1964-03-02

[Stage Direction]
"citizen"
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege affecting myself and, I submit, every hon. member of the house. I refer to a statement appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, February 29. It was written in a column by one Christopher Young. The statements to which I wish to draw Your Honour's attention appeared in an article exhibiting a complete ignorance of the law, a lack of the most elementary research and a violent and outrageous partisanship, all calculated to interfere with the members of this parliament in the exercise of their functions. I quote from the article:
In parliament, where an absolute privilege against an action for libel exists, the charge was made this week that Dr. Marcel Chaput may have committed sedition when he said that some people in Quebec were prepared-"brutally"-to let the Queen know that she was unwanted there.
That statement is not true. No charge was made at any time. The writer could have ascertained the facts by a simple reading of Hansard. Obviously he preferred to save himself that trouble. I submit that this is either sloppy journalism or deliberate perversion of the truth. My inquiry of the Minister of Justice was whether he would undertake an investigation to satisfy himself whether or not the statement in question constituted a statement requiring action by the minister. A member using words attempting to protect the Queen is now described as extremist. While it is all right, the author suggests in his article, to threaten the life of the Queen, it is not in order for members of the parliament to attempt to determine responsibility. When they do, they are classed as extremists.
On the face of it there was every possibility that the statement by Dr. Chaput did constitute the use of seditious words. In fact the minister himself states in his reply that the words are still being studied. He was, as were all members of this house, greatly concerned. I quote from my remarks as they are reported in Hansard. I said:
Does the minister intend to take prompt action with respect to what might be the seditious words used by Dr. Chaput?
That statement is to be found on page 285. I have dealt with the matter at some length, because I felt it was my right and duty to do so. I see no reason why hon. members should, in these circumstances, be subjected to outrageous, ill informed and partisan attack masquerading as fair comment.
The reference to parliamentary immunity is deliberately misleading. No immunity is required in order to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will undertake an inquiry.
Compounding the deliberate nature of this attack is the fact the same statements were made over the public broadcasting service in the C.B.C. program "Viewpoint". As a member of parliament I question the use of public facilities as a medium for partisan propaganda compounded by deliberate error.
In order to complete my question of privilege I must refer to another statement in the same article. Christopher Young goes on to say:
In times of crisis, or of high emotion, there is always an element that tries to narrow the limits of free speech. Eldon Woolliams and Erik Nielsen, the two Tory M.P.'s who demanded "action" on Dr. Chaput this week, are typical of the kind of counter-extremists who come out of the woodwork at such moments.
No member of parliament is compelled to put up with such guttersniping. I deny absolutely that there was any attempt to limit free speech. There was an attempt to find out from the Minister of Justice, or to get him to find out, whether remarks which had been discussed in the Quebec legislature as well as in this house came within the purview of the law. There was tragic proof not too long ago of the lengths to which fanaticism can go in another country. That lesson is still fresh in our minds.
I bring this matter to the attention of the house because I feel this kind of vicious and arrogant attack on members in the exercise of their duty cannot go unnoted. I reserve my right to take further action if further action becomes necessary.



PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
tabling of correspondence between prime

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to table copies in English and

Statement on London Trade Talks in French of the letter dated February 13 from Premier Robarts of Ontario and also copies of my letter and attached memorandum of January 11, 1964, on the subject of pensions.



COLUMBIA RIVER


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As the house will shortly be considering the resolution calling for the reference to the external affairs committee of the Columbia river treaty and protocol I think it would be convenient for all members to have in a single volume the main documents relating to this subject. Accordingly a white paper has been prepared which contains the texts of the Columbia river treaty, protocol and other related documents. With the permission of the house I now wish to table copies of this publication in both the French and English languages. Copies of this convenient volume are being made available to hon. members of the house, and I sent to the leaders of the house copies of this document ahead of time this morning.



REPORT ON BEHALF OF MINISTER ON LONDON TALKS

Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The minister had a long standing engagement to address the Canadian club of Toronto at noon today and is therefore unable to be in the house. He will be returning later today. He has asked me to make a brief report on his talks in London which concluded on Friday last.
The main purposes of the minister's visit to London were twofold; first, to discuss with his counterpart in the British government, Mr. Heath, certain complaints made by the British government about the valuation of British exports entering Canada and to discuss these complaints directly with British exporters; and second, to speak to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London about Anglo-Canadian trade.
The discussions with Mr. Heath and with British exporters were useful. They gave the minister and the government a clearer understanding of the nature of the complaints against our valuation procedures. The minister informed Mr. Heath and the British exporters that these complaints are under careful investigation by an interdepartmental committee, and that if the review should show

that the complaints are well founded the government would consider the kind of legislation required to remove any technical obstacle found to exist. The minister added that the evidence so far before the government did not indicate that our valuation and antidumping laws were central to the problem of British sales in Canada.
The minister also discussed with Mr. Heath the forthcoming Kennedy round of trade negotiations and the United Nations conference on trade and development. The minister also took advantage of the occasion to discuss with the British government certain of the trade barriers still facing Canadian goods entering the British market.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make any reference to the remarks made by the hon. gentleman, but I think for the purpose of the record it should be made very clear that no parliamentary secretary should be speaking in a secondary sense about what a minister has done, when the minister will be here tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the right hon. gentleman, the minister returned from Europe only over the week end. He had this engagement in Toronto, where he is speaking to the Canadian club on the subject of trade matters. The minister felt a report should be made on his behalf at once to the house, so he would not be open to the criticism on his return of saying things outside the house that had not been said inside the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Following what I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the statement could have been made by the Prime Minister. This house should not be accepting a secondary statement from a parliamentary secretary on a matter such as this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, this is not an appropriate time to discuss the remarks which have been made by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I think it should be placed on the record that the minister says he was in London to acquaint British businessmen and the British government with the fact that, in the minister's opinion, the valuation for duty purposes under the anti-dumping legislation is not central to the problem of British trade with Canada.
I hope the minister will seize an early opportunity to explain this to the house rather than just to the British government and British businessmen, because I want to say that for my part I am far from satisfied

that valuation for duty purposes is not a central feature in the great disparity of trade between Canada and Great Britain. In a country where we depend upon the British market, particularly for the sale of large quantities of wheat and other raw materials, I think the government should be giving consideration to why there is such a complete disparity between the sales by Great Britain to Canada as related to our exports to the United Kingdom.
I hope the minister will avail himself of an early opportunity to discuss the matter in the house and give the house the information which he gave the British government and British businessmen. Certainly we have not had that information, and none of these arguments has been presented to parliament.



