. Is the minister in a position to make any statement about this matter?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the decision which has been taken is that the two divisions on the coasts, H.M.C.S. Malahat and H.M.C.S. Scotian, will be kept in operation. The two air squadrons and H.M.C.S. Chatham will be disbanded, and the other four divisions will be considered in two or three months' time when the Suttie report is at hand and the matter can be considered in the light of that report.


Frank Howard: I do not wish to prolong this question period unduly, but since the associate minister of defence is here I should like to pose a question to him which was asked on Wednesday last, as reported at page 252 of Hansard.
Replying to that question, the hon. gentleman said there would be a meeting on Friday among himself, the Minister of National Defence and the two committees of the R.C.A.F. reserves and the Royal Canadian Navy reserves, at which time a decision would be taken and it would be possible to make known to the house the over-all decisions reached by the Department of National Defence relating to the proposed closing of certain stations.
A few moments ago I asked the Minister of National Defence a question about this matter, and he preceded his answer by saying "I think" that such and such is the case. I wonder if the associate minister, inasmuch as he answered the original question put to him by the hon. member for Calgary North, is now able to give the house a clear and unequivocal statement about the policy of the department and the decisions reached at this meeting.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The Minister of National Defence and myself met with the committees which were set up to deal with the question of the R.C.A.F. and R.C.N. reserves. The Minister of National Defence did, I believe, answer the question concerning the Royal Canadian Navy reserves. As far as the air force is concerned I should like to make a more complete statement on Monday.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Am I to understand that of the eight naval stations which were referred to originally by the Minister of National Defence, the only one now to be closed is Chatham at Prince Rupert, and that the others are to be kept open?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker. The R.C.N. station Chatham has definitely been closed. Decisions regarding the other stations are being kept in abeyance until the final report of the Suttie commission has been received. The buildings will not be sold until the report from the commission is known.


Frank Howard: I think what the minister should have said in answer to my supplementary question was "Yes, the only one to be closed is the one at Chatham, Prince Rupert". May I ask the minister why this one station was singled out of all the rest?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes. It was felt no useful purpose would be served by keeping the station open. Only a limited amount of recruiting was possible. Both the R.C.N. and the committee which studied the question of reserves for the R.C.N. felt this was one station which could be closed immediately. Final decisions have not been reached with regard to whether the other stations are to be closed or not. They will be taken only after the results of the Suttie committee have been made known.



GOLDEN HAWKS AEROBATIC TEAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Before the Golden Hawks were disbanded they had made certain speaking commitments. One was in Peterborough at a father and son scout banquet, but now under directions from the minister's department they have cancelled this engagement. Would the department reconsider these commitments that were already made?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I understand there were several such commitments, and it was decided that rather than select one or two of those and fulfil them, in view of the fact that it would not be possible to keep them all it would be better to cancel them in all cases.



R.C.A.F.-HOUSING FOR TRANSFERRED OVERSEAS PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yesterday the hon. member for Brandon-Souris asked if any steps had been taken to meet what he termed the critical housing needs of the R.C.A.F. personnel involved in the current transfer of squadrons from Grostenquin to Zweibriiken.
I am informed that the housing situation at R.C.A.F. station Zweibriiken is not considered critical at the present time, but as additional personnel are posted there a close watch will be kept on the situation.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES REPORTED REMARK OF CO-CHAIRMAN OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a direct question to address to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Acting Prime Minister
350	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry approve of the words of Mr. Andre Lauren-deau, co-chairman of a royal commission, who wrote in Le Devoir, as quoted on page 268 of Hansard, in these terms with reference to the role of the Queen's representative in this country at the beginning of this session: -those who no longer count have a monopoly on uniforms and all the trappings?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will examine Mr. Lauren-deau's statement and I might be able to give a reply to the hon. member next week.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the very serious allegations being made by the Elizabeth Fry society relative to the location of the new women's prison in Cornwall, and to the effect that the former minister of justice promised to consult them before making this decision and broke his promise and made the decision on his own; and in view of the very serious allegation that this is out and out patronage, will the minister investigate this very serious charge and make a statement to the house early next week whether or not a minister of the crown did so break his promise?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that there never was a breach of promise, but I will be pleased to report to the house whether or not the society in question has made representations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Justice not ready to answer my question of yesterday on this subject?


Guy Favreau: Yes. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked two questions. The first was whether a decision had been taken to remove the women's prison from Kingston to Cornwall, and the answer is yes. The second question was whether there had been protests made by some university and professional people in Kingston, and the answer is yes; there have been protests from people who feel that the institution should be near a university but not necessarily in Kingston.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if the reason for moving the women's jail from Kingston to Cornwall is not political
[Mr. Pigeon.)

and on a patronage basis, what was the reason for making this decision?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian penitentiary service operates one prison for women. Since 1930 the institution has been located at Kingston, Ontario. The inmate population is, on the average, 120 females. The present building is quite unsuited for a modern program of inmate training. Almost half of the inmates are narcotic addicts from British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: This is certainly no reflection. When the narcotic addict treatment institution now under construction at Matsqui, British Columbia, is opened in 1965 these inmates will no longer be sent to eastern Canada for custody and training. The new institution to be constructed in 1965 will be designed to provide custody and training for some 150 female inmates, approximately one third of whom will come from the province of Ontario, one third from the province of Quebec and one third from the other provinces.
It is desirable that the institution should be located in a place where it can conveniently serve the two provinces from which the majority of its inmates will come. It is also desirable that it should be reasonably close to Ottawa so that its operations can be readily supervised by the headquarters of the penitentiary service. This is the only female institution. Cornwall is a bilingual city with a population of almost 45,000. It is 75 miles from Montreal, 75 miles from Ottawa and 275 miles from Toronto.


An hon. Member:: How far from Halifax?
Another hon. Member: How far from British Columbia?


Guy Favreau: It meets substantially all the criteria that have been proposed by penologists in respect of the location of prisons.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: May I
ask a suplementary question. I think it is necessary to overcome some of the unfavourable publicity given to British Columbia by the minister. Does the minister know that the diamond-D curling championship was won by the women from British Columbia this week?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether further consideration will be given to this matter in the light of the protests that have been made by the university and professional people of Kingston, as well as by the Elizabeth Fry society?


Guy Favreau: The answer I gave shows, Mr. Speaker, that the considerations which motivated the decision were purely objective. In answer to the last question, I must say that I am looking into this whole question myself.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice relating to the proposed narcotic treatment centre at Matsqui. I wish to ask the minister whether any plans are in existence respecting the manner in which that institution will be operated, and what rehabilitative or treatment programs will be used there?


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


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I do so because I think it is required and because of what I consider unfair questions directed to him today. I would like to ask the minister whether he will inform the house that he is not so much concerned in what location new, modern, up to date provision is made for a women's prison, as he is to remove them from the deplorable, iniquitous conditions under which they are incarcerated in the Kingston penetentiary.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his sympathy with me, and I must say that I agree on many of the points that he has raised.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-ADMINISTRATION OF ESKIMO AFFAIRS On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, which is necessary because after reading Hansard for yesterday I see that he and I did not have a meeting of minds on the question I asked. Can the minister assure the house succinctly that on grounds of propriety as well as of the law involved, any agreement covering the transfer of responsibility for the Eskimos in northern Quebec will be made only by parliament as distinguished from the government of Canada?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I am quite certain that this is a matter which could more properly be answered by the Minister of Justice. It relates to the legal position in the 20220-23J
Inquiries of the Ministry light of the 1939 Supreme Court of Canada decision. I would much prefer that he deal with the matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to put the question to the Minister of Justice, because when I asked him this question last session he said he could not answer it because he was not the minister of justice. Since he is now the Minister of Justice, perhaps he might answer it.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, could the question be repeated for my benefit?


Gerald William Baldwin: The operative part of the question, Mr. Speaker, was, on grounds of propriety as well as of law involved will the minister assure the house that any pending agreement involving the transfer of responsibility in respect of Eskimos in northern Quebec will be made only by the parliament of Canada, as distinguished from the government?


Guy Favreau: May I take that question as notice?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Considering that Mr. Levesque has turned down the idea of a referendum concerning the transfer of jurisdiction over Eskimo affairs, does the government intend to give in to Mr! Levesque and find another solution?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that after five o'clock when the talks were adjourned, not forever but because the participants were physically exhausted, the main question that remained to be settled was the extent to which the Eskimo people should be consulted.
If the federal government is to transfer the administration of Eskimo affairs, it absolutely insists-because this is part of the whole system of the administration of Indian affairs-that the persons concerned be consulted on the conditions of this transfer.
The point on which we did not entirely agree but I think that we will come to an agreement tomorrow in Quebec city______is precisely the nature, the procedure and the scope of this consultation of the Eskimos which we deem essential.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is it true, as reported in the press, that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and Mr. Rene Levesque quarrelled?


Guy Favreau: The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources was remarkably cool during that conference.



Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER CONSTRUCTION BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I was aware of this question, and steps are being taken.']
Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Could the Minister of Labour inform the house of the government's intentions concerning the different requests, and especially the one presented by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, asking that the time limit of March 21 for the completion of houses be extended by at least one month so that a greater number of builders can get the $500 bonus announced last fall by the Minister of Labour?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: It is not the intention to extend this period, Mr. Speaker.


Rémi Paul: Is the minister aware of the fact that, due to the present scarcity of certain building materials, many builders are having a hard time getting the materials they need to finish their construction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not been aware of this particular difficulty, but I will investigate the extent to which it has held up winter construction.

Mr. Andrew B re win (Greenwood):	Mr. Speaker, I think my question is supplementary to an earlier question addressed to the Minister of Labour. I understand the minister to have said that it is not proposed to extend the time for the application of the $500 bonus to houses completed during the winter, but will the minister give consideration to relaxing the regulations in cases where, say, a house is 90 per cent completed and could be completed in two or three weeks, and the non-completion is not the fault of the builder?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consider very carefully the representations made by my hon. friend and others with respect to this program, and if any alteration is warranted we will be glad to consider it.
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister's department made any decision with reference to negotiating an extension of city services to the Sydney Indian reserve by the city of Sydney to provide for snow clearance, road maintenance, etc., in addition to the present services?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question, and I can advise him that some preliminary discussion has been held with authorities of the city of Sydney on the possibility of extending additional municipal services to the Sydney reserve. This will include such items as street maintenance, snow and ice control, police and fire protection. The city's offer is under consideration, and the regional supervisor of Indian agencies for the maritime region has been instructed to meet with the city officials to go into the proposal in more detail. As soon as these discussions have been concluded and a decision has been reached, I shall be glad to advise the house further.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As
a supplementary question, can the minister inform the house whether this policy applies to all provinces in Canada?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he aware that yesterday the Sudan government announced as a policy that it would expel from the Sudan all missionaries working in the southern part of the country? Further, if he is aware of this, and in view of the fact that among the missionaries there is a sizeable number of Canadians and that there is a civil war raging at the present time, will steps be taken to protect the lives of Canadian people there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of this question, and steps are being taken.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
On the orders of the day:	[Translation]
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):	Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to Speaker, I should like to direct a question to 

the Secretary of State. It is related to a news report which appeared this morning in Le Devoir, and which is entitled:
Balcer: to have the constitution brought up to date by the Senate.
Are they talking about the assistant chief of the Conservatives or the alleged lieutenant who is nothing of the sort, who would submit a brief to the government in order to have our constitution brought up to date by the Senate?


Mr. Dupuis:: Georges-Etienne Balcer.


Mr. Caouette:: Yes.


Maurice Lamontagne: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that consideration of the Canada pension plan is now to be taken soon-very soon, I hope-and in view of the fact that the white paper which she tabled last July was so useful in the discussions here and throughout the country, I wonder whether the government would consider preparing another white paper on the plan as it is now to be presented. Would the government also consider tabling that white paper ahead of the day on which the matter is to be debated, so we can have full information about the subject in this way? I cite as a precedent what is done by the Minister of Finance in presenting his budget white paper a day or so ahead of the budget itself, and I wonder whether the minister would consider tabling such a white paper in advance.
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to consider this suggestion. Maybe there will not be time to do it, but we will consider it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has received a request from the district trades and labour council of Pictou county,
The Address-Mr. Stenson Nova Scotia, that a team from the Department of Labour, Department of Industry and Department of Trade and Commerce meet with their community organizations to discuss what can be done there about their serious unemployment situation? If so, what response has been made to this eminently sensible suggestion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, the request as mentioned by the hon. member has been made. I have referred the matter to the Atlantic development board for advice as to whether the board itself might wish to provide experts, or whether it might wish to obtain assistance from government departments. The matter has been dealt with in that way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Suppose the Atlantic development board does not act? Would it be the intention of the minister to arrange for a team from the three departments I have mentioned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a hypothetical question, but it is something which would be considered if the Atlantic development board felt it could not act.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSIDERATION OF FINANCING OF ACCESS ROADS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) has directed a question to me concerning the building of access roads. As this does not come under my department, I would ask the hon. member either to direct his question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or to put it on the order paper.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Fred Frise Stenson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity today, in the closing days of this debate on the speech from the throne, to refer to the economy and how my own constituency is affected. First I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address, as well as the new ministers and parliamentary secretaries who were appointed this session.

The Address-Mr. Stenson
I feel everyone was disappointed in the speech from the throne, mainly because it did not outline any proposals to bring help or relief to our secondary industries. When I say there is nothing in the speech for secondary industry it means there is nothing there for the working man, because industry and labour are closely tied together. These industries are the backbone of Canada's economy and should be protected instead of being harassed by further taxation.
In my own constituency of Peterborough we have many such industries, and they are finding the tax on production machinery and building materials, as well as the withholding tax, an added cost to production which is almost impossible to bear when it is considered that production has to compete on world markets.
Looking over the speech from the throne I find it says:
At home there has been a heartening expansion of the economy. Employment has increased at an accelerated rate.
In this connection, too, I recall that speaking a week ago Wednesday the Prime Minister said the state of our economy was good. In his words:
In recent years in Canada we have not had the vigorous economy which our people need in order to maintain the employment which is desirable.
I feel he must have been thinking of the years before 1957. The right hon. gentleman went on to say:
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.
Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. I would like to ask the Prime Minister and his ministers to visit my constituency and talk with the manufacturers and contractors to find out what they are saying about the present government and its attempts to stimulate the economy of this country. The Prime Minister would hear a completely different story. I also know that this opinion is not confined to my constituency but is to be found all across Canada. The Prime Minister also stated:
The year 1963 was one of considerable gains in almost all economic sectors.
I would like to remind him that these conditions did not just happen overnight, nor were they helped by the 60 days of decision. They were the direct result of the economic planning and trade promotions carried on during the Conservative rule. It was through the efforts of the government of the party I represent that we are enjoying industrial expansion in Canada today. The former government brought to Canada many buyers

carefully chosen from all parts of the world. They promoted trade shows where industries could and did receive many export orders. They brought businessmen together to discuss ways to improve industrial expansion. The export credit insurance measure was set up and is now being carried on by the present government. It has been very successful in procuring export contracts. Our dollar was devalued, and this action received much criticism from this government; but what has been done about it? Of course it has been continued, because this government knows it is favourable to our trade and a stimulant to our economy.
Now may I come back to the words of the Prime Minister:
The year 1963 was one of considerable gains in almost all economic sectors. Business operated closer to capacity than it has for years.
Those words are true, Mr. Speaker, but this improvement is not as a result of action on the part of the Liberal government. It is because of the very sound policies set up by the Conservative party. The Minister of Finance did harm to the Canadian economy with his last budget. I think this was illustrated in the question period this morning. But I do not think all the blame should be put on the Minister of Finance; the Prime Minister and the other ministers should take part of this blame. This is why I have invited the Prime Minister or any of his ministers to come to my constituency, or any constituency where there is industry and economic expansion, to get the true feeling of the manufacturers in these areas.
I would like to point out that if our industries are not protected, the good times mentioned by the Prime Minister will not continue for too long. I have discussed this problem with manufactures in my own constituency, and they feel the tax on production machinery is a blow to the Canadian economy. As for foreign ownership of Canadian industry presenting a national problem, I suggest it is not as critical in so far as establishing a healthy Canadian economy is concerned as many people apparently believe. Canada has a constant and growing need for development capital and, as the editor of the Peterborough Examiner pointed out this week:
One need only look at provincial and municipal debt to know that it could not be completely financed in Canada.
Even this government is not above going to the United States to borrow money. There is no question in my mind but that it is desirable to increase equity holdings where foreign ownership exists in Canadian industry. I think, however, this should be accomplished in a gradual way and by methods of