REDISTRIBUTION


Lester Bowles Pearson: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons, and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order and inquire why, with respect to this bill, you have not issued any caveat as you did with respect to the other bills which have been introduced this session. I am wondering whether there is some distinction between the Prime Minister and everybody else in the house in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that is a semi-facetious question; I hope it is. But in case it is not, I think it is quite obvious that a Speaker faced with some 67 private bills within a few days would find it physically impossible to give the required attention to all. On the other hand, the Prime Minister is introducing a bill which has been carefully considered, I assume, by the cabinet and/or the legal officers of the House of Commons, and it is not in the same position.



MERCHANT SEAMEN COMPENSATION ACT


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency;
20220-26i
Government Notices of Motions
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act
(a)	to reduce the length of time a seaman must be disabled before compensation is payable to him;
(b)	to increase the maximum amount payable as burial expenses for a seaman who dies from an injury;
(c)	to provide that the compensation payable for or to dependent children of a seaman who dies from an injury may, with the approval of the merchant seamen compensation board, be paid to each such child under the age of twenty one years who is attending school;
(d)	to increase the minimum rate of compensation required to be paid to an injured seaman for temporary or permanent total disability; and
(e)	to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of additional compensation to the widows and dependent children of seamen who died prior to 1st June, 1957 from injuries;
and to make certain other amendments for the better administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
That a special committee be appointed to continue, with Mr. Speaker, the consideration of procedure and organization of this house, begun by a special committee at the past session, for the purpose of suggesting any changes that would assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business and would strengthen parliament and make it more effective; that the committee have power to send for persons and papers; that it report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house; and that it consist, in addition to Mr. Speaker, of 14 members to be designated at a later date.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
That a special committee be appointed to continue the consideration of matters relating to defence begun by the special committee at the past session and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses;
That it be empowered to adjourn from place to place;
That the minutes of the proceedings and evidence taken by the special committee at the past session be referred to the said committee and made a part of the records thereof; and
That the committee consist of 24 members to be designated by the house at a later date, and that standing order 67(1) be suspended in relation thereto.
[Stage Direction]


Government Notices of Motions
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Winch:: Is that automatic, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it is automatic.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister should say something about this.



DRUGS AND PESTICIDES


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
That a special committee be appointed to continue the inquiry into and to report upon (a) the hazards of food contamination from insecticides, pesticides, and other noxious substances; and (b) the safety and cost of drugs, begun by a special committee at the past session;
That the committee consist of 24 members to be designated later by the house;
That the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, records, and to report from time to time, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable;
That the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee at the past session be referred to the said committee and be made a part of the records thereof;
That the provisions of standing order 66 and 67(1) be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
That a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to continue the inquiry into and to report upon the problem of consumer credit, more particularly but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing, to inquire into and report upon the operation of Canadian legislation in relation thereto;
That 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee, and that standing order 67(1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the minutes of proceedings and the evidence received and taken by the joint committee on consumer credit at the past session be referred to the said committee and made part of the records thereof;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; and to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and,

That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister of defence is now in a position to give an answer to this house and disclose the record of the various places which have been searched under "operation disarmament". Has he that record?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman might rephrase the question with more precision. I do not know that any places were searched; consequently there would be no answer to the question.


John George Diefenbaker: That I can only designate as a facetious and contemptuous answer. I now have to ask for details. I ask him whether it was under his direction that the R.C.A.F. at Rockcliffe have had removed from them rifles and small arms, and is it correct that the operation took place within the last few days. Second, has Saskatchewan become a dangerous area-


An hon. Member:: Sensitive.


John George Diefenbaker: -for security reasons? Is it correct that in the province of Saskatchewan 32 cadet corps as well as militia and regular force units have had removed from them their rifles and ammunition?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second in so far as I know is no.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say that this did not happen in Saskatchewan? Does the minister say that this operation in Saskatchewan that I have asked about has no foundation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not so far as I know, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly take this as notice and look into it.


Mr. R. E. Forbes (Dauphin):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the removal of the small arms from the

armoury at Dauphin, Manitoba, do I take it that Dauphin is now declared a sensitive area?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.
[Later:}


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the hon. gentleman's department, or any government department, given any consideration to imposing limitations which would restrict the right of any citizen in a lawful manner to own or use firearms for such purposes as hunting and recreation?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: May I take that question as notice?



SASKATOON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the house would allow me to preface this question, it has to do with a telegram from our colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), who is seriously ill in hospital. Despite his illness, he continues to show his interest in his constituency, I believe he has sent a wire to the Minister of National Defence asking him if he would give consideration to maintaining the existing reserve units in Saskatoon.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this might be an opportunity to say something that I had promised to say on Friday last in answer to a question by the hon. member for Skeena. As hon. members know, there has been a reorganization of the reserve components of our armed forces, and this may be the opportunity to give a brief outline.
Hon. members will recall that a commission on the reorganization of the Canadian army militia, which is called the Suttie commission, has been constituted with the object of recommending the best means of fulfilling the militia requirements of Canadian defence and the changes which should be made in the organization of the militia to carry out its revised roles more effectively and realistically. These recommendations are to be received in late May or early June this year.
Second, a ministerial committee on the Royal Canadian naval reserve was authorized in January, and its recommendations have been received. Resulting from the committee's recommendations, the following decisions have been made. Two reserve divisions, H.M.C.S. Malahat and H.M.C.S. Scotian, on the west and east coasts respectively, will be retained. H.M.C.S. Chatham at Prince Rupert and the
Inquiries of the Ministry two reserve air squadrons, one in Toronto and the other in Victoria, will be paid off. The following divisions, H.M.C.S. Nonsuch, Queen, Prevost and the tender Kitchener have been inactivated but will not be paid off pending receipt and study of the Suttie commission report.
Third, the ministerial committee on the R.C.A.F. auxiliary, also authorized in January, has submitted its recommendations and the following decisions have been made. All reserve technical training units and medical units have been disbanded. In addition, by the end of March the four auxiliary wing headquarters and their associated squadrons located at Victoria, Calgary, Saskatoon and Hamilton will have been inactivated, but actual disbandonment will be held in abeyance until the Suttie commission has reported.
The auxiliary wing headquarters and their associated squadrons at Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal will be maintained, as was announced in December by the Minister of National Defence. The role of these remaining R.C.A.F. auxiliary squadrons is being reviewed to determine the most effective manner in which they may be employed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is a general one. Now I ask the minister, what about the militia units in Saskatoon? What is going to be done in this regard? Is there not some way in which the minister could continue those militia units that go back many, many years, particularly in view of the special request for consideration which comes to us from a fellow member under circumstances that I am sure should receive the consideration of the government?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members of the house are very much appreciative of the role that has been played by the militia in the past and the important role it must play in the future. However, as I mentioned before, the Suttie commission is made up of people who are very well versed in the militia and who are also businessmen. They are now making very thorough studies of the militia problem, and I am quite sure all the representations which the Leader of the Opposition has made will be taken into consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I add a word to that reply, Mr. Speaker, and ask the right hon. gentleman, when he is sending that information on to our colleague in Saskatoon, to tell him that he is very much in the minds of all hon. members of the house as he is putting up such a courageous fight to regain his health, and we wish him success.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to thank the Prime Minister for those words, characteristic of the House of Commons, in that things that separate us are forgotten when illness strikes any of our members.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: May I ask the Associate Minister of National Defence how soon he expects the report of the special committee studying the militia to be submitted?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It is expected that the Suttie commission will report at the end of May or the beginning of June.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture. There is a report in this morning's Globe and Mail headed "Bloodshed Is Feared Over Tobacco Price". The article states:
Ontario's three tobacco auction exchanges will remain closed indefinitely "to prevent possible violence and bloodshed"-
It says the complaint is that the tobacco farmers are being offered by the buyers 5 cents and 10 cents a pound for 50 cents a pound tobacco. The report says a five man delegation is coming to Ottawa today to meet the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask if this delegation is going to be met, and what action the government proposes to take to deal with this very serious situation.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting a delegation headed by Mr. Demeyere immediately after orders of the day, along with a group of five members of his board, and they will also meet the Prime Minister. At that time we hope to help solve this very serious problem.
For the information of the house, it seems to me that hon. members would probably be interested to learn that to date through the tobacco auction some 117,191,000 pounds of tobacco have been sold, and the average price to date is 51.14 cents per pound. On the same date a year ago they had disposed of 73,500,000 pounds at about the same average price, 50.13 cents.
This year the tobacco growers have grown somewhat less acreage of tobacco but on their

99,000 acres, they have produced about 181 minion pounds. There are 4,400 growers of tobacco, and there are some 85 grades involved. It is quite a complicated problem, and I hope we will be able to help Mr. Demeyere and his group solve this serious situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if it is correct that there are a million pounds in the auctions now which will have to be taken home by the farmers? May I ask him if the price which is being offered according to this report is actually as low as 3 cents a pound? May I also ask the minister what help he proposes to offer to this delegation. He mentioned the fact that he had some help in mind, and I think the house is entitled to know what measures he proposes to deal with this matter.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question there have been some 5 million pounds taken home from the tobacco auctions. Under the procedure according to which the auction is held, the buyer has a right to refuse an offer that is made at the auction. If he does this then he has to take the tobacco home. He has three opportunities to sell the tobacco again at the auction. I could not at this time advise what action might be taken before we have an opportunity of discussing the problem with Mr. Demeyere. It is quite a long and complicated procedure under which tobacco is sold, but I should be glad to explain it if that is the wish of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. The minister mentioned that help would be given. Am I to take it from his remarks now that he does not know what kind of help will be given, but he merely hopes that some help will be forthcoming?


Harry William Hays: I would not want to express an opinion on what we might do until we can sit down and discuss all the ramifications of this matter.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture concerning the present situation in the tobacco industry. Will the minister consider, as an emergency measure, recommending to his cabinet colleagues that a suitable floor price be put under this flue-cured tobacco?


Harry William Hays: Of course there is a 47 cent support price under tobacco at the moment. As I said to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I cannot make any suggestions until after we have discussed the problem.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can he give us a report of the meeting which took place with the ministers of the provincial government concerning the transfer of jurisdiction over the Eskimos in the province of Quebec?
Could he also tell us when that transfer of jurisdiction will take place?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I feel that question should be addressed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), whose department is directly concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: May I put the same question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, that is whether he has any comments to make to the house about the meeting held this week end concerning the transfer of jurisdiction over Eskimo affairs? Could he also tell us when the transfer will take place?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can do any better than bring to the attention of the house a statement that we agreed upon on Saturday, in which it is stated that recommendations will be made to our respective governments on the following matters:
1.	The method by which the Eskimos are to be consulted prior to the finalization of an agreement of transfer;
2.	The principles and basic conditions which will serve to protect the rights and interests of the Eskimos;
3.	The establishment of a committee to which is given the task of preparing a draft agreement.
Among matters still outstanding before the general agreement can be concluded are the financial arrangements between the two governments. On both sides, we will submit to our respective governments the results of our discussions, after which the results of Saturday's discussions may be made public.