persuasion which would be far less disrupting than some of the approaches that have already been made. It is an established fact that there is not sufficient money available in Canada to purchase a 25 per cent equity in these foreign owned companies. I think it is highly desirable for equity in Canadian industry to have a higher Canadian content. This is certainly the feeling of many individuals, and I suggest that it can be accomplished by perhaps a gradual reduction of corporate taxes which would apply to Canadian companies that qualify under the 25 per cent ownership provision, rather than by using a club over their heads by increasing withholding taxes, which eventually can only result in retaliatory action on the part of other countries.
The continual efforts of the government to relieve situations or to solve problems by legislation such as the recent provision to declare depressed areas is an attempt to work against natural forces through temporary measures which can only result in ultimate failure. It is necessary that Canadian industry build up its export business, but I think the way this will be accomplished most effectively is by establishing conditions for industry in Canada that will make it competitive, which means a change in the tax structure; because any manufacturer looks at profits from a given sale based on his net profit after taxes. If a given market can yield more net profit by shipment from a plant in the United States, this might be the controlling factor with regard to where the goods are manufactured in the case of a company operating on a global basis. It also means that if taxes are lower in the United States, this would permit a manufacturer there to sell in an export market because of the difference between his taxes and those of a competitor located in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have two letters that I would like to read into the record. One is addressed to myself and the other to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I have a copy. This letter is from a 100 per cent Canadian company which is very perturbed about the taxes in force at the present time. The following is the letter addressed to myself:
You will recall discussions which we have had in the past concerning the application of sales tax to production equipment, and regarding which I wrote to you and several ministers at Ottawa.
I have felt for some time that the full implication of this tax has not fully impressed itself even upon the managers of manufacturing establishments, possibly because its effect varies so widely. However, for a firm such as ours, engaged in export against very severe competition and where much equipment is built in our own plant, the situation
The Address-Mr. Stenson created by the tax is unbelievably complex. We cannot see ourselves carrying on with such a millstone around our necks.
It will be preferable by far to move our production operations outside of Canada and continue to manufacture the machines and tools here where they will be exempt from tax as exports. We will also avoid the heavy U.S. customs duties that are levied against many items that we export. In fairness to the U.S. customs, we must say that their customs duties on a number of items that we export have been substantially reduced. Procedures have been streamlined and the situation generally greatly improved for our exports to the U.S., to the extent that if we had favourable treatment in Canada we could continue to produce here and expand our exports to the U.S. In the last six months we have had nothing but discouragement on our side of the border.
In the enclosed copy of a letter to Hon. Mitchell Sharp, (similar letters have been sent to other ministers) you will note that we are not complaining about the high taxes, if they are necessary to bring Canada out of a difficult situation. If our trade was only inside the country, we would then all be subject to the same treatment, but we cannot be expected to export over high tariff barriers with added burdens at home. If we must move our production outside the country in order to survive, it would seem that government policy is defeating its expressed purpose.
Here is a copy of another letter which went to the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Hardly a day passes that the news media of our country do not carry statements by government officials and others of prominence stressing the importance of manufacturing in Canada. The need to increase the export of manufactured goods and maintain a competitive position in international markets is generally recognized as vital to Canada's economy.
As a small but rapidly growing Canadian company, exporting over 85 per cent of our production, we cannot reconcile these statements with the recent drastic increase in the already formidable obstacles of secondary manufacturing in Canada. While it may not be common for a Canadian company to be exporting the major part of its output, it seems to be a desirable thing for Canada's economy that more companies should do so. However, recent government policy has effectively blocked our further expansion plans in Canada. The increased costs due to the new taxes applied to the means of production, and the impossible accounting situation created in trying to apply the taxes, are millstones that provide powerful incentives to move our production operations to the U.S. where the products are being sold.
In commenting on the tax situation, we wish to make it clear that we are not complaining about high taxes, if they are necessary to correct a difficult situation in Canada. However, we are working under conditions of adversity with which our U.S. competitors do not have to contend. We wish to point out that firms whose primary business is in Canada at least know that their competitors are subjected to the same treatment, but where the business is substantially export, we have to contend with factors with which our competitiors are not concerned.
Machinery, tooling and competent personnel are the keys to economical manufacturing. Before the recent application of sales tax to production equipment, machinery costs in Canada were already much higher than in most other countries that are substantial exporters of manufactured goods.
Tooling is very costly, but the degree to which a product is "tooled" will largely determine its

The Address-Mr. Stenson
cost of production. With the comparatively small production rims needed to meet the Canadian requirements, the tool charge against each part produced is excessively high unless production runs can be increased by exports.
Imposition of the sales tax is severely aggravating an already difficult situation. Increased cost of purchased items is serious, but the application of tax to work done in our own plant is much more so. It is a levy that cannot possibly be applied equitably. I recall that during the war years, when this tax was in force, it was one of the most distressing forms of taxation with which a small manufacturing business had to contend. It was a great relief when the government of that day, in a move of great wisdom, removed the tax. With tooling now vastly more complex that it was then, the reinstatement of the tax is a serious deterrent to the development of efficient manufacturing methods.
In manufacturing operations such as ours, there is no clearcut division between development, building of equipment, and maintenance. Sales tax at the current rate of 4 per cent-
-the hon. member tor Kingston remarked about the 4 per cent sales tax being a mere pittance and I should like him to take note of this:
-means that a minimum of $0,115 must be paid in sales tax for each dollar paid to toolmakers. When the rate goes up to 8 per cent, the amount will be $0.23 for each dollar; when the full 11 per cent is reached, we will be required to pay in tax $0,316 for each dollar paid to toolmakers. This rate, combined with the impossibility of equitable assessment, will dampen enthusiasm for the expansion of existing secondary manufacturing enterprises and for the creation of new ones.
Tool cost is an integral part of the cost of all manufactured articles, just the same as is raw material. As sales tax is collected when the articles are sold, to charge tax on tooling is applying that part of the tax twice, and is grossly unfair. The levying of sales tax on production equipment is all the more incomprehensible when it is realized that if we move our production operations to the United States we would be spared U.S. customs duties which on some items are very high, and we could build our equipment here tax free as it would be exported to our U.S. operation. We cannot understand why the government should encourage such a move, as it is much more beneficial to Canada to produce here, using Canadian raw materials, rather than produce equipment and tools only.
We have been builders of machines and tools for many years and have exported the major part of it. In recent years, we have tried to develop production facilities and export the products made on these machines rather than the machines themselves. Present government policy threatens to terminate the rapid progress that has been made in exporting to a large but highly competitive market.
Believing that the government is serious in its claims that secondary manufacturing is important in Canada, we strongly urge that sales tax be removed from production equipment before its full effect strikes home and serious damage is done to the already precarious competitive position of secondary manufacturing in Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are letters from a firm which is 100 per cent Canadian. Last week they had men in Peterborough arranging to move part of their production equipment to the United States, and this will be done unless there is some adjustment in the

tax situation. I have had similar letters from firms employing 300, 1,400 and 5,000 men in my own constituency. All these companies will be cutting their production if they do not receive some co-operation from the government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government to reconsider the sales tax and withholding tax before another budget is brought down. I also feel that the building boom we are now experiencing is artificial and was stimulated by a gimmick. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what he is going to do for 1965. Will he be giving people who are building homes $1,500 to stimulate the economy?


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join with my colleagues in congratulating the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), the movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
In regard to the hon. member for Longueuil, whose surname is the same as mine-I do not see him here now-I recognized in him a worthy scion of Jean Cote, our common ancestor, and I felt, while listening to him, that he was the proud son of that family of conquerors who, for nearly 350 years, have settled Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The Liberal party is still in office this morning, but it owes its narrow victory to the intelligent co-operation of a certain number of members of this house who realize how important it is for our country, in its present situation, to have a truly democratic government which must look after the common weal.
Having always been under the dictatorship of an all-powerful political party, Canadians know how they have been treated by this intolerable omnipotence in a democratic state, by a party which, through its absolute majority, no longer cares for the opposition and the rightful claims of the population.
Well, now that we are experiencing this new system of concerted administration, let us act for the greatest benefit of Canadians, not as wily politicians but as conscientious statesmen, because the next three years will be critical for the future of Canada.

As a member of the Social Credit group I want to put before hon. members some considerations about confederation and the unity of all provinces of Canada. First of all, what is confederation? Confederation is a union

of sovereign states constituting an international unit that is distinctive and superimposed on the member states and to which external sovereignty pertains exclusively.
In 1867, 259 years after the founding of the city of Quebec, the English and French nations concluded a pact or treaty according absolute equality to both nations and equality of our two great international languages. Has this pact been respected? It is easy to answer; no. All measures have been taken by the federal state and all provinces, except Quebec, to assimilate French Canadians or to practice racial discrimination. This is why French Canadians, not only of Quebec but of all parts of our country, will never accept this unfair treatment or to be treated on an inferior level as the old parties have done for 97 years.
Social Credit is the true confederation party or the new confederation party. We cannot understand why in 1964 the government of Canada has not yet adopted a national flag and national anthem, and has not yet proclaimed the independence of Canada. The Social Credit party states that those choruses that have been loudly sung on every occasion in favour of national unity must henceforth be replaced by a definite program of national understanding or Canadian union. National unity means a melting pot, which is absolutely inadmissible and intolerable, while national understanding means the progress of two nations side by side in mutual respect for each other's rights and privileges.
Everything coming from the federal government must be written and presented in the two official languages of this country. Everywhere in Canada, as well as in federal services in foreign lands, federal civil servants must be perfectly bilingual and public buildings must carry bilingual inscriptions. Briefly, French and English must be treated on the same footing; because if this is not so before we celebrate the centennial of confederation, the dream of Cartier and Macdonald can be carried away by the wind of separatism which rumbles with an increasing strength due to the unfair treatment meted out for so long to French Canadians in every part of this country.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I thought I would give the history of money, in Canada as well as in the world, because following my research I noticed that parliamentarians do not seem to have given so far such an account about money in Canada, since a great many Canadians seem to know nothing about it.
This morning, I should like to say how important it is for us, members of the house, to be informed about that subject and to 20220-24
The Address-Mr. M. Cote notice the progress made over the ages, and more especially during the last 200 years in Canada.
About money, nowadays everyone has his own idea. From the minister to the homemaker, everyone has ideas and puts them forward, but who knows the scientific facts.
Certain economists and technicians responsible for the management of the economy do not like it when events prove them wrong. They prefer to ignore them, even though they might convulse the world. They abhor finding in contradiction with their teachings and which reflect on their infallible ability. On the other hand, many of our contemporaries persist in their belief that the capitalist system, with its present monetary mechanism of debt-money, was created by divine Providence to last as long as the solar system, and that any other economic organization or financial system is unthinkable. The history of money and banking is proof to the contrary. We all know that in the history of the world, that system was divided into various periods, including the premonetary period, during which, for thousands of years, it operated with absolutely no currency. There was the metal or silver and gold period and the fiduciary money or bank bill period. We are now in the bank money or credit money period.
That period of pre-monetary banks shows that currency is not essential to a bank. It is the invention of money which gave rise to the profession of small private bankers who were the money changers of ancient Greece and Rome. For thousands of years, loans with interest were forbidden and that is why nowadays Social Crediters favour loans without interest. I even noted in the speech from the throne that the Liberals refer precisely to interest-free loans to students.
They deserve congratulations for that is an excellent way to carry out a realistic policy.
I also recall that in 1962, I think it was, the Liberals voted for debt free money. They gave evidence of sound judgment in voting for that motion.
For centuries, Mr. Speaker, gold and silver were greedily sought because they represented the value of money itself. But we must not forget that monetary power could always give, at will, lesser or greater value to any small fragment of those metals. Moreover, gold is debased by abundance, as any other merchandise. Prior to the era of metal currency, when money was coined in thousands of places by thousands of people, almost everything known was being used as money or means of payment. This shows in a general way that it is the public who invest

The Address-Mr. M. Cote money with its current value by accepting it as a means of payment. Even though in the course of mankind's constant evolution metal currency seems to have lasted the longest, barter or the exchange of goods will never completely disappear since after wars and revolutions, what prevailed has always been a primitive form of trade, as in fact only goods are genuine wealth. Currency will assume new forms when people come to realize that in itself currency is only a coupon for buying goods, that it can only serve as a purchasing agent and that ultimately it is neither a durable and indestructible merchandise endowed with stable value, nor an object representing the gains of previous generations.
Currency is, in the wider sense of the word, a means of payment. It is the sign of genuine wealth. Currency permits the exchange or the distribution of material goods or of services. Currency replaced barter or straight handing-over because it was found more convenient. It would be wrong to say, as some have suggested, that currency is essentially a supply of assets.
On the contrary, the power and wealth of a nation are derived from its large population along with its varied agriculture, its diversified industries and its large quantities of products. Currency or money comes in only to facilitate the exchange of commodities. The minting of money is, in principle, a right assigned to the sovereign or what is called nowadays a regalian prerogative, and this is the reason why those who have been or will be vested with such a power have at their command the labour potential of the community.
Political action has given rise to action in the monetary field-wars, revolutions, maladministration-and sealed the fate of currencies. Monetary action, in turn, gives rise to political action: for instance, inflation on a large scale begets dictatorship.
One has but to bring together social and political facts and monetary facts to sift out their motives and results. History's political aspect is meaningless if you are not aware of the monetary aspect. Economic problems are the underlying causes of every war and above the economic question lies a monetary or financial motive.
Mr. Speaker, after this review, I now wish to tell how, after the Renaissance, that is, after the discovery of printing, we entered the area of fiduciary currency.
It is in 1587 that the first regular issue of money was made by the Bank of Venice; then came others, in Sweden, in 1656; in England, in 1694, with the establishment of the Bank of England, then in France, in

1716, with the foundation of a Royal Bank, at the suggestion and under the direction of the famous John Law.
The first experience of this paper money or fiduciary currency or bank notes, particularly in France, after creating a tremendous prosperity, resulted in a considerable bankruptcy, precisely because John Law thought it was possible to indefinitely increase fiduciary circulation or issue bank notes, and also because such notes were payable in gold, on demand.
When suspicion entered the French mind and everyone wanted to be reimbursed in gold, nothing could happen but a general bankruptcy, for the Royal Bank of France had not enough gold to guarantee that fiduciary currency. However, the fact became subsequently a blessing, for it is in the light of the experiences of John Law that it was found later on that a minimum gold reserve of 25 per cent was enough to guarantee fiduciary currency, which brought about the decline of gold.
Here, in Canada, as early as 1691, we see the birth of fiduciary currency, or what is called card money or paper money, which system was initiated in Canada at a time when there was no printing industry. That card money was initiated by Intendant Champigny, when he had the clever idea of requisitioning all decks of cards belonging to the army.
An amount having been written on each one, they were signed by the governor and by the intendant and issued. The people were told to accept this card money with the promise that it would be redeemed when funds arrived from France.
That card money became very popular because this expedient was used quite frequently.
Later on, about 1703, Governor Vaudreuil and Intendant Beauharnois, in order to avoid bankruptcy of the colony, issued card money, for about 27,000 pounds. That card money was therefore the first Canadian fiduciary currency. In 1730 or so, when it was revealed that card money was not the adequate answer to the colony's needs as regards means of exchange, a distinctive currency was issued, which was called fiat money.
Mr. Speaker, this fiat money was nothing but a government note payable on demand. Such notes were issued for large sums, so that they were little used in everyday transactions. In 1760, it is estimated that there were about 80 million pounds worth of fiat money in circulation, and over 30 million worth of ordinary card money.
This monetary development dissolved the money myth and people began to see the

true nature of money, when it was realized that paper money had as much value as coins.
After the British took over Canada, we witnessed an evolution of the banking system. In 1817, before the Bank of Montreal was founded, there were various private banks, which were issuing bank notes without any legal authority.
Between 1820 and 1830, the creation of several banks which issued their own notes helped to fill a need. What guarantee was there for those notes? We hardly know, because there was no legislation to control this. Yet, seeing a bank's name on the notes, people had confidence in them and they were accepted as a current means of payment. They were legal tender.
After confederation, the government passed the Bank Act. The provinces had handed over to the federal government the exclusive right to legislate on monetary matters. The new Bank Act, which was amended in 1870 and 1871, maintained the privilege of chartered banks to print or issue bank notes.
However, besides the bank notes issued by each operating bank, there were some notes issued by the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with the Bank Act of 1868. Dominion bank notes were legal tender, while the notes issued by the chartered banks were acceptable currency. In fact, notes issued by chartered banks were handed to borrowers, and were considered to be legal tender everywhere; proof of this is that they were issued until 1935, when the Bank of Canada was instituted.
Mr. Speaker, I have to shorten my statement here. I hope to have further opportunities to expound my arguments, for I think it is in the interests of Canadians to know in every particular what constitutes the Canadian banking or financial system.
It must be said that bank reform has now entered a stage which will be carried out until completion because more than ever the Liberals feel that such a reform is needed. They know that the administration of the country is getting increasingly difficult because of our outdated financial system which is still based on the theories of Ricardo and Malthus. That era is over now; this is 1964 and we can no longer operate with a system which prevailed 150 to 200 years ago.
On June 14, 1963, I showed that the Liberals participated on some occasions in that monetary reform. Indeed, the Conservatives also contributed to it, although they were perhaps forced to do so, but both parties took part in it. However, as the Liberals have been in power for a longer period of time, they have had the opportunity to do more in that connection.
The Address-Mr. Berger
In my opinion, as parliamentarians become more and more conscious of the economic needs of our country, they will be more willing to take measures which will promote the economic expansion of Canada, in the domestic as well as the international fields. It is unthinkable that such a vast and rich country as Canada should be faced with financial problems as ridiculous as those we encounter at this time.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock? [Text]


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: I see a quorum, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to make the voice of Montmagny-L'Islet heard in this house. It also gives me pleasure to join with all previous speakers in warmly congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In my opinion, they carried out their task with moderation, tact and wisdom and especially with a self-confidence worthy of the most eloquent old timers in this dignified assembly.
Judging by the atmosphere prevailing at present and by the general tone of the opening speeches, it seems that the present session should normally prove fruitful in every respect. Besides, the Canadian people expect nothing less from us.
No matter what some people may think, the speech from the throne, which is well adapted to our times, indicates that we will have a lot of work to do and that we will be called upon to enact fine legislation. Indeed, there is every indication that the present government is concerned about farming, fisheries, labour, industry, unemployment, the standard of living, in one word everything which contributes to the welfare of the Canadian people.
It should be noted that our international policy will not be neglected for all that. I admired the frankness of the government which is conscious of its responsibilities and of the difficulties it will encounter. To solve them, the co-operation of every level of government, of business firms, of unions and especially of all Canadians will be necessary.
It is also to be hoped that the work of the opposition parties will be efficient and will
36a

The Address-Mr. Berger not be exclusively restricted to bitter and intensive criticisms, because the economic and political stability of Canada is at stake.

Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, let me say how proud and happy I was to see that our leader, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada did not leave to one of his French lieutenants the task of speaking before the whole nation on this party's policy toward national unity, but that he chose, rather, to express himself, in such a clear and brilliant way, his definition of real biculturalism and bilingualism in our great country. To judge by the warm reception his message was accorded on both sides of this house, the effort has not been in vain.
I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that whenever I have the honour and opportunity to address myself to this distinguished assembly, however proud and conscious I am of my French origin, I must first express myself as a real and true Canadian. Most of my colleagues, along with myself, have been deeply shocked upon occasion by certain thoughtless and impolite remarks coming from a few irresponsible members opposite in their criticism of the speech from the throne. If I may express one very sincere wish, let us all become more realistic, weigh the facts, envisage solutions and get to work in earnest for the benefit of Canada, not just for personal ambitions and reprehensible covetousness. My province, the province of Quebec, along with all the other provinces, appreciates good and promising speeches. On the other hand, owing to our present economic awakening after a far too long and disastrous slumber for which we are probably the first to blame, our province wants action-definite action-and wants it now.

The present government has understood our legitimate aspirations, our wish to emancipate ourselves constantly in every field and at all levels, even if at times we express ourselves,
I	admit it, somewhat too violently. If we really want to check the dangerous extremist wave which is sweeping not only Quebec, but the whole country, the central government will have to do its part and it will be necessary to apply as soon as possible the formula of a co-operative federalism desired by everybody, that is one central government and
II	provincial governments, which will be equal partners in a new confederative pact which will be our own and will meet for a long time the present and future needs of the Canadian people made up of two great races enjoying equal recognition and enriched through the years by the precious contribution of lan-

guages, cultures and other invaluable treasures of various ethnic groups who have joined us to become full Canadians.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like now to speak, and I hope nobody will resent it, for the people in my own riding. In view of the legislation passed in the previous session and which will be proposed to us this session, it is only natural that my fellow Canadians in Montmagny-L'Islet should look forward to them and keep up their hopes. But as the Bible says, man does not live by bread alone and our people do not live either merely from hope. I will take this opportunity to give you some examples.
Despite my insistence and my direct interventions supported by all responsibile organizations at home, we could not have our area designated to participate in the benefits granted to the underdeveloped areas in the special assistance to winter works. To do so, apparently took as a basis the statistics issued by the unemployment insurance offices. I, therefore, humbly suggest to the minister concerned to completely revise the standards or basis of such assessments, because the applications at the unemployment insurance offices are not at all in accordance with the economic situation in any given area and specially in a predominantly rural region like the one I have the honour to represent, where unemployment insurance, social assistance and welfare groups play a leading part. But I understand that our very efficient and dedicated Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) is aware of the situation and that necessary changes will be made next winter. I can assure him that we will be on the look-out.
My constituents are proud and determined, Mr. Speaker, and who could blame them? That is why I wish to point out to the house that we are strongly against a cheap bargaining of government patronage all too often put into practice. We are not asking for more to get half our requests. As responsible citizens, conscious of the tremendous needs all across the country, we are asking only what we are entitled to, and our demands are legitimate and guaranteed, the same as anywhere else, by our initial investment through our normal contribution in the form of taxes.

Montmagny-L'Islet is an important part of Quebec, and our great province is an integral part of Canada. Quebec has contributed much in the past to the development of this nation and will-I am really convinced of this fact -contribute very much more in the future, notwithstanding the occasional outbursts of extremist activities, which we are the first to condemn. In saying so, Mr. Speaker, I want
3S1

to take this opportunity to reaffirm in this house that the people of Quebec repudiate absolutely the ridiculous pretention on the part of the Ralliement Creditistes, the outlaws of their national party, that they are the unique spokesmen of French Quebec and sole defenders of our rights. Also, the new separatist trend of their top leaders, added to their far too numerous blameworthy interventions and declarations, prove this in a more eloquent way than I can put it.

If I may digress for a moment, I regret that the people mainly concerned are much more inclined to make their own speeches in their own way in the house than to listen to the speeches of other members who want to submit their own claims.
It would be more advisable for them to listen more often to the speeches of all the members than to come here only to make their own statements and withdraw afterwards to their offices. Please note that it is only an incidental suggestion.

The fullest expression of the spirit that is Quebec can, must and will only be made within the framework of a truly united Canada. Sincere English speaking Canadians have never, I believe, been more ready to acknowledge the indispensability of Quebec and all it means. To quote part of a recent speech by Mr. Roy Crabtree, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association:
Those Canadians, the overwhelming majority here and in the other provinces who refuse to take seriously any question of a divorce between Quebec and the rest of Canada, are entirely right to do so. They have enough sense to see that there can be no viable future for Quebec split off from the rest of the country and that Canada minus Quebec is just not Canada.

We, in Montmagny-L'Islet, also want a united Canada, provided our rights and privileges are duly respected. The present government has pledged itself to that end but it goes without saying that it will soon have to take direct and positive action.
We are pleased to see that ARDA now comes under the Department of Forestry and we place our trust in its new head. The south shore development and expansion board has already prepared and distributed its redevelopment program by submitting a lengthy and forceful brief last January; I wish to congratulate its officials and assure them of my fullest support.
I am particularly happy to stress that the lumber industry in the American state of Maine, which is next to my riding, has been, this winter, the most active and productive
The Address-Mr. Berger of our two countries. However, this success reminds me of the fact that the crucial problem of unemployment insurance for our Canadian lumbermen who are working in that American state has not as yet been settled and is causing us much worry and trouble. I would ask the Minister of Labour to make every effort to find, together with his American counterpart, as soon as possible, a happy formula to rid us once for all of that social and economic evil.
Some problems of immediate urgency have been solved, but there are many others which this government has as yet to consider, before a solution becomes apparent. Thus, at home, there would be need for improving air and sea transport facilities in my riding, on a year-round basis between the islands and the mainland. There should be some improvement in the railway service, more particularly with regard to the passenger service which seems far from satisfactory, at this time and I shall certainly have an opportunity to deal more explicitly with this matter in the near future. I might mention the need to improve our obsolete harbour facilities in order to help shipments of all kinds: lumber-finished and	unfinished-pulpwood,	manufactured
products like textiles, electric appliances, stoves and heating material, agricultural implements, furniture, etc., market garden products, passenger transport for sport and other purposes, and so on.
For a long time Montmagny has been asking -and a perusal of the record will bear that out-for adequate facilities so that ships would not have to wait for the whims of the tide to enter or leave the port. There is no longer any valid reason to refuse to grant this legitimate request. The Department of Public Works, which is well aware of the situation, is therefore asked to take necessary action to ensure the survival of the important industrial centre of Montmagny on the south shore, which is constantly and rapidly developing in spite of strong and bitter competition, and which wants to keep its place in the sun.
As for the Post Office Department, it will also be made aware of the urgent problems concerning the improvement of its service, as for instance, the establishment this year of a letter carrier service in the city of Montmagny, and, in co-operation with our municipalities other interesting projects, with regard to the postal buildings themselves. But I shall have an opportunity to discuss such matters later on.
We also rejoice over the coming changes to the housing loans act. This measure will greatly contribute to creating many new home owners, young and old. Despite the opposition's uproar, which, only a few days ago,

The Address-Mr. Berger expressed itself in a non-confidence motion- which was, rejected however, even if only by a narrow margin-we are glad to find that despite the coming into force of an already existing law levying a tax on building materials, construction itself has made great strides bearing out last year's forecasts by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon).
I like neither taxes nor dues, Mr. Speaker. Who does? But the fact remains, however, that if we wish to honour our commitments, to meet urgent needs and the constantly increasing demands in the economic, cultural, as well as social security fields, without resorting to the magic formula put forth by our friends in the corner of the house, a formula which no country in the world dared try up to now, even the anti-capitalistic countries, we shall, unfortunately, have to continue levying taxes and dues.
What is especially important however, is to make good use of those friends, as well as a fair and equitable redistribution. Quite frankly, I admit that even if the monetary blood letting seems a bit painful at times, I, nevertheless, will continue to support the Minister of Finance, and to have confidence in him, but I wish to tell him right now that when the operation becomes unbearable, I will let him know in no uncertain terms.
I would be remiss if I refrained from referring to one of the main economic difficulties we are facing in the area in which I am interested, and that is in the alarming situation of our shipbuilding industry. Judging from representations made to Ottawa from Vancouver following our own, we can say that the problem extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I feel that the present government should give serious consideration to the matter, while looking into our present and future potentialities, and into our import and export trade. It should also bear in mind, more than ever, the needs of our merchant marine and take what ever measures are necessary to provide for its development which has become urgent.
And in support of my arguments, may I quote an extract from-

I should like to refer to a newsletter issued by the department of economic development of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce dated February 1964:
It would be a very useful thing Indeed if we were to take time out every once in a while to count our blessings here in this great land of ours. Thanks to a political and economic system which makes us among the freest people in the world, we find ourselves with a per capita wealth second only to the people of the United States. As a people we have more and better medical care and more of the other things in life than people living anywhere else but on the North American continent.


Harold Edward Winch: Why did you vote against the amendment last night?


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: I will come back to that later if I have time.
Right now we are going through another period of expansion. Last year we had a six per cent increase in our gross national product and there is every indication that in this year our economy will grow at about the same rate.
In a year-end statement, the Minister of Trade and Commerce described 1963 as a year of steady advance during which unemployment was reduced, industrial slack partly taken up, and the payments position improved. Here we are, a tiny part of the world's population-some 19 million people -and yet we enjoy so many of the good things of this world. Obviously, there must be a reason, and obviously, too, we don't have to look any further than the economic and political principles which have guided us up to this time in making effective use of our vast natural resources and in acquiring necessary capital and skills.
Canadians have believed, as have our neighbours to the south, that democracy is a pretty sound system of government and we have been reasonably successful in keeping ourselves, as individuals, informed about the problems and issues of the day and expressing ourselves through our elected representatives. We mustn't ever forget about democracy and our role as individuals. The history of nations has been that, as people have grown wealthy and secure, they have grown apathetic and indifferent to the major problems of the day and left it to a handful of people to manage the affairs of government for them. When that happens, the few take matters into their own hands and the rights and privileges of the many are ignored and forgotten.
We have been successful, too, because we recognize the virtues and values of the economic system of competitive private enterprise. Men have been free to exercise their skills, their ingenuity, their enterprise in the fields which interested them most. As a result, there has been competition and we, as consumers, have benefited.
In the light of what is presently taking place, there is little wonder perhaps that people become a little complacent and say that everything is going so well, let's not rock the boat, let's not worry about it, let things go on as they have been going. Well, the truth is that there are still a number of problems including unemployment and slow economic growth and it would be very foolish of us to believe that prosperity is assured without any effort on our part. The Minister of Trade and Commerce went on to say in his year-end statement that a further substantial broadening of the industrial structure has still to be brought about. He recognized that the economic scene in 1963 was brightened for the fortuitous fillip of Russian grain purchases and by increases in government purchases of goods and services. While there is some indication that there will be a continuation of large-scale foreign grain purchases, this may not last forever, and when it is considered too that government purchases have been at the expense of continuing government deficits, then it is obvious that the situation merits our continued study.
That was a statement issued by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce for all Canada.

A rich country such as ours from the standpoint of inland and sea-going shipping facilities cannot possibly indulge in the luxury

of ignoring any longer this fact. Now the government ought to take immediately the necessary steps for the expansion of our maritime trade, our fisheries and the modernization of our navy, but based on a national plan intended to promote first of all our Canadian shipyards, for the old saying is that one's best master is oneself.
We have raw materials, skilled labour, well equipped shipyards: let us make good use of them. The machine is in order and well greased: it is up to us to start it. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have supported the brilliant and gigantic work done along this line by the impetuous but dedicated member for Levis (Mr. Guay). I can assure you that we shall keep on working together harder than ever with the same purpose and towards the same goal.
Mr. Speaker, those are a few ideas from what is usually called in this house a "backbencher". I should like, incidentally, to point out that in the Liberal party, on this side of the house, we consider this term outmoded, for we are all united, and if we are not all in the first row it is merely because the distribution of seats in the house does not allow it.
I shall conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, as X started them, by appealing to reason and to national unity.
Undoubtedly to emphasize the importance they attach to our relations with France and Britain, the present government has just appo'nted as our representative in those countries two prominent men in the persons of Mr. Chevrier and Mr. Leger and they are to be highly commended for that. That is another contribution of the French sector to the greatness of our country.
I will also remind you briefly of my eager wish for the appointment of a representative to the Holy See. This is even more imperative now inasmuch as the pilgrimage which Our Holy Father Pope Paul VI made recently to the Holy Land is considered throughout the world as a milestone on the road leading to full unity of peoples of all races and religious persuasions.
It was a comfort to my national pride to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) assure us that we would soon have a flag of our own-I really do hope so-a typically Canadian flag, free of any sign of former domination which could offend any of our ethnical groups. Such a flag will strengthen the indissoluble ties which link together all the elements which contributed to make this comparatively young but strong Canada of ours.
The Address-Mr. Chaplin

In unity we shall survive and progress; in disunity we shall founder in an indescribable calamity. As Dr. Eugene Forsey said recently:
We are told that times have changed since 1867. So they have. But in what direction? We are told that we have moved out of the horse and buggy age. So we have, but to where? Take away the central powers necessary to keep our transport and communications functioning, to bargain our way into world markets, to shield ourselves from sudden market disruptions, to control booms and recessions and maintain anything like full employment, and the economy grinds to a stop. Technology is pushing us away from smaller units toward larger. The threat of communism is doing the same. The rest of the world is moving toward internationalism. Can this country move toward something less than Canadian nationalism?
So let us behave accordingly. The English Canadian and French Canadian pathfinders of our country saw the bloody handwriting on the wall in the American civil war between the northern and southern states. This should be remembered also by the present generation. Hand in hand, with understanding, reason, moderation and hard work we shall succeed in saving our national unity, our economy, for the benefit of a greater Canada so well known and so well respected amongst all nations.


Mr. Gordon Chaplin (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and to remark at this time on the excellent speeches they made. They were both well prepared; they were well thought out, and I felt that the subject matter they dealt with was very appropriate for that occasion.
I should also like to comment on the speech that the Prime Minister made in his opening address of this session, particularly the latter part of that speech in which he appealed for unity in the house and throughout Canada. I am sure every member here can subscribe to and support the ideas, aspirations and hopes he expressed at that time.
I have been sitting here listening very attentively to the hon. member who just sat down and I should also like to extend my congratulations to him on the very fine speech he made to the house. I regret very much that as far as I could see there were only six English speaking members here to listen to his very fine address.


Mr. Woolliams:: On the other side.