Hon. Paul Marfineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: I should like to ask the minister if, as a result of the statement he has just read, the government is now committed to the principle of the transfer of the Eskimos to provincial authority.


Arthur Laing: The government stated, sir, that in principle it had adopted the idea
Inquiries oj the Ministry of the transfer of Eskimos to provincial jurisdiction subject to certain basic limitations, so far as we were concerned, in respect of the manner in which the change was to be undertaken and primarily in respect of the preservation of the rights of the Eskimos themselves. Behind this was the reiteration of the government of Canada that responsibility for these people continued to rest with it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Have those limitations been accepted by the Quebec government?


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: May
I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister read an article in the Globe and Mail of this morning which carried the heading "Quebec May Assume Eskimo Jurisdiction"? The writer is Thomas Sloan, and he says a deal has already been made in relation to 2,500 Eskimos in that part of Quebec which is characterized as new Quebec. Is that article in error, or is the minister not now revealing everything?


Arthur Laing: I read the article, too, and I think my hon. friend is in error when he draws the inference that the writer says a deal has already been made. I do not think that statement is made in the article.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I rise on a point of privilege in reference to the facts. This is a quote from the article in question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member take responsibility for that article?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I do not, Mr. Speaker. However, I may say this on a point of privilege. The minister has already said that the article does not contain this statement to which I referred him. Surely that is a point of personal privilege. If the article does contain that statement, then I say that the minister is in error, and that is the point of my personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see any point of personal privilege there. The minister gave a clear, concise answer. He said no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I read the article in connection with my point of personal privilege?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Not unless the hon. member cares to assume responsibility for it, which I am sure he does not.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I had a supplementary question in connection with this matter, and the minister was ready to answer it. In case he has forgotten the question, it was this. Does the Quebec government accept the limitations that the minister has enumerated?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: I think I should not answer that question until the matters which were discussed on Saturday, and about which we came to a satisfactory conclusion, are submitted to our respective governments. I indicated in the last paragraph of my statement that we may make a public statement after submissions to our respective governments.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Will the minister say whether parliament will have an opportunity to consider this agreement?


Arthur Laing: I do not wish to comment on that at this time.


Mr. R. W. Prilfie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Is
the minister able to tell the house what sort of consultations or safeguards the government has in mind for the Eskimos? Is it a question of a referendum or something like that?


Arthur Laing: The details of the safeguards which were insisted upon are adequately spelled out and, as I say, may be published by both governments later.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like the minister to tell us how he can reconcile the fact that the administration of jurisdiction respecting Eskimo affairs can be transferred without transferring at the same time the responsibility this jurisdiction implies?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe that question is in order. It is argumentative, hypothetical and a few other things.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is related to the subject matter of the policy announcement by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources regarding the transfer of jurisdiction over Eskimo affairs in one province. Does that principle apply also with respect to the other group of aboriginal people in Canada, our native Indians, and are any steps being taken to consult the provinces about any transfer of jurisdiction over them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that no principle would be adopted and applied to one province which would not be applicable to all provinces.


Frank Howard: Perhaps the Prime Minister did not get the question clearly in the first place. I asked about the principle of transfer of jurisdiction over Eskimo people, and I want to know what is the position of the
[Mr. Martineau.l
government with respect to the transfer of jurisdiction over Indian people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should be expected to answer that question on orders of the day. I shall be glad to look into it and see if a statement can be made.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: As a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is this a
supplementary or a direct question?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: It is a supplementary to the one just asked.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. member put a direct question, because I do not think a supplementary is called for.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I address my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can he advise the house whether the government of Quebec is at the present time negotiating with his department for the transfer of jurisdiction over Indian people in nouveau Quebec to the province?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I shall take the question as notice.



&quot;OOKPIK&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister advise the house what an ookpik is and what his department has to do with it, whatever it may be?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having "hooted" at me before we met this morning. The word "ookpik" in the Esquimo language means Arctic owl, and one of our Eskimo co-operatives is producting models of such an Arctic owl under the name "Ookpik".
These models and the name Ookpik have been used by the Department of Trade and Commerce as an international trade symbol for Canada and, accordingly, the name Ookpik was been adopted by Her Majesty and public notice is being given by the registrar of trade marks. The Fort Chimo Eskimo cooperative, which developed the Ookpik, is in the process of licensing commercial manufacturers in southern Canada. I certainly hope

there will be no attempt to defeat their initiative and ingenuity by unfair competition from unauthorized manufacturers.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Following the announcement made by President Johnson of the United States concerning the existence of a high altitude, high speed fighter, does the minister intend to equip soon Canadian air forces with such an aircraft?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This was a most fascinating
development and one with a possible application in the future which we will be following with great interest.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will inform the house concerning the present situation in relation to the formation of a peace keeping force in Cyprus, and what offers, if any, Canada has made in connection with that force.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The present situation is that members of the security council have before them a general resolution urging the establishment of an international force to keep the peace in Cyprus. The resolution is in general terms, and if it is approved I expect that within the next few days consultations will take place between the secretary general and the countries that might be asked to provide troops for the proposed international force. These consultations have not yet begun, but I will keep the house informed to the extent that circumstances permit.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With reference to the latter part of the question, has Canada made any offer of forces or troops for this force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the possible decision of the security council, pursuant to the resolution to which I have just made reference, there has been no offer made by Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. According to last Saturday's edition of the London Free Press, the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in London, Ontario, that the government is at present actively considering the question of extending recognition to the People's Republic of China. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the house that there will be opportunity for a full debate on this matter in the house before a decision is taken.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can certainly assure the hon. member that both before the committee on external affairs and in this house there will be opportunity to discuss this matter before action is taken.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING EXPUL- SION OF CANADIAN JESUITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister tell the house whether there have been new discussions with the government of the republic of Haiti concerning the expulsion of Canadian Jesuit fathers from that country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the statement I made in that connection some time ago.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister anticipate any repercussions in Canada from the action taken last Thursday by the United Kingdom government in raising the bank interest rate to 5 per cent?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. As I am sure he knows, the possibility of this move had been a matter of more or less public discussion for some time, and it appears to have been fairly widely anticipated not only in financial markets in the United Kingdom but also in Canada and the United States.
398	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS



REPORTED BOMB THREAT TO CENTRE BLOCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister. Was a bomb threat to the centre block of parliament received late Friday afternoon, and, if so, what action was taken?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No such threat was received to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I shall be glad to look into it and see if anybody else received it.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and in his absence possibly the parliamentary secretary could take it as notice. Has the minister any statement to make regarding nationalist China being invited to participate in Canada's world fair while our customer and partner in trade, mainland China, is not being invited?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring this question to the attention of the minister.



CONTINUATION OF SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, or to the appropriate minister. My question refers to a very important announcement made by the hon. member for Kootenay East in his constituency which means, in effect, that the present government intends to continue the policy established by the former Progressive Conservative government of paying a subsidy on coal shipped from Kootenay East to Japan.
I think this is an important announcement, and that the house is entitled to have information of this kind directly. Would the appropriate minister inform the house if this statement is correct and give us some details, some further information.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Acting Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: In the absence of the Minister of Mines and Technical


Surveys, may I take the question as notice and bring it to the attention of my colleague?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give the house an answer to the question I put to him on February 20, when I asked him when we might expect the tabling of the report of the royal commission on health services.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize for not having put it on the record of the house, but I informed the hon. member, after he had asked the question, that in reply to a communication from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam earlier I had informed him, and I am glad to inform the hon. member and the house now, that our latest information indicates that the report of this royal commission will not be presented until May. As I pointed out to the hon. member when I wrote to him, I am as disappointed as the house will be at the delay in bringing this important work to a conclusion. We are emphasizing to the commission the necessity of getting the report before the house as quickly as possible.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: tTranslation]
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister?
Since the province of Quebec and other Canadian organizations are against federal loans to students, because they are considered as infringing on the field of education, is it the government's intention to withdraw that legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Does the government intend to set up a federal department of education, as suggested by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett)?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 

PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue?
Considering all the advantages that the government intends to grant the Reader's Digest and Time magazine, will those two publications remain exempt from Canadian sales tax?

Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National
Revenue): I think we should postpone any discussion until the proposed legislation is before the house. However, I cannot foresee any change in the application of sales tax.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
"quest"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. I am referring to the program "Quest" carried on C.B.C. television stations on February 25 depicting the life of railway station employees. This was just another "Quest" program which was most corrupt and immoral. Would the minister consider taking action to see that this "Quest" program is removed from C.B.C. television screens?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: I will be glad to ask the C.B.C. to prepare a report on this program and to indicate what are its intentions with regard to it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Has the Secretary of State obtained yet from the C.B.C. a report on the interview granted by that corporation to Mr. Marcel Chaput, about which a question was asked last week?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I have a supplementary question to put to the Prime Minister. We have been receiving such answers from ministers responsible for the C.B.C. for years. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman
Inquiries of the Ministry whether he would consider introducing legislation to set up a committee of this house to which the C.B.C. would be responsible, in order that parliament might have more control over undesirable programs put out by the C.B.C.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman will, I hope, have the opportunity before long of bringing before this house, through a committee, his views as to the desirability of the parliament of Canada controlling programs of the C.B.C.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house what progress is being made in renegotiating the bilateral air agreement presently existing between Canada and the United States?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I understand that preparations are being made for negotiations a little later in the spring, but I think it would be inadvisable to attempt to make any more detailed statement without making further inquiries.


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Can the
minister assure the house that when this conference takes place in the spring full consideration will be given to acquiring additional direct flights from Halifax international airport to United States and Caribbean points?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the hon. gentleman that his view and other views about the desirability of increased Canadian participation in this traffic will be pressed as strongly as possible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I take this opportunity to answer a question which I should have answered a couple of days ago, put to me by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, having to do with the letting of the contract for the rehabilitation and renovation of the wharf at North Sydney to take the new ferries. I may say I checked with my colleague the Minister of Public Works, whose department will be responsible for this work.
400	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
My understanding is that every effort is to be made to complete the plans and designs as quickly as possible and to call for tenders as rapidly as possible in order that at the earliest possible date work will be available on this project.



PROSPECTIVE LAY-OFFS AT POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Labour what success he has had in implementing his undertaking to find employment for the men who are being displaced by the closing of the Point Edward naval base in Cape Breton.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend may know, the reduced program at Point Edward will begin on April 1 and will extend over a period of some months in an effort to correlate the lay-offs with expanding employment opportunities in the future. The national employment service is working closely with the provincial government, and on its own account, to io this job and also to develop any training programs that may be suitable in the circumstances. That is the picture at the moment, and t will be glad later on to advise the house pf any further details.



WELCOME TO MEMBER FOR PROVENCHER ON RETURN TO HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Before orders of the day are called, may I be permitted to say I am sure all hon. members will share my own pleasure at the return to the house after three months' absence through illness of the hon. member for Provencher, who is my deskmate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of reports that the Department of Transport airport at The Pas, Manitoba, will be closed to aircraft of certain weights and sizes in the very near future due to the poor condition of the runways, can the minister advise the house whether his department has plans to reconstruct these runways and, if so, when this work will be undertaken?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question I could answer without notice, and I will take the hon. gentleman's question as notice.