Gordon Chaplin: On the other side, yes. The speech from the throne is most difficult to criticize and it is absolutely impossible to commend. There is nothing that one can get one's teeth into and one has the uncomfortable feeling of a rather bad practical



The Address-Mr. Chaplin joke in that when you bite into the speech you find that your mouth is full of cotton wool. There is little or no substance to it. It was described in an earlier address as a skim milk speech. I wonder whether even that is an appropriate description because the skim milk has been watered down to a degree that it has practically turned blue from lack of nourishment and become anaemic.
The Prime Minister spent a great deal of his time dealing with the proposed Canada pension plan and it seemed to me that his voice betrayed a certain impatience, irritation and petulance when he referred to the premier of Ontario and the stand he had taken recently on the Canada pension plan. I think that was rather unfair.
The Prime Minister, in a very dramatic moment in his speech, stated that only about 30 per cent of the Canadian population are beneficiaries under existing pension plans and that there is need to provide for the other 70 per cent. He feels, and perhaps rightly so, that he and his government must assume the responsibility to see that this is accomplished. But may I remind him at this time that he has already abdicated his responsibility in regard to the province of Quebec, and that province stands in a relatively low position so far as industrial pensions are concerned. In fact, I doubt very much in my own mind whether this plan can be called a Canada pension plan or a national plan because it excludes entirely a great portion of the country, the province of Quebec which has perhaps a third of the population of Canada.
If the plan can be considered a national one, then I think the premier of Ontario is to be commended for the stand he took that kept this matter alive and he should not be condemned by innuendo. Leaving Quebec out and taking Ontario by itself, the position is quite different from that which was described in the house by the Prime Minister when he referred to certain percentages.
In 1960 a survey was made of industrial pension plans throughout the country and the figures are available from the dominion bureau of statistics. These show that out of close to 9,000 companies with pension plans, over 50 per cent of them are in Ontario. Therefore I am sure you can see, Mr. Speaker, that it is too serious a situation to run the risk of having these established plans destroyed, nullified or jettisoned. In my opinion the premier of Ontario has a responsibility to the people of Ontario and I think he would be derelict in his duty if he did not exercise some degree of caution where the interests of the people of Ontario are concerned.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like for a moment to draw from some personal experience. I should like to tell the members of this house that a manufacturing company with which I am closely associated has been a leader in the field of retirement pensions.
In recent years the plan has been expanded into a very comprehensive profit-sharing plan.
I do not want to take the time of the house to describe the details of this plan, but the main feature is that it recognizes a certain principle, the formula for which is simply this: Pay the going rate for labour to labour and capital and split the profits 50-50. A certain percentage of this is paid as a cash bonus and the balance accumulates to the credit of the employee as a retirement fund. He contributes to this fund which is invested and held in trust for his benefit.
This is not philanthropy, Mr. Speaker. As a company, we expect to benefit from this. We feel we are practising a modern, industrial philosophy. We expect to achieve that degree of co-operation between management and labour, between those who operate our plant and those who are employed in it, that is so necessary not only for our particular situation but for industry generally throughout this country if it is to expand and progress, indeed if we are to survive as an industrial nation. We want these people who have staked their future with us to have a vested interest in the success of our company. The whole basis of this plan, Mr. Speaker, can be destroyed and I am, therefore, sure that hon. members opposite will understand and appreciate my concern that this pension plan which the government is proposing be properly thought out and thoroughly studied from every conceivable angle.
There are many, many things I want to know about this plan. Why does it have to be compulsory? There are many classifications of citizens who are not being covered, despite the Prime Minister's statement in that regard. Why is it necessary to insist that all industrial employees join such a plan when the plan to which they may be contributing at the present time meets the government's standard or, as is the case in many instances, far surpasses what the government is proposing to do. The Minister of National Health and Welfare from time to time lectures us on the evils of compulsive smoking. We have heard of compulsive eating and compulsive drinking. One of the bad habits of the Liberal party, and of this government, is com-, pulsive compulsion. They want to register v . people and give everybody a number. I sup-w pose this type of numbers game that the government wants to play with the people of Canada may be relatively harmless if it/

amuses the members of the government and helps to satisfy this compulsion on their part.
I am acutely aware of the need for making provision for the group of citizens in this country between the ages of 65 and 70. The man in this category has really been the forgotten man in the scheme of our society. This is the age at which industry, often very arbitrarily, retires a person. My own feeling is that many companies have been much too rigid in this regard, although some have done so under union contracts and under union pressure. I feel that this aspect of the matter is mandatory, and I hope it will be adequately covered in the proposed legislation, although I believe there are better ways of accomplishing this end.
One glaring defect is the failure to provide survivor benefits. I realize, of course, that this involves a complicated constitutional question. However, this government should have followed the course of the previous Conservative government and tried to procure the co-operation of the provinces in solving this problem. In that way, a proper foundation could have been laid for this legislation. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that there would have been no difficulty in obtaining the enthusiastic support and co-operation of Premier Robarts of Ontario. Instead of that, the government tried to rush through half-baked legislation within 60 days in order to get something on the statute books within 60 days. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is half-baked legislation under which a person is forced to subscribe to the plan from the age of 18 but he never has the opportunity of acquiring a vested interest in the plan or any survivor benefits. This, in my opinion, is a cruel travesty on a pension plan.
We all know the projection of the probable life-span in Canada today. I do not know what the projection is for a person of 18, but I do know that every year there are hundreds upon hundreds of people in this country who are dying at the age of 40 or 50. Let us say that a man who has been compelled to subscribe to this plan for 20, 30 or 40 years dies at that time. His family or his survivors have nothing whatever to show for his contributions when he dies. So far as his family is concerned the payments that he has made have not been premiums to buy value but rather a direct tax upon his earnings for which he has received no value whatever.
Another thing that concerns me is the disproportionate cost and the burden that is going to be placed upon the shoulders of the young people of this country. There is
The Address-Mr. Chaplin talk in all quarters of extending the franchise to those of 18 years of age. If this pension bill goes through in its present form, the government is certainly going to make the 18-year olds pay through the nose for the privilege of voting.
Another aspect of this plan that concerns me is the cost. I have little confidence, Mr. Speaker, in government forecasts in this regard. In fact, in the past government forecasts of this kind have been most inaccurate because the cost invariably has been underestimated. A recent example of this is the hospitalization plan for Ontario. I am not attacking this plan. I think it is a wonderful thing, and perhaps I have recently had reason to appreciate it more than most. However, the fact remains it is costing infinitely more than it was expected to cost. Indeed, the recent increase in Ontario taxes reflects this very point.
Another question in my mind is, does this do the job for those who really need it? I think not. In Ontario, and no doubt this applies to the other provinces, we are going to get a pension system imposed on a pension system, imposed on a pension system, and the upset and confusion this will cause suggest the need for consultation and a real effort at cooperation with those who have other ideas which might strengthen the old age security system in Canada.
There are many people well qualified to discuss these problems, and they should be heard. Again with all due deference to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, she is not yet the repository of all wisdom in these matters, although there are times, of course, when she rather gives that impression. The Prime Minister has given us an assurance that a parliamentary committee will be set up with sufficiently wide reference, and with authority to call witnesses and study this whole affair. I would be the last to doubt his assurance, but I have a very uneasy feeling that this is just a facade.
In the early days of automobile manufacturing Henry Ford, who was somewhat of an autocrat himself, used to say to those customers who wanted some special treatment or colour for their car, "You can have any colour you like so long as it is black." I have the feeling that is the attitude of the Prime Minister. I feel this parliamentary committee will listen to representations, and go through all the motions. I have a feeling that the government will listen but will not hear or, if it hears, will not heed and comprehend, and in the final analysis the government will put through the legislation it has determined upon, regardless of the merits of any representations placed before it.

The Address-Mr. Boutin
In his opening remarks in this debate the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam dwelt on the fact that the government has made three attempts to formulate this pension legislation. Is it any wonder, therefore, that there are doubts and apprehensions in the minds of certain hon. members about the competence of the government, and certain scepticism of its intention so far as the parliamentary committee is concerned?
Members of the government have brought this doubt upon themselves. After years of neglect during their long term of office, when the Liberals found themselves returned to power they tried to bring forward this ill conceived, badly thought out legislation within 60 days. The government has been the victim of its own propaganda-those infamous 60 days of derision, those 60 days which did inestimable harm to Canada both at home and abroad.
Now there is an opportunity to repair some of the damage. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Prime Minister and other members of the government will take advantage of the opportunity offered by this proposed parliamentary committee, and will listen with an open mind to the various points of view that will be expressed, with the intention of strengthening this legislation. They have had three shots at it. Let them not be afraid to take advice. Let them get it right this time. I say to them, for heaven's sake don't louse it up again.


Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, like all the hon. members who have taken part in this debate so far, I extend my warmest congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Since the beginning of this session, many interesting subjects have been broached but there is one which all the previous speakers referred to, and that is national unity and the ways most of them put forward to preserve the Canadian confederation for the centennial celebrations in 1967.
Some speakers made very constructive and acceptable proposals. We hope that the Canadian parliament will follow them up in order to avoid on our own soil unfortunate events which would destroy any chance of understanding and brotherhood between the two great nations which built Canada.
That unity must not be arrived at by humbling either of the two great races but by respecting each one's aspirations and by agreeing to hold a dialogue between equals as provided by the confederative pact.

People in some quarters will have to give up the idea that French Canadians must count for only one tenth of Canada. If the provisions of the confederative pact are to be respected, French speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians will have to deal as equals, that is to say one great race dealing with another one, and not nine provinces dealing and discussing with a single other province, as has always been the case so far.
Mr. Speaker, I just heard the member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) complain that our leaders were not in the house; I wonder whether he is blind or too much of a Liberal to notice that at present there are only some 25 Liberal members in the house and out of those 25 members there are only three ministers. The hon. member would be better advised to put his own house in order before complaining about the condition of his neighbour's.
The hon. member was just criticizing our leader for having made some statements about the state of mind existing at present in the province of Quebec.
I would point out to the hon. member that if such a state of mind exists in Quebec, it is the logical consequence of the shameful laziness on the part of the Liberal and Conservative members of that province who always took the easy way out instead of rising in defence of the Quebec people and urging in the house that the French Canadians' rights and privileges be respected.
I am not surprised at the words of the member for Montmagny-L'Islet. We have been hearing such rubbish since 1867. Where did that lead us to? To our present predicament, that is to the growing friction between the two great races.
You, Conservative and Liberal members of the province of Quebec, woke up in 1962, after sleeping like Rip Van Winkle for 95 years; it is therefore not surprising that some members of the government are rusted. Keep your eyes open now, you cannot do otherwise.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak now about a matter particularly affecting the riding I have the honour to represent in the house. It is the problem of agriculture, which is the chief occupation of the people in Dorchester and one of their most important sources of revenue.
After travelling through my riding for almost two years and having several conversations with the persons concerned, I realized that the conclusions arrived at in recent years had proved still more disastrous than some statistics or investigations would have us believe.

It is not the statistics themselves that should be questioned, but their interpretation. Generally, they do not give a true picture of the situation prevailing among the majority of our farmers, that is those who own a normal-sized farm.
When those statistics show that the yearly average income of Quebec farmers is from $1,500 to $1,800, I wonder if they include the average income of farmers in the county of Dorchester and neighbouring counties. Very few, in our area, belong to this privileged class.
In some areas of the province of Quebec where the soil is tillable, where a minimum of work is required due to soil fertility, income is higher than the figures mentioned in the statistics given a moment ago. But one must tour many counties to notice that the conditions of work and success are quite different from one area to another. Then it is easy to understand that the income of some farmers is much larger than the income of certain other Quebec farmers.
In order to get a better idea of the present situation, and to realize in particular that some areas are actually depressed, such statistical data should be collected in every individual county or region. It would then be found that, in some places, where people are still set on preserving the family farm, their income is definitely inadequate to allow a family to live decently.
The Catholic farmers' union is justified in saying in its 1962-63 report:
No wonder then that farmers are to be found in such alarming proportions on the labour market and are willing to take on any job available in order to supplement a definitely inadequate farm income.
Mr. Speaker, this finding of the Catholic farmers' union is truly indicative of the situation in my riding. Farm income is much too low and taxes of all kinds are too high.
I should like to refer again to the union's report which states:
Following the building up of rural areas and the development of education at all levels, the present land tax structure which is the main source of local income of municipalities and school boards seriously jeopardizes the economic development of farmland.
The present situation has developed progressively but it has become serious of late.
In 1961, the Catholic farmers' union decided to carry out an investigation in a certain number of parishes in all parts of the province. On the basis of the information supplied to us by the municipal and school board secretaries, we found that the municipal levy against farms is $209.86 as compared with $100 for non-agricultural properties and that the school tax is $211.81 and $100 respectively.
The Address-Mr. Boutin In 1960, land taxes paid by farms in Quebec accounted for 13.4 per cent of the net average income of farmers.
Those figures show the problem quite clearly. Even if the proportion is about the same as far as municipal and school taxes are concerned, the situation is more tragic in the latter case because school taxes are generally higher.
In the taxation field, the farmer is in a rather unfavourable position resulting from the primary requirement of his profession, that is he must exercise his activity on a piece of land often extending over a hundred acres. No such requirement exists in any other profession.
The abovementioned figures are average figures. In certain places, it has been established that farm owners pay as much as four times more school or municipal taxes than do non-agricultural property owners. And in most localities, it is noted that the land tax is no longer proportionate to the farmer's ability to pay. In fact, it tends to devaluate arable soil and discourages any new productive investment on farms. It constitutes a limiting factor in the development and consolidation of farms.
In addition, the farmer is unable to cover his cost price with the sale of his products, because the price of commodities is fixed on the free market or at a minimum level set by the federal government. The situation is untenable.
It is no wonder therefore that to make both ends meet, farm workers are more and more compelled to become farm loggers or farmer labourers or to work in any trade that will enable them to face their farm obligations.
But a few years of this system bear disastrous results. In fact, we see farm work becoming the secondary occupation of those people, and before long those farms will be definitely deserted. Population in rural parishes is decreasing at a disastrous rate from year to year; we are witnessing an exodus of the rural population towards the city.
In support of these statements, I shall quote a few figures taken from official statistics. A detailed study of the changes that occurred in production, distribution and demand reveals that even though the employment level increased in some industries, this increase took place at the expense of the agricultural classes. From 1946 to 1961, total employment in agriculture decreased from 25 per cent to 11 per cent, while total employment for all classes increased by approximately 30 per cent. If manpower continues to decrease at this alarming rate, what will remain 15 years hence?

The Address-Mr. Boutin
If we want to save the eastern farmer from unavoidable bankruptcy, the central government will have to grant him the same benefits that are granted the western farmer. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) will have to stop regarding our farming industry as a negligible quantity, and set a sensible support price for the sale of pork, eggs, etc.; the federal government should appropriate a greater part of its annual budget to agriculture.
In the 1963-64 estimates, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) submitted to the house last May, we find-somewhat regretfully-that only 2.7 per cent of the total budget concerns agriculture, whereas that same budget awards 25.6 per cent to national defence, for the purchase of Bomarcs, which are already obsolete, to pay the salaries of the very people who allow themselves to be robbed of their arms in broad daylight. That department has received the lion's share, though we are in peacetime. If we examine this budget further, we notice that the seventh largest item is the servicing of the debt, which absorbs 13.5 percent thereof to pay Canada's liabilities incurred owing to the mismanagement of our successive governments in Canada.
Expressed in figures, we see that agriculture received $172,221,150, in comparison to $1,500 million and over for national defence, and over $800 million to pay the bankers who have been exploiting the Canadian people, in collusion with our successive governments since confederation.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time the government awoke to a situation which becomes more and more untenable every day and even catastrophic for farming in eastern Canada.
In its 1962-63 report, the Catholic farmer's union also stated:
But since those who, apart from the farmer, can and must contribute to the solution of the problem do not seem to realize its acuteness and seriousness, it is becoming urgent to take step to open their eyes and urge them to act. The following statistics speak clearly, eloquently and even bluntly: the Quebec farmer's lot, which has been far from being enviable for quite a long time, is getting worse every year, if not every day.
The farmer is ready to do his share in order to improve his lot. He uses more and more modern methods and techniques in the operation of his farm. He cannot reasonably play his part and efficiently carry out his task in the marketing of his products, which becomes more and more important and complex.
There, Mr. Speaker, you have the present situation of the farmers in the province of Quebec and in the eastern provinces. In fact, the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes are precisely the ones with the smallest profit increase last year.
We hope that the new minister of rural development will take steps to start farming

moving again in eastern Canada, so it can get out of its present slump.
We had hoped the appointment of a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, promised by the Prime Minister during the electoral campaign, would considerably help our agriculture. As this project fell through, and served only as a lure to get the vote of the Quebec population during the 1963 electoral campaign, I hope the department of rural development will not experience the same fate and will get results before it is wound up. The farmers in the province of Quebec have for too long been neglected by the federal government. It is time this government did something to bring them out of the distress in which they presently find themselves.
Before resuming my seat, I want to express the hope that the present government, as the United States government has just done, will reduce taxes materially in order to give more purchasing power to our Canadian consumers. We hope the government will follow that policy, since it is wont to follow the United States in everything they do. You may be assured, Mr. Speaker, everybody would be happy over such an action, particularly those who presently bow under the too heavy burden of taxes of all kinds.