VANCOUVER-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF TERMINAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I only do so in order to clarify existing confusion. Is the minister in a position to make clear now when he anticipates construction will start on the new international airport terminal in Vancouver?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it just so happens that the representative of the board of trade of Vancouver saw me this morning and put this question to me in the presence of my deputy minister, so I happen to have up to date information.


Harold Edward Winch: But I was not there and so did not get the information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; but I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that I do know the answer to one question-


Mr. Churchill:: You differ from your colleagues.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -because I do not pretend to know the answers in detail to most of the questions that might be asked about my department, without inquiry. In this particular case I understand there has to be a good deal of work done on the foundations. Because, as the hon. gentleman well knows, the terrain being what it is, it is very important that before an expensive building is erected there we be sure there is an adequate foundation. The planning is going ahead and everything is being done with the hope that the project will be started before the end of this year and completed in time for the centenary.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES DIXON-SPEAS REPORT    INQUIRY AS TO PUBLICATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is a condensed or expurgated version of the Dixon-Speas report about to be published? If so, will it be made public, and in particular will a copy of it be sent to the government of Manitoba?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the work of taking out of the original report that information which is of a commercial character and would have prejudiced the position of T.C.A. is almost completed. I hope the report, with the confidential, commercial information omitted from it can be made public very, very shortly, not only to the government of Manitoba but to the public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have assurances been given to Premier Roblin that after the government of Manitoba has studied the report, consideration will be given to the matter of a public inquiry into matters relating to the retention of the T.C.A. base at Winnipeg?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have written Premier Roblin on this subject, but I am not exactly sure what should be the nature of my statement on this important subject. I had better look into it.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In respect to the federal-provincial committee on wages and price disputes in the British Columbia fishing industry, I would like to know whether the committee is under instruction from one or both governments to hold their hearings in camera. If so, would the minister explain to the house the reason such instructions have been given to the committee?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Speaker; both governments have instructed this committee to hold its hearings in camera. It is a committee established to seek information in order to take adequate measures to solve a very important problem in connection with the fisheries industry in British Columbia, and we felt that in order to get full information it was better to receive such information in camera from different parties.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What will be done with this information after the committee has secured it through its hearings?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: We will have to wait until we receive the report from the committee before taking a decision on what will be done at that time.
The Address-Mr. S. Fleming


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the report of the committee be published, or made public to the members of the house and the interested parties concerned?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a decision on that matter at this time. It is most probable that when the report is received consideration will be given by the two governments, the federal government and the government of British Columbia, to making the report public.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 28, 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.
Mr. Sluarl A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-sloke):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke before the adjournment of the house on Friday evening I endeavoured to suggest that we in Canada have become obsessed with division; that we are tearing out our hearts and rending the nation with selfish concerns, with fears of the ascendancy of one region over another or the supposed subservience of some Canadians to other Canadians. We are totally neglecting the magnificence of the Canadian concept, of a nation strong enough to encompass vast divergences of geography and people as well as the various and best ideals of men.
Under the influence of divisive forces we are permitting ourselves to become destructively preoccupied with our differences. Instead of glorying in these differences and taking pride in them as evidence of our diversity, we are permitting them to be used as evidence of division. Such division can only lead to disintegration.
Our principal objective ought to be to demonstrate that in our diversity we are devoted to the Canadian concept, to Canada as a nation and as an ideal; a nation compounded of many elements and one high purpose; a nation devoted to the liberty of the individual and the unity of all its people -all its people in all their diversity. The language to which each of us is committed by birth or circumstance is of consequence as a matter of personal pride, a pride for which there is a place in our nationhood. The purpose, the ideal, the justification we have as Canadians must transcend race and language but encompass both. Unless we are capable of rising to that concept we shall not survive as a nation, and we shall not deserve survival.
402	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Laprise


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I should like to join with all those who spoke before me to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) and to the seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should also like to congratulate all those who, for some reason or another, have assumed new responsibilities at the head of the administration.
Mr. Speaker, each year anniversary celebrations are held here and there throughout the country, to mark the founding of parishes, towns or regions. The year 1964 will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Abitibi section. During the summer of 1964, religious and civic ceremonies will mark that anniversary.
I think it will be a very proper occasion to visit and to meet the Abitibi region and its people whom I have the honour to represent here since 1962. Those who will travel through Abitibi on that occasion may be assured of the most hearty welcome.
It is usual for a member in this house to talk big about his riding. So that people will know what the pioneers of Abitibi found when they arrived, I should like to quote some excerpts from the work of Pierre Tru-delle: "Abitibi in olden days, yesterday and today." At page 13, here is what can be found:
This large area is full of wonderful lakes, most of them with many green and sumptuous little islands which decorate the horizon and charm the eyes of the travellers.
Further on, on page 43, this other quotation is found:
In 1906 and 1907, Mr. Henry O'Sullivan, a surveyor, explored the Abitibi district and reported that the land throughout this region of the province is fertile, being made up of a rich clay, now grey, now blue, and covered in some places with a layer of black soil, without rocks.
That is why our area, populated by very industrious people with the faith of pioneers, sparing neither efforts nor sacrifices, putting their rightful ambitions in the future, which unfortunately were not fulfilled in many cases, failed to become what the first settlers had hoped.
The Abitibi district which could have become a source of pride for the province of Quebec has been at a standstill for the past few years, especially in the agricultural field, and has been developing very slowly in the industrial field; in the mining industry alone, prospects are more encouraging; trade and business are affected by that decline. Unemployment insurance and welfare are not sufficient to remove extraordinary hardships which


are now experienced. The level of salaries is too low compared to the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to tell you about present conditions in my constituency and to remind the government of the immediate and urgent needs which have to be met so as to give to that northwestern area of Quebec the development to which its inhabitants are entitled.
First of all, with regard to farming, the Abitibi is one of the least favoured areas and among those that have been most neglected and abandoned by our governments. Complaints have been raised, and rightly so, in the east, that the farm revenue is much too low, and the Abitibi is one of the least favoured eastern areas with respect to agriculture.
In a report published in 1962, we saw that, in eastern Canada, there were 92,000 farmers with revenue below $1,200 a year. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Abitibi, and more particularly the riding of Chapleau which I represent, is precisely one of those Quebec regions where farming is least favoured at this time. Indeed, because of a lack of organization, some communities opened up for colonization during the great depression in 1929-39 are still settlements. After 28 or 30 years, people do not yet seem able to take the decisive step between the settler's status and the farmer's status. Indeed, very few of those who are now living on the land in the Abitibi are able to earn a living solely from the yield of their land.
To give new hopes to the farmers of the area, higher revenues and prosperity, what we need in the Abitibi area is a well equipped and well organized experimental farm to study the nature of soils and the climate and give the information and advice necessary for a healthy agriculture. We also need a slaughter house to assist and promote breeding; already, beef cattle breeding is being revived in that area, and farmers are becoming more interested in that sector of farming. It is evident that, in an area as remote from the main centres as the Abitibi area, the building of a slaughter house would be a great help and a considerable improvement. We also need cold storage facilities, as a slaughter house could not exist without such facilities. Since the inception of ARDA, we have started to clear lands for the blueberries harvest. Blueberry cultivation is being developed at present and we will soon be able to produce good crops of this fruit which is in great demand. Production of this small fruit is excellent and very promising, but we must be able to control sales to a certain extent and it will probably be necessary to build cold storage and canning facilities, which would increase the producers' income.

In my riding there are several active mines and there are also several mining prospects; not long ago, important deposits were discovered near Senneterre. To stimulate the economy and to fight unemployment which is more serious in our area than anywhere else, it is important that the price of gold be raised by at least $10 an ounce. That would cause the development of new mines and it would give work to a few thousand of our people.
Unemployment takes a heavy toll in our district, and the level of unemployment is much too unstable. The winter works program which, in many cases, was limited to the harvesting of alders and other reeds, does not satisfy my constituents. Those reeds have to be burned because nobody wants to buy them.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry-and I am sure all other members of the house agree with me-that the speech from the throne does not provide for any legislation which would start the Canadian economy going again. Even the Liberal members who at the outset of their speeches praised the speech from the throne finally told us that they had found none of the measures the Canadian people were expecting.
The speech from the throne should have provided, during this session, for an increase in family allowances proportionate to the cost of living index.
The speech from the throne should have provided a basic exemption in personal income tax of $2,500 for single people, and $5,000 for married people. This would have resulted in greater purchasing power for the working people allowing them to purchase goods in greater quantity, thus improving the employment situation.
The speech from the throne should have also provided for a gradual reduction in taxes of all kinds, because they take purchasing power away from consumers and prevent them from getting enough consumer goods.
The speech from the throne should have provided for a refund of the national debt, so that unreasonable interests would not have to be paid, as is now the case. In 1962-63, the national debt cost Canadians $918 million, that is almost twice as much as the cost of family allowances. Let us reduce our national debt by two thirds and we will be able to double family allowances. Last year the interest on the national debt cost us roughly $18 million per week; the increase in the amount of interest was about $1.5 million per week.
Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate in having, in Canada, a central bank-exclusive property of the government-whose purpose and
The Address-Mr. Gelber responsibility are to regulate credit and money in the interest of our country's economy.
The government should make use of the Bank of Canada to redeem the national debt, thus granting the necessary subsidies to promote consumption and stir up national production.
It seems that the government seeks to grant subsidies, to finance production in order to settle the resulting problem. In my opinion, there is no production problem in Canada, on the contrary, our problem has to do with consumption.
Consequently, the government's role would be first of all to promote consumption in Canada, by means of grants in the form of discounts for producers; this would be to the advantage of the consumer and would cut production costs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, an improvement would readily be seen in the employment situation, as well as in Canadian trade with other countries. In putting forward this sound and realistic policy, the government would allow Canadians to obtain a better share of our national production, and at the same time to take full advantage of the services available to them.


Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. member for Longueuil and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard for their distinguished speeches in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should also like to say, Mr. Speaker, how much I was moved by the address of the hon. member for Leeds.
In this house in recent days we have heard many excellent and sincere speeches on both sides relating to national unity. We are concerned with the problems of adjustment within Canadian society, and have not noted other tensions which have meaning for our own well-being. The struggle between the great powers is not forgotten. The points of friction, often involving nascent states, are dramatically before us. But there are other broad struggles which appear less dramatically in the news but can have a decisive influence on the destiny of our society.
Tensions arising from differences of colour are most important. The establishment of a host of new states in Asia and Africa gives a new status to the social revolution that engulfs these continents. The recent visit of the premier of the Chinese People's Republic to Asia and Africa is a bid to secure nonwhite diplomacy and to the exclusion of Russian communist influence. The comradeship of colour is a factor of growing importance in