Mr. Patrick Tobin Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard on the excellent speeches they made in this house last week when they moved and seconded the adoption of the speech from the throne. They fulfilled their duties with assurance and competence. May I also congratulate the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for St. Denis on their election victories earlier this month and wish them a long and fruitful stay in parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment particularly on one aspect of the speech from the throne, namely agriculture and rural development, but first I want to say a few words about my county of Richmond-Wolfe which is in the province of Quebec. I represent the same county that elected my grandfather, Hon. Senator E. W. Tobin to this house 64 years ago. He represented it with devotion and distinction for eight consecutive terms and, needless to say, he was elected under the Liberal banner. They say I am following in his footsteps. I hope so, for at least the next 30 consecutive years. Rich-mond-Wolfe, basically an agricultural county is situated in the heart of the eastern townships and the beauty of these townships is known throughout Canada and the United

The Address-Mr. P. T. Asselin
States. My county also has some important industries, such as the Canadian Johns-Man-ville Company in Asbestos, which operates the world's largest open pit mine, the Jeffrey mine; two large paper mills, one owned by the Domtar Company and the other called Richmond Pulp and Paper. There is also the Dominion Lime Company, and several other important companies.

One of the problems in my riding is that of unemployment resulting from the lack of diversified industries.
The situation has slightly improved recently, but some of my constituents are looking for other secondary industries to help solve the problem.

Being a farmer from Quebec, I am well aware of the problems facing the eastern farmer today. Canadian farms have become relatively more efficient as far as production is concerned, but unfortunately markets have not kept the same pace. There is a need for closer contact between the farmer and the Department of Agriculture. This is a rapidly changing world, and farms cannot operate economically using outmoded techniques. There is a need for sound, practical farming education.

At the end of the last century, the eastern townships were renowned as an agricultural area not only in Canada, but also internationally, when beef breeding was their main production.
All this has changed a lot since that time and today, while there still is some beef breeding, the milk industry has become the very foundation of our agricultural economy.
Our farms are becoming industrialized, often too rapidly for a great many farmers unable, financially speaking, to keep pace with this development. This causes problems that must be solved.

In looking over the figures of the last census in 1961, in the section "Classified farms by economic class" I found the following facts. Of the approximately 480,000 farms in Canada, 46 per cent have a gross revenue of $2,500 or less per year. In eastern Canada we find that 40 per cent of the farmers in Ontario, 58 per cent of the farmers in Quebec and 70 per cent of those in the maritimes are in this category.

So, in eastern Canada, you have a farm population where about 50 per cent of the people have a gross annual income of less than $2,500.
That means that 50 per cent of those farmers have to depend on that pitiful amount to operate their farms, raise their families, pay their bills and send their children to school. Such is the situation in my riding as well as elsewhere in eastern Canada.
Generally speaking, the farms back home are among the best in Canada. Unfortunately, there are also too many marginal ones.

In the budget papers presented in connection with the budget of 1962-63, the estimated spending of the Department of Agriculture was $289.3 million. I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that of this amount $172.1 million was for the prairies only and the remainder for the whole of Canada was $117.2 million, prairies included. In other words, 60 per cent of the budget went to the prairies only and 40 per cent was left for all Canada, with the prairies again taking its share of that 40 per cent.

It is obvious that the western farmers also have their problems which are worthy of attention, and if the eastern farmers ask to be taken care of, they do not intend to deprive other areas of our country of anything but simply to get their fair share.
Canada is a vast land, the second largest in the world. Its agriculture is diversified. Therefore, in a country, it is the responsibility of the minister of agriculture to give leadership in farming to develop policies and introduce legislation, not only to assist the farmers but to stir up the general economy of the country. There is a great deal to be done in this vast land of ours, with a population of less than 19 million people, and we can ill afford to keep 50 per cent of our agriculture in a marginal situation.
Another very important role is to give leadership, instructions and the required direction. One single minister can hardly maintain contact, in such a large territory, with all farmers and solve all their problems.
The former minister of agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) himself deplored the fact that he did not pay enough attention to the problems of eastern Canada.
The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), who is now Minister of Forestry and soon will be, I hope, minister of rural development, is a well-known economist. He has the required know-how to undertake the economic studies which are needed.

The Address-Mr. Lamb
I should like this department of forestry and rural development to be completely separate from the others, with its own budget and its own deputy ministers.
Speaking of deputy ministers, if we want to give proper consideration to the problems of these people, there should be two deputy ministers: one responsible for forestry and the other for rural development. In this manner, the minister will be able to give special attention to each one of his departments.
I hope the government will give some thought to working out for this department programs like ARDA, farm credit, purchase of feed grain for the east, etc.
This department should have the power to direct the agricultural policy in eastern Canada, and this, I feel, is very important.
It is our duty to regain the confidence of the eastern farmers by giving them evidence that the government is eager to settle this long lasting problem.

There were many other items in the speech from the throne, such as the Canada pension plan, a national labour code, interest free loans to students, and so forth, that others much more capable than I will be able to comment on.

Before I conclude my remarks I should like to say a few words about a question deemed delicate in certain quarters but which we must discuss and which we must stop considering as a problem unique to our country.
This uneasiness we would like to dispel, this misunderstanding between our two ethnic groups can be removed by greater comprehension, mutual respect and tolerance. My grandfather showed such understanding during the 30 consecutive years he devoted to the service of the district I now have the honour to represent and, even though he was of Irish descent, his most sincere supporters were the French speaking Canadians of the constituency of Richmond-Wolfe. [Text]
The unity of our country does not depend solely on the British North America Act or other rights set forth in legislation. I do not think that some of our public figures today weigh their words very carefully when they nibble away at the foundations of our great Canada. Understanding between our ethnic groups, showing a little more wisdom and tolerance, is essential in the difficult times we are facing today.


Mr. Charles Lamb (Victoria, Ont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with all the previous

speakers in extending my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is with considerable pleasure that I also extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on the manner in which you conduct the affairs of your office. When parliament is in session we hear many debates and speeches on many diversified subjects from many fine representatives of a great many constituencies. There are times when I think we should forget weighty matters pertaining to Canada and the world at large and listen to what our different constituencies have to offer to our people and the world in general.
I am very proud to represent the constituency of Victoria, which includes Haliburton and north Ontario. Victoria county was named after the great and illustrious Queen Victoria and the majority of streets, avenues and crescents in the town of Lindsay are named after royalty, nobility, lords, peers and viscounts of the British realm. For instance, we have streets called Kent, Melbourne, Durham, Sussex, Cambridge, Wellington, Queen, King, Albert, Regent, Elgin and Bond. As years went by the citizens of Victoria county lived up to the name, and the roots of our people have always been planted firm in the commonwealth. This fact has been demonstrated on many occasions when the clarion call of war was heard. Thousands of our sons and daughters joined the ranks to weld a mighty Canadian army, especially in world war I when the member of parliament for Victoria and Haliburton was Canada's first minister of militia, the late Hon. General Sir Sam Hughes.
Victoria county was first essentially an agricultural district. Much depended in those early days on the county to the north, Haliburton county, named after Lord Haliburton. The county of Haliburton was, and is to this day, rich in vast timber limits and for years produced great piles of timber. Indeed, at one time some of the tallest timber in Canada was found in Haliburton county and many thousands of tall, straight trees shorn of their limbs were transported by water through the winding lakes in Haliburton county to the St. Lawrence and piled on ocean-going freighters, their destination being England. In England these massive timbers were used as mastheads for many an ocean-plying vessel. As a side note, it is interesting that only recently another great commodity from Haliburton county was transported to England, namely long steel rails from the old Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa railway. These steel rails, the best in the world, have been reprocessed in the razor blade industry.
With the depletion of vast bushland the Haliburton people turned their vision and

endeavours to another field, that of tourists, and today the highlands of Haliburton are recognized across continents as being the most beautiful, as well as the most productive in the way of fish and game. Haliburton county has over 500 named lakes and another 500 unnamed lakes. It has tremendous possibilities.
Besides being a vacation land Haliburton county has also mining industries, particulaly in regard to uranium, an industry which I understand is to be further exploited. These mines are in the township of Cardiff, and it is hoped that consideration will be given to the stockpiling of uranium. North Ontario is a rich farming community with a lot of fine villages with beautiful lakes and summer resorts, one of the many beauty spots in my riding.
Lindsay is the county town of Victoria county and is better known as the gateway to the Kawartha lakes. It is fast becoming a town of attractive homes, larger and better schools, large and commodious churches, and is now on the verge of becoming an industrial centre with two large new industries, added to those we already have, to be located in the area early this coming summer.
The town depends a great deal on the rich agricultural land which surrounds the municipality. It has excellent recreational facilities. Kent street, the main artery, is 100 feet wide. The Scugog river flows through the town from Scugog lake to Sturgeon lake, while many smaller lakes are nestled in the area and within easy reach of the town. Last summer a very impressive ceremony was held at Fenelon Falls in Victoria county marking the official opening of the new single flight lock. Built as a part of the $12 million Trent canal improvement program, the new lock will greatly facilitate travel between points above and below the village, which is a real necessity in view of the phenomenal growth in travel along the Trent canal system. In 1953, about 23,000 boats used the Trent canal system. By 1960, the total had risen to 75,000 and last year the total reached 94,000. Along this route at Kirkfield is the second highest lift lock in Canada.
We also have in Victoria county Hogg and Lytle's massive elevators. From these elevators seed grain is shipped all over Canada and the United States.
I have had numerous letters and petitions from all the Royal Canadian Legion branches, service clubs, ladies' organizations as well as private individuals in my riding who are very much concerned about our flag, the red ensign, which they all feel should be kept and honoured as our own Canadian flag. I could tell the house a lot more about my
The Address-Mr. Scott beloved constituency of Victoria, Haliburton and northern Ontario, the highlands of Haliburton and the fine town of Lindsay, but I should like to hear other members from different parts of Canada tell us something regarding their constituencies. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate for the purpose of urging upon the government the necessity for setting up a national foundation on automation in Canada. Automation, Mr. Speaker, is a word that is much talked about today. It is a change which is much feared both by labour and by industry, and I think this in large measure is due to the fact that we know very little about it and in Canada at least we are in no way preparing ourselves to meet the changes that it will introduce into our economy.
In a recent conference in Ontario sponsored by the Ontario government a large group of businessmen and labour leaders from all over North America gathered to discuss this highly important subject. To read the press reports of their comments is to undergo one of the most frightening and staggering experiences one could have. For example, Mr. Kenneth Brown, international president of the amalgamated lithographers, said that automation is "the most pressing economic problem of the next decade". Sir Geoffry Vickers, a noted English authority, said in his speech that a social revolution will come about as a result of automation. Professor Charles Hendy forecast "a world of increasing unemployment and chaotic financial systems if we do not respond correctly to automation". John Snyder, Jr., president of United States Industries Incorporated, said:
There is absolutely no doubt that automation will change the world.
While President Kennedy was alive he classified automation as "the major challenge of the 60's", and his sentiments have been echoed by Premier Khrushchev and other world leaders.
There are those in the community who claim that automation is really nothing but another word for progress. Nothing can be more dangerous or more absurd. The impact of automation has already found its way into Canada, as I hope to show in a few moments, and it will usher in a range of social, economic, political and philosophical readjustments that I think will tax the energies, abilities and imagination of our legislators throughout our lifetime.
Mr. John Diebold, president of management consulting companies which manufacture these new machines, puts it this way:

The Address-Mr. Scott I believe that automation marks a break with past trends, a qualitative departure from the more conventional advance of technology. It implies a basic change in our attitude toward the manner of performing work. It is something of a conceptual breakthrough, as revolutionary in its way as Henry Ford's concept to the assembly lines.
John L. Snyder, a manufacturer, forecasts that unless we deal adequately with automation in North America we will have a national catastrophe which will make the depression of the 30's seem like a humorous anecdote in our countries' history.
What is this new change that seems to evoke only varying degrees of foreboding among the experts? In our country it is very difficult to assess its implications largely because we are doing virtually nothing in the way of research and study in this highly important field. The very admirable Senate committee on manpower throughout its report details areas in which we are evading the responsibility of trying to find out the impact of automation on the country, but there are some figures which help. For example, between 1949 and 1959 motor vehicle production went up by 50 per cent and employment only 11 per cent. Electrical productivity went up by 82 per cent and employment only 42 per cent. Household appliance production rose by 54 per cent and employment only 19 per cent. In all manufacturing industries between 1957 and 1962 production rose 44 per cent and employment actually dropped. In a film made in Ontario under the ominous title of "Are People Necessary" it is estimated that 800,000 jobs have vanished in Canada in the last 15 years.
The United States is far more aware of this problem than we are and its statistical information is much more useful and helpful. Between 1953 and 1960 they produced 500,000 more cars with 172,000 fewer jobs. From 1955 to 1962, chemical production went up by 27 per cent and employment dropped 3 per cent. Steel productivity went up 20 per cent but 77,000 fewer people were employed. United States labour commission statistics estimate that between 1953 and 1963, two million blue collar jobs were lost.
These are astonishing and frightening figures. What is happening in our industrial world that is bringing about these changes? Let me give you a few examples. One factory in the United States now produces one billion light bulbs a year in a continuous flow process. Ninety per cent of all bulbs are made with a staff of 14. The $28.5 million Sarnia petrochemical plant runs on shifts of 10 workers. The Esso refinery in the United Kingdom pumps 5J million gallons a day with a six worker shift. The famous Detroit automation process, which produces

six cylinder engines from rough castings, is described as follows:
Altogether 42 automatic machines, linked together by transfer devices that automatically move the blocks to the complete process, perform 530 precision operations and hand borings. A rough casting goes through the line and emerges as a finished engine block in just 14.6 minutes, as against 9 hours in a conventional plant. From the start to finish along the 1,545 foot line no operator touches a part.
One man in one Dearborn assembly line described his job as this: "I don't do nothing but press these two buttons. Sometimes I use my thumbs, sometimes I use my wrists, and sometimes I lay my whole arm across. The only time I sweat on the job any more is when it is over 100 degrees outside." It is already technically possible, Mr. Speaker, to produce an entire United States automobile without a single worker being involved. The process is not commercially attractive at the moment, but it is technically possible.
The implications of these changes, Mr. Speaker, seem to me to be overwhelming. Indeed, they are likely to create a staggering problem for Canada. I quote Mr. Brown again of the international lithographers who has said:
Automation is likely to hit Canada harder than elsewhere. The impact has not really been felt yet, but when it comes it will be introduced fullblown. The impact will be greater, the period for adjustment shorter, the hardships sharper.
Arthur Porter in Toronto in his speech at the automation conference said that there are fewer than 300 people in Canada who understand anything at all about automation and less than 300 who are doing anything by way of study or research into it. Recently the University of Toronto held a seminar on automation and invited 300 of our leading companies to send representatives. After coaxing, only 22 would send representatives. Part of the reason for this lethargy, Mr. Speaker, is due to the fact there is no form of co-ordination, direction or leadership by our senior levels of government, and part of the reason is due to the lethargy developing in the industrial world itself. These industrialists have always held the theory that automation was not a serious problem because those who lost their jobs through automation would be absorbed into the service industries, and that as the service industries expanded these people could be retrained and shifted into those industries.
The facts, however, do not bear this out at all. A study of the service industries themselves indicates greater technological changes and more massive shifts in unemployed workers than even in the production industries of the country. I refer, of course, in this vein to the new science referred to by my leader

the other day, namely the science of cybernetics, and its god and symbol, the electronic computer. Computers, for about a dozen years, have been doing amazing things. The progress in this science is so rapid that the first computer built 10 or 12 years ago is now on display at the Smithsonian institute as an historical relic. For the first time, these great electronic computers are able to replace human memory and human judgment. At the present time in the United States there are 20,000 in operation ranging in size from a small desk to a six-storey office building. The market potential last year was $3.5 billion, whereas 10 years ago it was $10 million.
These great electronic calculating systems perform tasks at fantastic speeds. They store information at the rate of 100,000 characters a second; they hold more than 100 million numbers; they are built to perform 10 billion operations without error. A recent article in the News of the World put it this way:
Computers are tools that get neither tired nor bored. They can solve, in minutes, problems that would require a lifetime of work by several scientists.
Computers at the social security administration in Baltimore keep track of 160 million records. In the memory core of one computer in New York city are stored more than a million law case references. A computer just installed at the national library of medicine, near Washington, D.C., is storing up medical reports by the tens of thousands and will issue regular indexes.
Computers are versatile. Some are at the heart of factory automation, cranking out orders to "slave" machines. Others make electronic data processing possible in business and industry. More and more, computers are performing such feats that they are being compared to real brains.
What are the employment implications of this huge revolution? If it is true that the service industries are going to have the same problem as the production industries are having, then there is not going to be a market for employment that many of the experts thought as few as four or five years ago. Let me give you a few examples. The federal department of health here in Ottawa processes three million family allowance cheques a month in 286 man hours instead of 15,000 and with the use of two clerks instead of 120.
Lord Halsbury of British national research says that one computer equals 100 clerks working for one year, and every $5,000 worth of equipment replaces one clerk. The United States census in 1960 used 50 statisticians instead of the 4,100 in 1950. Then, this illustration will interest the members of my profession. It is a new computer law clerk. It can do in 10 minutes what it would take a law clerk seven hours of research to accomplish. In a recent demonstration a computer analysed 400 laws from 50 states and gave full statistics and citations in relation to them. The American Telephone and Telegraph
The Address-Mr. Scott Company estimates that revenue from long distance telephone calls placed by machine will be larger in 1970 than from those placed by humans. The Radio Corporation of America has a computer under design to take voice translation and type it with such accuracy it will jeopardize the jobs of a million and a half secretaries.
I could go on endlessly giving examples of the fantastic technological change that is coming, not only in industry but in the service industries as well. My last remark will be this: It is going to get worse. The new computers for 1964 are described by Dr. Edward Teller in this way; they will become teachable, acquire experience, form judgments, develop emotions and take initiative. He believes that the machine can be given the power to make valued judgments as well as logical reasoning. What the physicists themselves are trying to do, he says, is simulate and surpass human intelligence. A surprising number of people believe they will succeed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have raised this problem this afternoon because, in my judgment, the technological changes in our production industries and service industries are going to hit Canada in the very near future. They will bring with them a wave of change. If we are prepared for it, if we are ready to meet the problem, it may be possible to meet the changes which it will introduce. I think it will change the nature of our lives and our society. It will force us to remould our whole ideas of training, of education and perhaps of the quality of life itself. It will force us to decide to make use of the leisure which we are likely to get on an unprecedented scale. We do not need to be afraid of it if we prepare for it intelligently. If we integrate it wisely, if we make the massive effort necessary now to harness it to our own development, then, we can hold out hope for progress and affluence undreamed of a few years ago, and ultimately leisure on an unprecedented scale.
However, Mr. Speaker, if this great technological revolution is left to work itself out as is the case in free enterprise societies, then I think we will have just enough automation to create widespread unemployment, but insufficient to make the great technological breakthroughs which are necessary to open new industries and new markets. We should be beginning now to plan ahead to try to decide what Canada is going to look like 15 years from now, what industries are going to exist, what jobs are going to disappear, who is going to have to be retrained and what kind of skills are going to be necessary. Then, we must project this back into our present planning, into our educational system

The Address-Mr. Scott to ensure that we are training and educating people for jobs that are going to be there when they graduate, not jobs that we hope will be there.
It is not enough to talk about retraining because all the experts say that retraining alone cannot do the job. In California there were 50,000 eligible for retraining; 38 took the course and 26 passed. In my own city of Toronto, fewer than 4 per cent are being trained, and only 50 per cent of those who start the course actually finish it.
Our Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is promoting exports. This alone will not solve the problem if products being exported are manufactured by machines, there will not be the jobs available, and you cannot plan expansion on a purely export program. We must begin to indulge in economic planning in this country. All the experts in the United States, no matter what their political beliefs, have come to the conclusion that the solution of the problem of automation inevitably means a wide degree of government planning, government control and government direction. They realize this may be on a scale that is not politically acceptable, but that has not prevented them from making these strong representations.
In my own belief, even if there had never been a case for Canadian economic planning, science and technology have made that course imperative. In the years ahead, unless we are prepared to make the necessary long term planning which technological change requires, unless we are prepared to make the economy grow as we want it to grow, rather than spawn on its own, we shall be in trouble. We must endeavour to bring in new ideas and conceptions and throw out some of the shibboleths we have practised in the past. If we do not do this, then there is no hope of solving the problems of science and new technology in the 1960's and 1970's. That is why we in the N.D.P. have urged the whole concept of economic planning because without it there is no way to meet the challenge that lies ahead. If we do not do this now, then we are letting down the generations that will follow. The responsibility for meeting this challenge rests with people like ourselves, in conjunction with the provinces.
Time is short; the challenge is great. We are not going to have years to make these changes. We must begin now to assess the economy and chart the course for the years ahead. That is why I hope the government will seriously consider setting up a foundation on automation. There may be one set up in Ontario and some of the other provinces, but unless such a foundation begins to study now, unless massive funds are made available for research, we cannot even pinpoint the prob-

lem much less suggest the solution. We therefore suggest this action as urgently and strongly as we can to the government. [Translation']


Mr. Rene Emard (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, in general, the speech from the throne is a good indication of the progressive leadership that the government wants to give to the social and economic policy of Canada. It is very seldom that so much is said in so few words. Indeed, even though the speech set a record by its conciseness, it is so substantial that a long and fruitful session is generally expected.
There is an item in the speech from the throne that pleases me particularly. It is the announcement that a measure will be placed before the house to provide for a department of rural development, in order that the government may carry further its policy of giving increased attention to the needs of agriculture in both eastern and western Canada. In that same paragraph, we are also told that we shall be asked to consider other measures to assist in the improvement of farms and of farm income.
All those who are interested in agriculture, chiefly in eastern Canada, found in that part of the speech from the throne a reason for satisfaction and hope. I know that the Quebec farmers, and more particularly those of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, will welcome the setting up of that department which will, among other things be responsible for the administration of ARDA.
I want to limit my remarks to this single aspect of the speech, Mr. Speaker, in order to call hon. members' attention to the problems of the farm and of the farmers, and to the advantage there will be for them in being a party, as a professional group, to that new trend in agriculture.
Our farmers already understand that, collectively, they will have to co-operate with the new department, by supplying the required information, and by making recommendations based on their experience and knowledge with regard to their problems. The problems of agriculture are many. And, for various reasons, they are arduous ones to solve. There is certainly no need of resorting to a lot of statistics, Mr. Speaker, to have the house admit that, more particularly in the east the farmers' position has deteriorated dangerously in the last few years.
Here is a list of the main issues which affect our eastern farmers, and which, I think, call for an immediate solution.
1-	Overproduction of milk.
2-	Excessively high prices for feed grain and mill feed.
3-	Considerable number of too small and too poor farms.

4-	Exploitation of farmers.
5-	Disparity of the farmer's revenue compared with revenues in other classes of society.
6-	Misuse of natural and human resources.
7-	Misuse of government spending.
All farmers are aware there is overproduction of milk, but they can hardly stop this production (even though milk production is not very profitable and has many drawbacks). For it offers a regular income, which comes in every other week, and most farmers in eastern Canada could not do without that income.
The province of Quebec imports beef to the amount of $100 million a year. It would be logical for the farmers in our province to expand their beef breeding but, owing to price changes and especially the high price of feed grain and mill feed, it is not easy for them to make such an enterprise profitable.
For the same reason, we are unable to export millions of pounds of premium pork which the United States would be ready to buy from us.
And so, 60 per cent of the farmers in the province of Quebec have a revenue of less than $2,500 per year. When we consider that the capital invested in the farms in the province of Quebec averages $18,000, we must agree that the returns are far from justifying the money and the time invested in those farms.
The high operation cost is due to a large degree to the prohibitive price of machinery and the too small returns are due partly to the fact that the farms are too small for machinery to increase production materially, as well as to the fact that markets are inadequate or unable to pay a price that would mean a reasonable profit.
A large number of eastern farmers have been and are still exploited by lumber companies that pay them a cheap price for their lumber, by dairy owners who cheat on the fat content of milk and determine the quantity of fluid milk they buy from each farmer.
That milk purchasing system is absolutely unfair, the price of the product being based on its use.
The labourers of the roads department in the province of Quebec, the greater number of whom are farmers, are also exploited; their salary is 95 cents an hour, which I find inadequate, considering the kind of work they do and their working conditions.
During the last few years, agriculture in Canada has known a fast development rate. It is very likely that this development will continue for many years at an even faster
The Address-Mr. Emard rate. In eastern Canada, where farming and stock breeding are diversified, problems are all the more complex. A great deal of legislation of a general character was passed to assist the farmers and a great deal more will follow.
But in the last resort, the farmer alone will be the judge and the instrument through which farming will advance or keep going downhill.
For agriculture to be a success, the farmer must know what help he can expect from provincial and federal legislation. He must keep abreast of the new techniques on production, marketing, adjustment research, selection, classification, etc., which concern his farm and the area.
Farming is no longer a self-sufficient individual or family business. It has become a highly competitive industry and only the farmers taking part in a collective action can survive and prosper. What are needed are bodies providing the assistance of experts in the various fields mentioned above in order to settle future difficulties and to continually strive to find new outlets for farm produce.
In the province of Quebec, we have the good fortune of having first class bodies which already discharge that function, but unfortunately they are handicapped because of the lack of interest and co-operation on the part of too many farmers.
For a great number of years factory workers have had to face constant changes in their environment, ranging from mass production to automation. To safeguard their interests, they have devised certain techniques that could prove profitable to farmers were they to adopt them.
Just look at the difference in wages and in working conditions that exist nowadays between the workers who are members of a union and those who are not. If the farmers want to survive, they will have to make financial sacrifices and devote some money and some of their spare time to collective action.
Like the workers, they will have to group themselves in powerful organizations; like the workers, they will have to pay high fees and build up reserves. Like the workers, they will have to hold meetings in each municipality at least once a month. They will also have to set up study groups for local and regional problems and, especially to set up agricultural action committees to implement their decisions and undertake crop experiments on a regional basis.
To reach this objective, the farmers will have to co-operate among themselves, and organize study groups to inquire into their problems.
376	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Emard

Mr. Speaker, as a token of appreciation of my English speaking colleagues on both sides of the house who have spoken French since the beginning of the twenty sixth parliament and of those who are spending time and effort to learn French in order to promote greater unity in Canada, I wish to continue my remarks in English.
As a group, farmers should find better methods of utilizing credits which are available to them. We must not forget that Canada is a country where farmers enjoy an excellent system of credit particularly in Quebec where, by agreement with the federal government, the province remits half of the interest on the loan. This results in loans at an effective rate of 2J per cent.
We live in a world of specialization. Agriculture is the last refuge of the individualist but it will not be for long. Moreover, the farmer cannot hope to maintain a standard of living comparable to that of other segments of the economy using pre-war methods and techniques. It is, however, unfair that a farmer who has invested a capital of $20,000 to $25,000 and who applies himself with diligence should not have the opportunity to realize profits equal to those of investors in commerce and industry.
In the field of agriculture, as in so many other fields of activity, co-operative federalism offers the greatest opportunities for improvement. ARDA, for instance, will only work effectively with a high degree of collaboration between the provinces and Ottawa. I believe that to work most effectively in this field the province of Quebec should appoint a liaison agency to work with the department of agriculture of the provinces and the federal department of rural development.
It is with the co-operation of all levels of government together with the organizations of professional farm groups and vocational guidance in the agricultural industry that farmers will be able to solve their current difficulties and realize a standard of living in keeping with human dignity and the risks and sacrifices they are so willing to make. Professional farm organizations in all cases are excellent at the higher echelons. However, this is not enough and it is imperative that this organization extend to all levels.
The state must, above all, ensure co-ordination, direction, and planning so that the government may get the best results from its legislation. Otherwise, there is the chance that the outcome will be disappointing, as has happened so often in the past. I have been told that in a period of 20 years the federal and provincial governments have spent an

amount of $50,000 per farm family in a certain isolated region without improving their situation.
Only a mature plan can lead to solid results. I am optimistic now, Mr. Speaker, and confident that our farmers will understand the necessity of co-operation, of group organization, of modern methods of production, because I have faith in the agricultural policy promoted by the present government.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to associate myself with those who have congratulated the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) for the manner in which he moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

At the same time I should like to extend congratulations to the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) on the honour paid to him and to his constituents on being chosen to second the address in reply. It is always an honour for members, particularly for newer members, to have the opportunity of expressing first of all their comments on the speech from the throne. However, having made these congratulatory remarks to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, let me say I was somewhat disappointed at some of the allusions he made in the course of his speech. I thought, in particular, he was less than fair when, in the course of some comments on the Canada pension plan and the controversy it had aroused in this country, he said, in passing, that he was critical about election to some provincial parliaments being dependent on large campaign contributions. If the hon. member had the courage of his convictions or had something to back up his remarks-which I think were in very poor taste and constituted almost a smear-he would have said to what provincial governments he was referring, to what members and by whom these campaign contributions were made. These sort of, I would not call them offhand but really off colour, references are no contribution to debate in this house.
We have noted, since the resumption of this session of parliament, the changeover in the cabinet. Some of these changes were undoubtedly expected, and may we hope they will be of benefit to the country and will result in the smoother administration of government affairs. There is only one appointment on which I should like to comment briefly. I refer to the new Minister of Forestry, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Made-leine (Mr. Sauve), with whom 1 had the privilege of working rather closely during

the last session on the defence committee. We all know what will be the nature of his duties as Minister of Forestry and I am sure he will acquit himself well in this regard. However, in regard to the yet undefined portion of his responsibilities, which will be indicated in some future legislation at some future date, we must make some reservations. It is true there is an indication that the administration of ARDA and the utilization of land resources will come under his responsibility. However, if these particular duties are to be the answer to the promise, not kept, revoked, dropped or whatever you want to call it, of the appointment of a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, we want to look at this matter very closely.
Now let us consider the speech from the throne. There was great eulogy in certain quarters for the brevity of the speech and I think some called it a brisk, businesslike document. What a changeover, Mr. Speaker, in the attitude of the Liberals. I remember that in other years when I was sitting opposite we heard one complaint after another from prominent members on the treasury benches, including the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the President of the Privy Council and many others who were here during those days, that the then administration was derelict in its duty in failing to indicate the whole of its legislative program. I suppose what was a vice in others in other times has now become a virtue, because we know that the legislative program will be presented to us as time goes on. We have had the speech from the throne, which indicated in its usual general terms some of the measures to be brought to the attention of parliament, and the Prime Minister in his speech indicated further measures that would be laid before us. I suppose from time to time there will be more. If that is so, they will have seen the virtue of practices of the past and this is another indication of the about face attitude adopted by the Liberal party from time to time.
We have seen what I think was promised to be the cornerstone of the legislative program for this year, in the "Now you have it, now you don't" Canada pension plan. We saw last year the introduction of a resolution, on which there was limited discussion followed by a hastily called conference among the federal and provincial authorities when it was obvious the pension plan had run into grave difficulties. Some of those difficulties may have been ironed out. It is now indicated that there will be further discussion at the end of March. However, strangely enough we are told we are to have the bill introduced, once
The Address-Mr. Lambert more, prior to the dominion-provincial conference. Is this in the nature of a fait accompli, because we know that if a bill is brought into this house and suffers major amendments, there is only one thing that can be done; it must be withdrawn. Whether that is to be the case, we do not know; but the conference is being held in Quebec and that province has said it wants no part of this program as it was introduced. It is strange that a conference to discuss this subject should be held in the locale of a government which says it will have nothing to do with the plan.
We also have the questions put forth, quite legitimately, by the province of Ontario and we know other provincial governments have very serious questions to ask in this regard. Is this going to result in the withdrawal of the bill after the conference, if it runs into very heavy opposition and criticism? If it is, of course we will be back into the pattern of "Now you have it, now you don't". We saw this at the time of the budget; we saw it in a great deal of last year's legislative program. It was a matter of withdrawal, withdrawal and withdrawal. However, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that time has imbued some sense and maturity into the thinking of those who are today responsible for the direction of government policy, which is something that was all too often lacking in the last session of parliament. I hope that for the benefit of the country we can have a contributory pension plan which will meet the needs of the country from one end to the other, and not only parts of the country, and one that will do the most good.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When I have completed my remarks I shall be quite willing to receive questions, if I still have time to answer them. The throne speech mentioned the matter of interest free loans to university students and the Prime Minister referred in greater detail to this subject. This is all very well, to a limited degree. We have already seen that such a program does not meet with unqualified approval from the provinces, which have a very legitimate interest in education. I would have thought this was a rather pale substitute for the grand promise of the 10,000 scholarships that was paraded from one end of the country to the other. At the last session before the throne speech was even delivered we had the minister for northern affairs saying that this was going to be an integral part of the program, but we never heard about it. I have also heard the present parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) in recent talks across the country say that

The Address-Mr. Lambert this was going to be done. We now have loans instead of grants and scholarships. We know that certain provinces have loan programs for university students. They also have grants and scholarships. Others are not so fortunate.
But, Mr. Speaker, while I realize that there may be a number of students in this country who must find it difficult to continue on at university, I do not believe that that is necessarily the major problem facing us in university education today. As a matter of fact, I say that we are facing a crisis in numbers of university students, and that the real problem is the provision of adequate plant and staff to handle this great wave of students which is coming forward between now and, say, 1972.
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make brief reference to the February bulletin of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, in which is printed an extract from a brief or report entitled "The structure of post-secondary education in Ontario". This quotation has reference only to the province of Ontario, but I am sure all provinces face the same problem in varying degrees:
In 1961-62 36,000 students attended 16 Ontario universities: it has been estimated that by 1970-71 at least 91,000 students-
That is 91,000 compared with 36,000.
-will be enrolled in 18 universities. In 1961-62 there were about 2,100 persons on the teaching staffs of the Ontario universities: it is estimated that by 1970-71 more than 8,500 university teachers will be needed.
The scope of this expansion has been publicly recognized, and a beginning has been made, through various programs, to deal with the members. For some years the universities have been aware that this "crisis of numbers" would occur and have been considering ways of meeting the challenge. They have also been aware of the need to improve or extend their course offerings. But the universities could neither plan for the crisis of numbers nor resolve their known deficiencies except through the wise application of larger sums of money than they have ever received. In 1963-64, for example, the Ontario universities received only 60 per cent of the capital grants they requested of the government.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I continue? I have a fair amount to cover, but if I have time I will be pleased to answer the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has already indicated that he does not wish to accept questions at this time. When the hon. member has finished, if there is time remaining questions will be permitted.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is an indication of where the emphasis should first be placed.

In recognizing the fact that more students would like to attend university, I think we are perhaps forgetting that in order to educate students at universities we must provide adequate plant and qualified teachers in sufficient numbers, and it is in this area where we should attack the problem first.


Miss Jewett:: And libraries.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In this way we will have the facilities to handle all these students. It is no good just sending masses and masses of students to universities if they are given a half-baked education. Therefore I should have liked to see-and I hope the government will look at this in great detail in cooperation with the provincial education authorities-some means whereby we can step up those programs which are already in force and which go to the provision of more plant-and I include libraries, as mentioned by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett)-and teachers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard some high-sounding phrases concerning trade. There are a lot of pious things which can be said about encouraging trade, about a greater exchange of goods between various countries. This assumes, of course, that the people in other countries are prepared to buy our goods in greater quantities, and that we ourselves are prepared to buy and consume the goods of those other countries in greater quantities. I sometimes find it a little difficult to accept as a conclusion the proposition that where there is a great disproportionate imbalance of trade between two given countries this must be resolved, that the trade between them must be brought into closer relationship. All too often Canada is compared with countries which have a vastly superior population. We are compared with countries like Great Britain, with some 50 million, and with Japan which has close to 100 million. Representations are also made that there should be a bilateral balance of trade. It really all depends on what are the articles which enter into trade between those countries. After all, in regard to Great Britain, the majority of the products we export to them are raw materials, because Great Britain, being a small country, has very few raw materials with which to produce all the manufactured goods which it exports; and the same applies in the case of Japan.
I think too little attention is paid to the difference in the populations of Canada and other countries. After all, 18 million people must buy and consume the goods brought into Canada, and I think it is quite improper

merely to say that on a dollar basis there must be a closer balance or a bilateral balance in trade patterns.
I should like, Mr. Speaker-and here I am repeating remarks I have made in the past- to see a greater emphasis on trade with the West Indies and the Caribbean islands. I think we have a natural area there in which to develop trade. Unfortunately, while there have been certain steps taken in this regard I do not think that the massive attack, in so far as investigation and planning in regard to the encouragement of this type of trade, are concerned, which is necessary, has taken place. Therefore I would suggest to the government that this would be a very fruitful area of investigation for the expansion of the trade of this country.
We have noted in the speech from the throne the government's intention to reappoint the special committees, among them that on defence and that on procedure and organization of parliament. I hope, following the remarks of the house leader this morning, that we will see the resolution leading to the appointment of these committees very soon. I think there is a good deal of work which can be done by the committee on defence, and 1 will say no more except to mention the interim report which was made by last session's special committee, which gave an indication that many areas of investigation have yet to be looked at. However, I should like to emphasize one recommendation which can be applied generally to many of our special committees. It is that technical assistance be provided whereby members of a committee may be able to have recourse to expert advice in providing yardsticks on which to judge the testimony which has been given before the committee. I have heard it said by highly qualified persons that in certain special committees astute witnesses who are well prepared can, to use a trite phrase, pull a snow job on the layman in the committee. The subject matter is beyond the technical competence of the members and notwithstanding all the good will and effort on the part of the members they are not qualified really to assess the evidence sufficiently well in order to place the best recommendations before parliament. True, this may be something that the committee on procedure and organization must consider in greater detail, but I put it forward as a matter which ought to be considered.
On the subject of immigration, we have had some indication of an amendment to the act in a very narrow area. I should like to repeat to the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) the remarks I made at the time of the consideration of the estimates of his predecessor. I think that
The Address-Mr. Lambert some drastic review of the regulations must be made from the point of view of the more expeditious processing of applications, and I am referring primarily to Chinese immigration. There are problems here but on the other hand I am sure we could do a great deal better in this regard.
In this connection I would draw particularly to the attention of the minister some of the problems that have arisen from the granting of landed immigrant status in the case of certain persons who have entered the country illegally. Let us take the case of a man who is married but who has entered this country purportedly as a single person and should not have been admitted because he was over 21, married, and so forth. When such people who have been given the status of landed immigrants now wish to bring forward their wives and families they are told: "Your wife swore a false statutory declaration at the time of your original application and she is therefore barred from admission to this country".
If the husband has now been granted regular status and the sins of the scheme in which he participated have been forgiven, why place the whole onus and burden for the scheme on the wife and other relatives? Surely, if the husband is to be forgiven the wife must be forgiven as well. I would say that the wife, having participated in a scheme with her husband, is no worse than her husband and as we have forgiven him, therefore we must forgive her. I would call for the immediate revision of such regulations.
Redistribution has been mentioned. I do not know exactly what the pattern is going to be so far as the redistribution commissions are concerned. We have heard that there is going to be a commission of four in each province. I do not think this is the answer. I would much rather see one commission because we are going to get the report from one commission-


An hon. Member:: It would take longer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suggest it will not take any longer because every province is bound in effect by the time it will take to deal with the problems of redistribution in Quebec and Ontario, the two largest provinces of the country. I would suggest that we could divide the country into four sectors, each sector to be in charge of a subcommittee of the main committee. Those sectors would be the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and the prairie provinces and British Columbia. Each subcommittee would have approximately the same amount of work to do. Under the present proposal there is going to be a separate commission for Newfoundland with seven seats

The Address-Mr. Lambert and another for Ontario with 85 seats. The Newfoundland commission may be able to accomplish its work in a relatively short time but its report will not be able to be considered until the Ontario and Quebec commissions have finished their work. So why not bring the work together? All of the commissioners would then be working in the same group and with the same ground rules.
I have some reservations as to the future with regard to departures from the same ground rules and I think we must consider redistribution on the basis of the same yardstick from one end of the country to the other. As I have indicated previously. I do not think that the answer to some of the problems of redistribution should be an increase in the membership of the house. This house is big enough as it is. It might be that some would consider that the presence of certain members is less desirable than that of others, but that is a personal point of view.
We have not yet heard from the Minister of Labour or the Minister of National Revenue as to the results of the $500 bonus for the winter construction of homes. This program does not end, of course, until March 31, but I would say this artificial impetus, which has promoted a lot of housing starts during the winter, must be considered as an experiment. It has certainly caused many dislocations. It has caused dislocation in the free supply of materials. There are shortages of certain key materials. It has caused a dislocation of inventories among the building supply industries. There has been a shortage of certain types of skills because all electricians or all plasterers or all bricklayers are required at one 'time. Everybody is required at the same time.
The work force of this country is set up to handle a year round pattern of construction. I admit that this scheme is in the nature of an experiment but we must recognize that it has caused certain dislocations. Certainly there is a surplus of houses and we are going to see some of the results of this in April and May when I think we will be in for a shock brought about by a vastly reduced number of housing starts. In addition, I hope no hon. member has been trying to sell a house without the $500 bonus because anyone who has tried to do so has been faced with difficult competition.
I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I have quite a number of other remarks to make which I can make on other occasions. I regret I cannot answer the questions of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, it is open to them to do the same as I have. I had a certain amount

of ground to cover and I hope we can discuss this matter further on other occasions.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: First
of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with those who have expressed congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and also to those who are accepting responsibility within the cabinet or moving to other portfolios. I should like as well at this time to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Cariboo relative to the necessary changes in the rules which guide the deliberations in this house. I am not going to take time today to refer to them individually, but merely to commend them to the consideration of the government and to members of the house.
In the course of this debate many members have considered, and rightly so, problems of national and international importance. I believe that the issues confronting us today are such as require cool and careful thought and action. We trust that in the near future the problems that tend to divide will be resolved so that we can get ahead with the task of building a greater and a better Canada.
Today, I should like to confine my remarks to about three main issues, two of which are of more or less local concern, while the third, although it has local application, is of national interest and concern as well. I should like, first of all, to call the attention of the house to the situation that exists in the particular riding which I represent, and which exists also in the ridings of some other members. I refer to the situation existing along the Fraser river. The hon. member for Kootenay West dealt at length yesterday with the problems of the Columbia river. Flowing through my constituency, we have the mighty Fraser. While this river has a tremendous potential, it also produces a number of problems that are of real concern to the authorities and to the residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia. I have before me, Mr. Speaker, an interim report of an investigation into measures of flood control in the Fraser river basin. I should like to call attention to the first two paragraphs of this report because I believe they set out very clearly the problem that faces us. I quote:
The mountain and plateau areas of the Fraser river basin hold vast winter reservoirs of snow which in most years contain a flood potential to threaten the developed areas of the lower reaches of the river. In early spring the runoff commences and the streams and rivers of the Fraser river system, which drains some 83,000 square miles of British Columbia, unite in the tortuous Fraser canyon before breaking through the coast mountains into the rich and densely settled lower Fraser valley. From Hope to the strait of Georgia

the Fraser Is a mature river, meandering across an alluvial plain which men have wrested from the river-seeking to confine it within a diked channel.
This is the source of concern and of the problem that faces us in that area. The second paragraph of this report reads as follows:
In 1948 the dikes were weak-neglected after some years of moderate freshet conditions-and the river overtopped and breached many of the dyking systems. Along with other rivers in the province, the Fraser caused extensive damage to homes and private property, particularly in the lower Fraser valley. This valley is tremendously important-
I should like to emphasize that, Mr. Speaker.
not only as an agricultural and industrial area, but also because through it pass most of the transportation and communication routes linking the main coastal centres with the rest of the province.
Here, we have the problem outlined, Mr. Speaker, and we find that down through the years considerable attention has been given to attempts to resolve some of the problems such as the problem of flooding or threat of flooding that occurs each year. Only those who were in the area at the time have any comprehension of the situation that existed when the great 1948 flood took place. I was not in that exact community at the time, but I was there shortly afterwards and heard about the inconvenience and the harmful effects that resulted from that particular flood.
This situation has been recognized, and down through the years attention has been given to it. In 1955, the Fraser river board was set up. This was the successor to the dominion-provincial board for the Fraser river basin. I should like to refer to the terms of reference given to this board as set out on page 3, section 5:
The board shall plan, to provide and carry out the aforesaid survey and report and shall determine what developments and controls of the water and incidental resources of the Fraser river basin in its judgment would be advisable, practicable, and in the public interest with particular reference to the following aspects:
(a)	Flood control
(b)	hydroelectric power
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have this problem outlined for us. The board introduced an interim report in 1956 which contained specific recommendations which it felt were necessary and advisable at that time. The thing that concerns the people of the lower Fraser valley at the moment is that in spite of the fact specific recommendations were made nothing has been done up to this time. We have been advised that the final report of the board will be brought in some time this spring, possibly in March. It is our hope and expectation that as soon as this report is introduced the governments concerned, both 20220-25
The Address-Mr. Patterson
provincial and federal, will give immediate attention to it and will endeavour to work out a satisfactory solution of these problems.
I should like to mention some of the recommendations that were introduced at that time. The first one is that the responsible authorities improve, restore and maintain the present river-diking system of the lower Fraser valley. The second recommendation reads as follows:
2. That until studies are made to determine the effect of storage provided by multi-purpose projects, no program of permanent flood protection (other than to restore and repair the present dikes as recommended in 1 above) should be initiated.
The third recommendation had to do with the effects of erosion. On a number of occasions I have brought to the attention of the house instances in which considerable areas have been involved in the results of erosion with the loss of many acres of valuable agricultural land along the river. The fourth recommendation had to do with a restriction of the use of this land to such developments that would suffer least by natural or planned flooding. The fifth recommendation is that the responsible fisheries authorities be encouraged to accelerate that part of their scientific investigations which are directed towards the solution of fisheries problems related to storage dams in the Fraser river basin.
The sixth recommendation dealt with investigating the requirements for a stage prediction service for the Fraser river, with a view to implementing such service as soon as possible, and the seventh had to do with additional stations that would be required to provide adequate information for future developments.
As I have pointed out, these recommendations were made in 1956, but unfortunately very little has been done to implement them, at least so far as visible results are concerned. However, this matter is under active consideration and it is creating a great deal of interest and concern in the valley. As I have said previously, I trust that as soon as this report is brought in the governments concerned will give immediate and active consideration to the implementation of the recommendations, to the end that the flood threat along the Fraser river will be alleviated.
The second matter to which I would like to refer is one of local interest. It is the development of the Abbotsford airport. It is a very fine airport, but unfortunately it is not used very much. Of course, when the Vancouver international airport is fogged in, then the Abbotsford airport is used, and also private flying clubs avail of it. Attention is not being given to developing the airport

The Address-Mr. Patterson and its facilities to their fullest capacity. I believe the runways were extended 2,500 feet several months ago and it has a splendid terminal. It is fully equipped with landing lights, fire equipment and other facilities. Recently we made representations to the Department of National Revenue to have a customs official stationed there in an attempt to develop the traffic using the airport and to provide a much improved service to those now using it.
In spite of the tremendous expenditure of funds to provide and develop the facilities at the airport, it seems the department is very shortsighted in not being willing to provide a customs official. This is something which I wish to call to the attention of the minister once again. We previously discussed it with him and also with his deputy minister, but to date the reply has been in the negative. I contend that if we are willing to spend a lot of public money on an airport, then we ought to do a little more in order to make it pay, instead of constituting what conceivably could be a white elephant. I am not objecting to the provision of the facilities. Let me be quite clear on that. What I am saying is, let us use them and develop them to their fullest capacity.
A second matter in connection with this airport that I would like to bring to the attention of the government is that there is a seeming lack of the human element in dealing with nearby residents who are affected by the development of the airport. In recent weeks a situation has come into being in which it has been considered essential to order the removal of trees from the immediate area of the airport. We understand the necessity of taking every precaution for the sake of safety, but the people affected have made their homes there, and they do not desire to remain in an area completely denuded of trees and natural beauty. Yet the government refuses to consider the preservation of the properties affected, in order to satisfy the requirements of those who are living in the area.
Communications on this subject have been forwarded by the editor of the local newspaper and the reeve of the municipality. I have personally made representations, but I understand that at present court action is being threatened against some people who live in the area. What is so strange about it is from recent reports it appears that even though the trees are going to be removed, power poles will remain where they are. I would think they would create just as great, or greater, a hazard as a few trees, and therefore I suggest that the department consider this thing from a humanitarian point of view. The department says it has no

special use for the properties in question, but these properties are seriously affected by the use of the airport, especially by large planes.
I know of a case in that area where a man painted his home, and just a day or two later it was brought to his attention that he had apparently forgotten to paint part of his house. It turned out that it was not a matter of omitting the paint; the trouble was caused by jet aircraft using the airport. Fuel fumes, and things of that sort, disfigured the man's house, and his home rattled every time a plane went over it.
It seems as though the department is not concerned about the individual problems facing those who live in that area. For this reason I bring it to the attention of the minister and suggest that first we make use of the airport facilities. Then let us place a customs official there who will provide immediate service to those using the airport. In addition, the department should concern itself with, and pay particular attention to, the effects of the use of the airport upon individual nearby residents, and do everything possible to settle the issues without threatening to take them to court and thus impose additional hardships.
There is another matter which has been brought to my attention a number of times by those vitally interested in it in my area. It is, of course, of national importance, and I have reference to the proposals submitted to the government by the Canadian Association for Retarded Children. I do not have much time left to deal with this matter, but I am sure all hon. members are aware of the problem. It has been brought to our attention on a number of occasions by questions on orders of the day, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made some reference to it.
The first paragraph in the association's brief states:
Numerically mental retardation now ranks first among the chronic disabilities of childhood. Socially it also is the most serious problem in respect of the number affected and its effect on the lives of its victims and families.
This problem is becoming of increasing importance, and that is indicated by the growing interest being taken in it by voluntary organizations and individuals, at great sacrifice of time and ability, all doing what they can to assist solve the problem. The second page of the brief calls attention to the voluntary organizations. I read as follows:
In the last ten years, some 250 local associations of the Canadian Association for Retarded Children have been established representing some 20,000 registered members. An additional estimated 100,000 volunteers are working supporting local projects through fund raising volunteer activities etc. These people have established over 600 special classes,

schools, special transportation, workshops, camps, residences, and a variety of other special services which are totally or partially financed through volunteer efforts. Increasingly, provincial governments and local school authorities are providing classes for the mildly and, to some extent, for the moderately retarded.
I should like at this point to offer congratulations to those who are engaged on a voluntary basis in this particular field. I can think of one of these projects which is going forward in my own constituency, in Sardis, British Columbia, where there is both a school and a hostel. I have had an opportunity of visiting it a couple of times. The people responsible are doing a tremendous work in the face of almost insurmountable obstacles and they are carrying on an effort which, I am sure, is being duplicated in many areas of Canada. Those who are in charge of the work there have pointed out to me the acute financial difficulties they are facing-how it is almost impossible to finance the operation mainly through voluntary subscriptions, as is the case at the present time.
The suggestion has been made that a system might be worked out under which the senior levels of government, both federal and provincial, could share to the extent of 90 per cent in the cost of these establishments, 10 per cent being found by the parents of the children attending them. Surely, some system could be worked out so as to encourage these organizations and individuals to carry on a work which, I am sure, every one of us realizes is of vital importance to our society in general. A request has been made for government assistance. As mentioned in the brief, such assistance is requested for the carrying on of various activities such as research and program evaluation, recreational therapy, training, home care and parent guidance, sheltered work and activity centres. These are matters which could well be taken into consideration because I believe that just as we have recognized our social responsibility in other fields so we must recognize it, accept it and discharge it as far as these unfortunate young people are concerned.
I bring these three matters to the attention of this house and of the government with the request that active consideration be given to them so as to facilitate the achievement of some of the objectives I have set out this afternoon.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, first, in keeping with the custom in this house, I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) and the seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as well as the new ministers and those 20220-25J
The Address-Mr. Francis who have been assigned new duties. My congratulations also to the new member for St. Denis (Mr. Leblanc) and the new member for Laurier (Mr. Prud'homme).
I wish to extend special congratulations to my friend the hon. member for Longueuil, who expressed himself very well in both the official languages of Canada. He discussed current problems: national unity, the rights of all ethnic groups and the dangers of separatism, and he did so in a true Canadian spirit. When he says that Canada needs a distinctive flag, I agree with him. Our leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) promised us a distinctive flag within two years, that is before April, 1965. Today, I should like to speak about the problem of bilingualism in the public service of Canada.

In the time remaining today in the house I wish to speak on a matter which, I think, is fundamental in the speech from the throne, namely, the strengthening of our national unity through co-operative federalism.
The instrument of public policy is the public service and I am much concerned about the measures which will be considered and adopted in the implementation of the policy of biculturalism in this area.
It is generally agreed by all parties in this house that there should be every effort made to promote the highest possible degree of bilingualism within the public service of Canada. Reference by one of my colleagues the other day to a study of the public service claimed that French speaking Canadians had only 13 per cent of senior posts of government. I have not seen the original statistical breakdowns, but it seems to me that in Ottawa, if we included all ranks of government service, the proportion would be higher than this. Studies by sociologists, such as Professor Porter of Carleton University, indicate that a higher proportion of French speaking persons occupy senior posts in the government service than is the case in industry generally across Canada.
There is at the present time, a private members' bill by the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) calling for a bilingual preference for employees of the public service and crown corporations. I would like, at this stage, to talk about the implications of an over-all bilingual preference policy in the public service of Canada and some of the areas that would have to be carefully examined in implementing such a policy.
The census of 1961 tell us that on June 1 of that year, 28.1 per cent of the population of Canada claimed French as mother tongue; 58.5 per cent claimed English and 13.4 per

The Address-Mr. Francis cent claimed other languages. Canada's stock of persons who declared themselves to the census takers to be bilingual in French and English was only 12.2 per cent of the population; a total of 2,231,172 persons, or roughly one in eight of all Canadians. Of all those officially bilingual, 60 per cent resided in one province, the province of Quebec. It would appear that at least 80 per cent of all the bilingual persons in Canada are to be found in the three major areas of contact of the French and English cultures, namely the Ottawa valley, metropolitan Montreal and northern New Brunswick.
A policy of bilingual preference would have very important regional implications for Canadians. It would have the effect of recruiting future civil servants, to a very large degree, from some regions of Canada to the relative exclusion of other areas.
Over the long period it is the hope of all of us that the educational systems of the English speaking areas of Canada will produce much greater numbers of citizens who are competent in French than is now the case. Of our stock of bilingual persons, four out of five claim French as their mother tongue and this is a very unfortunate reflection on the extent to which the educational systems of many of the Canadian provinces are failing to produce citizens who are competent in both official languages.
I have asked many members of school boards why this is the case and why it is not possible to teach French more effectively at the earliest grades of our school systems. The other morning as I was driving to the House of Commons, I turned on my car radio. On a local program entitled "Live Wire" a woman called in and identified herself with a French name. The announcer asked if she spoke French and she said "no". He then asked if her husband spoke French and she said "not very well". He asked what her husband did and the answer was he taught French in a local high school. Too often the teacher of French has met all the formal educational requirements and has a teaching certificate within the province in which he is teaching, but fails to inspire students with a living knowledge of the language. I think it would help Canada a great deal if at the next interprovincial conference the provincial ministers of education considered the teaching of French as a priority subject for their agenda. The provinces might consider, for example, accepting teaching certificates from graduates of the province of Quebec to teach French in schools outside of Quebec, and Quebec in turn might accept graduates of English speaking institutions to teach English to students within Quebec. There is room for a great deal more reciprocity here without
each province insisting on the full attainment of the teaching certificates within the province.
There is also a certain reluctance on the part of the graduates of the classical colleges and other institutions in Quebec to accept employment outside their province in communities without substantial Frenchspeaking minorities and in school systems foreign to their religious traditions. I say to my colleagues in this house from the province of Quebec, the cause of Canadian unity will be well served if young graduates of Frenchspeaking institutions will volunteer to accept employment with English speaking Protestant school systems outside their province in order that better French may be taught and in order that more effective bilingualism may be promoted. I hope also that within the province of Quebec, the Protestant school systems should recognize that the employment of graduates of French Canadian institutions would be the most effective means they could seek in order to improve the teaching of French within their systems.
I think most of us recognize that the earlier a child starts language education, the greater are the chances of becoming competently bilingual. At the present time there are relatively few persons graduating from the English speaking universities of Canada who would meet any objective standards of competence in bilingualism. I have recently received letters from such persons who state they are not seeking a career in the government service because they feel it will be too late for them, even now, to rectify their handicaps in knowledge of the French language.
The public service of Canada, through the civil service commission, has recently announced a crash program of an experimental nature to train existing unilingual civil servants in a second language. We will all follow the development of this program with a great deal of interest. There is no question that the development of a policy of bilingualism involves a general overhead cost to the public service and should be recognized as part of the price to be paid by Canadians for national unity. This cost starts with the annual $1 million which my colleague from Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) described the other day. This is for the experimental program of the civil service commission for teaching the language, together with the costs of a bicultural institute, the general problems of the allotment of time, employment of staff and the production of the entire range of documents relating to government business in two languages. I think we should recognize that this does involve some cost, and it is a cost which those of us

who have examined the problem realize is well worth Canada paying in order to provide effective measures of national unity.
More is being done today than at any other previous period since confederation toward making bilingualism a very effective and real objective. It seems a paradox to many English speaking persons that at the very time when most is being done, the complaints are the loudest. Complaints of discrimination and bad faith by the English speaking majority against the minority of French language and culture have formed part of nearly every speech I have listened to from the quasi separatist group on the other side of the house which calls itself the Ralliement Creditistes. They are not the only ones, however, who accuse the English speaking majority of discrimination and bad faith. Such accusations do not help the cause of national unity at this time.
As far as the public service is concerned, there is evidently a misunderstanding which is based upon the principle of the merit system. Prior to 1920, the public service of Canada was cursed with patronage and the Civil Service Act of 1920-and I am not one of those who claim there is any great virtue in any one party; I know it was a Conservative government which put that act on the statute books and I recognize it as a very good piece of legislation at that time-was the cornerstone on which the merit principle was based. The principle of selection and promotion according to merit has been the base on which Canada has developed a public service which I am proud to say is second to that of no other country in the world at the present time.
Only one legislative qualification to the merit principle has been enacted by parliament to date. This qualification relates to veterans preferance. Veterans who suffered service-connected disability, were Canadian citizens and domiciled in Canada at the time of enlistment, or who served in overseas theatres of war are entitled to a preference in initial selection over candidates with superior technical qualifications. This preference is carefully spelled out by law, is restricted to initial appointment only and does not apply to promotional competitions. The justification for this preference is in terms of the sacrifice of personal careers and time and, in some cases, physical sacrifice on the part of those who served in the armed forces of Canada.
In recent months many of the staff associations have been asking the government of Canada whether the merit principle is still to be retained in relation to the employment and promotion of bilingual persons. It does
The Address-Mr. Francis not help-as some persons have done, I regret to say-to say that in making these inquiries the associations are implying that a knowledge of two languages is not meritorious, or insulting those who speak French. Those who read such interpretations into the legitimate inquiries of staff associations do not serve the cause of national unity. I believe there are many measures which could be adopted which are perfectly consistent with the principles of merit and which will in fact provide the objectives which we in the public service all have in mind. I hope that on future occasions when private bills, to which matter I alluded earlier, are debated in this chamber we can amplify these measures.
The Prime Minister, in a statement before this house last week, made it abundantly clear that those civil servants who are unilingual and were unilingual at the time they were hired will suffer no impairment of their civil service careers on this account. The Prime Minister stressed, however, that efficiency and experience must be the overriding factors in advancement in the federal service, but added that in future bilingualism should become normal, because unilingual-ism will be the exception rather than the rule, and to this extent the third factor, bilingualism, would be considered at some point in the future.
My own view is that there will always be positions in the public service of Canada which will require basically a knowledge of the French language, and other positions which will require basically a knowledge of the English language. There will be other positions which should be substantially bilingual. Every department should be staffed in such a manner as to carry on competently its ordinary dealings with citizens of Canada in the language of their choice. In order to make this work, there is one serious defect in existing selective procedures. Language competency must be tested in a conscientious and objective fashion. At the present time an applicant may declare himself or herself to be bilingual in a competition, and the basis of testing of bilingualism is frequently haphazard. Knowledge of a second language should be tested by objective examinations of both a written and oral nature and each position in the civil service should specify the degree of achievement in a language which is called for. No policy of bilingualism can work in the public service if the methods of testing proficiency in languages are not completely objective according to uniform standards generally recognized. This is not now the case.

The Address-Mr. S. Fleming
Mr. Speaker, no doubt we will hear a good deal more about the principles which will guide the selection and promotion of public servants in Canada and in crown corporations.
I am confident, however, that what is being done is a very great step forward over what has been done. I am confident, too, that Canadians of all ethnic origins are anxious to make of our confederation a very prosperous and real nation. I ask all members of this house to remember that at a time when more steps are being made toward achieving our objectives we should respect the men and women who are working in good faith to improve the situation, and not make statements which will reflect upon that good faith. Policies and proposals advanced in a constructive spirit will have to be studied, and studied carefully, in an effort to achieve the goal of a single bilingual national state which we all seek.


Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to join with those who have preceded me in this debate in congratulations of the hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. For myself, I can be particularly sincere in that congratulation because in their speeches I found a greater realization of the needs and requirements of Canada at this moment than I found in the actual declaration of government policy itself. This is a time when I think it must be recognized-indeed, I think it cannot be avoided-that there is apprehension and doubt in Canada; that it is a time of unease and concern among Canadians; that it is a moment in our history when Canadians sense that the times are out of joint for them, when government is failing to lead, and when regionalism and factionalism, and now even the threat of terrorism, have inflicted themselves upon Canadian minds. This is a time when the national government of Canada has chosen virtually to abrogate its responsibility of leading the nation against these divisive forces.
What other judgment, Mr. Speaker, can we make of the government when we examine the speech from the throne; when this house is presented with what virtually amounts to a housekeeping document, to a preoccupation with the bits and pieces of government, with tidying up, with dusting the living room while the house is burning down? You can take if you wish, Mr. Speaker, a potentially major piece of legislation, such as the Canada pension plan, and say that this government has put forward a measure for the betterment of Canada, that the speech from the throne is not merely housekeeping or tidying up. But what is the point at this time in our history

in the government providing for old age when we have no absolute assurance at this moment that we will see old age as Canadians. Unless the government gives the necessary leadership and confronts the real issues of the day, the issues which are dividing us so badly and threatening the very existence of Canada as a nation, how can we divert our attention to programs which will succeed only if every part of Canada-every province, every citizen-participates, and participates equally? There is something almost laughable, if it were not so tragic, in the government bringing forward programs which are called national programs, and there is presented to us in other places the spectacle of withdrawal of parts of the nation from participation in them.
My contention is that this house ought to be preoccupied at this time, and the government certainly ought to be preoccupied at this time, with an examination of why there is, as there so obviously is, and as any member of this house must know from correspondence which he receives, this sense of uneasiness, doubt and apprehension in the minds of the Canadian people. It is quite obvious that the Canadian people are seeking a strength of purpose in their government. They are seeking a renewed sense of Canadian destiny. They are seeking vision and leadership at the national level. They are looking for positive action in government. And above all, they are looking for a knowledge and an acknowledgement of the desires and aspirations of all Canadian citizens. These things we cannot find in the throne speech. It deals, as I have said before and will continue to repeat, with the tidying up and day to day management of affairs; the picking up of a piece of this and a piece of that left over from another time, endeavouring to construct from that something which the Canadian people can take confidence in and reassurance from.
I think we have only to go back to the time of the dominion-provincial conference last fall, when the premiers of the provinces and their advisers were in Ottawa, to observe all the elements of fractionalism revealing themselves all too clearly. We found, for instance, the premier of the province of British Columbia making four demands which virtually repudiated the position and authority of the federal government. We also observed that other regions were able to put forward requests and make demands which too amounted to a repudiation of the role of the central government. Yet did this administration at that time make any positive declaration which the people of Canada and the provinces of Canada could clearly understand as being the position and role of the federal government? Was there any clear declaration of what the

federal government must assume, must continue to assume, and must perhaps seek to assume, as its responsibility? There was nothing. There was only a compromise solution to the division of the tax pot, and even that was a temporary arrangement. The conference will be resumed at the end of March when the provinces and the federal government will have another go.
This is not going to be enough, and it is not satisfactory. This will produce no long-range solution to the essential problems of Canada, which are this sense of fragmentation and regionalism. There needs to be held a dominion-provincial conference to deal with matters other than financial matters. There needs to be held a dominion-provincial conference at which the governments of Canada, federal and provincial, will confront realistically the issues which tend to divide us; and as the responsible authorities in their respective fields, the responsible political leaders of the nation, seek to evolve solutions to those problems, this is how we will advance.
I contend that a royal commission at this time is not adequate to our purpose. It can perhaps secure from government, private organizations and individuals a cross-section of opinion, but what are required are those governmental representatives of the people who clearly understand what it is with which they have been charged in their respective fields, who can express their understanding of their responsibilities, expose the weak-
Business of the House nesses of their positions, and thereby highlight the very causes of division. This, Mr. Speaker, I believe the government must do. I do not think the government of the day can afford to wait for a report from a royal commission. I feel that as the government is meeting provincial premiers at the end of this coming month the task must begin right there. It is there that the first steps will be taken to draw together those responsible for our governmental leadership in every region of the country, laying the groundwork for the future planning of the survival of this nation.
Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader a question somewhat easier to answer than some which he has had to approach this week, and correspondingly I would expect a shorter and clearer answer than some he has given during the course of the week. With regard to the business of the house, are we right in assuming that we will conclude this particular debate on Monday, and that on Tuesday we will commence with the resolution referring to the Columbia treaty?


Guy Favreau: I will be very clear, Mr. Speaker: the assumption is right.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 2, 1964