The Address-Mr. Gelber international diplomacy. On this continent we are witnessing the transformation of the status of non-white society. That the process is painful for many in no way diminishes the high purpose of emancipation for all.
The laws of Canada reflect the society in which we live and which we wish to build. Among the pillars of the edifice of law is the Criminal Code, which expresses a concern for a peaceable and just society. In his book on "Liberty in the Modern State" Harold Laski said:
Law is not merely a command; it is also an appeal-the essence of the law making process is the consent of interested minds-Authority, if my view is right, is always acting at its peril. It lives, not by its power to command, but by its power to convince.
Our ideas of liberty as expressed in our codes and in the common law reflect the struggle against tyranny. Today the shadow of arbitrary authority is not absent, and twice we have been engaged on foreign soil in struggles of world-wide proportions to repel the bid of tyrannical power for a wide hegemony.
It is right that we should be zealous to protect our liberty, but one of the most difficult problems in government is to ensure individual freedom while maintaining the rights of society itself. In his classic exposition "On Liberty" John Stuart Mill wrote:
There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to the good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.
But Mill himself recognized that there is a distinction between holding an opinion and incitement. There is the classic illustration that freedom of speech does not entitle a man to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Mill said this:
No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may Justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.
The means of communication are changing radically and the woild of John Stuart Mill would not recognize our own society with its highly organized mass media. The fishbowl of free expression in Hyde park is distant from the audience of tens and tens of millions fascinated by television and radio and subjected to the daily outpourings of large circulation newspapers. Scientific studies have

been applied to the problems of mass communication. The probings of motivational research are available to the great merchandisers, and the techniques of market manipulation are being applied to political tasks with a skill and capability never before experienced. In his book "The Hidden Persuaders" Vance Packard writes about the political bosses in the 1956 United States presidential campaign:
They made spectacular strides in changing the traditional characteristics of American public life. They were able to do this by drawing upon the insights of Pavlov and his conditioned reflexes, Freud and his father images, Riesman and his concept of modern American voters as spectator-consumers of politics and Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn and their mass merchandising lore.
Of course the first guardian of our liberties remains what Laski called "the consent of interested minds". The political maturity of our people and the determined defence of our free institutions stand against those who might want to persuade us along undemocratic paths. But law not only sets out for all to see the ideals of our society; in all its majesty it is a great educator. We must be continually examining the codes of our society to ensure that they express our highest concern.
Representations have been made to successive governments that the Criminal Code of Canada has narrowed the crime of sedition, sections 60 to 63, so that it loses those aspects of the common law which make it an offence "to promote ill feeling between different classes of a community". Furthermore, in prohibiting the spreading of false news, section 166, the term "public interest" should be clearly defined. It seems to me that there is the right of the citizen to the quiet enjoyment of his home and his society. The hate literature to which attention was drawn in this house by the hon. member for York Centre should be denied the services of the post office of Canada.
We witnessed, in the death of the Weimar republic the use of democratic privileges by the enemies of democracy to corrupt and destroy it. When liberty becomes licence we must be vigilant to sustain our freedoms. We also recognize the use of statutes to enlarge our areas of freedom in measures ensuring non-discrimination and fair employment practices. The social ideals of our society are expressed by law. The command of our great common law is that you must keep the peace. The Criminal Code of Canada should fulfil this enjoinder.
We are a nation of minorities, and in the post-war period our immigration policies have encouraged the rise among us of new and larger islands of Europe overseas. We

must more actively encourage the adjustment of these communities to the main streams of Canadian life. There has been too much of leaving the new arrivals to drift for themselves. I am disquieted by the large numbers I have met who have been here 10 and 15 years without applying for naturalization. In Toronto a splendid job of training immigrants in skills is being performed by COSTI, but the chief benefactors are not Canadian. Were it not for the Italian government COSTI would have closed its doors.
Because we are a nation of minorities I particularly want to underscore the importance of the points I made about clarifying the use of the phrase "public interest" in our code. We must ensure that groups within the mosaic of our society are not the prey of those who would destroy our peace.
I have spoken of national unity and tensions both at home and abroad which test our mettle. I have discussed some of the problems of our freedoms which are precious to us all. New men are expanding the horizons of liberty, and I want to quote from one of the most eloquent who has something to teach us all. Speaking from the marble steps of the Lincoln memorial in Washington last September to more than 200,000 in a march for jobs and freedom, the Reverend Martin Luther King said:
Even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream-
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the people's injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Frankly, from what I have heard of those speeches and the comments upon them in the house, these hon. members deserve congratulations and they certainly did honour to their constituencies.
May I confine my remarks to the Liberal government's unhappy handling of the community antenna television problem, which is
The Address-Mr. Pugh commonly referred to as cable T.V. Actually this is just one more example of the extremely muddled thinking, the leaping before looking attitude, the careless disregard for the rights of Canadians as a whole, of this government. A further example was the way in which certain steps were taken in the budget. There was a leaping before looking, a careless disregard of the results of the securities tax. This measure was introduced with a certain amount of fanfare. However, it had barely been introduced before it was suddenly withdrawn. It was withdrawn for the very good reason that sensible people all across Canada took exactly the same attitude as the Conservative opposition took, that is that this tax should not have been introduced because it was going to be detrimental to the Canadian economy. The Minister of Finance as well as the other members of the cabinet heard the word and they withdrew that tax.
Then too we have heard a lot of talk about the 11 per cent sales tax that was imposed in the budget. I do not intend to go into that thoroughly now, but the lumber industry as well as other industries in my constituency have been hit extremely hard by this tax.


Mr. Macaluso:: Sales are up.


David Vaughan Pugh: The hon. member says "sales are up". I would not believe that, but I will say that sales would have been up a lot more if the tax had not been imposed.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Prove it.


David Vaughan Pugh: Prove it? I believe the lumber industry could prove it. Actually I am glad the hon. member mentioned this measure, because it gives me an opportunity to speak about it. Each and every lumber operator in my constituency, and there are a lot of them, took the trouble to call on me during the Christmas holidays. They then confirmed their conversations in writing. What they had to say about this 11 per cent sales tax would not bear repeating in this house. The official opposition introduced an amendment suggesting that this tax should have been looked at more carefully before it was imposed. I say this government should remove that sales tax. We should get rid of it, and I demand that as of now.
As hon. members are aware, I am speaking more or less about the quiet withdrawals of the Liberal government and the fact that the government did not look ahead, did not realize the consequences of their actions. As an illustration of this I cite the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax. The measure had only been introduced when the members of the cabinet said "The Conservative opposition is right and the people know they

The Address-Mr. Pugh are right; we had better run tor the bomb shelters." They then cut down the tax to 4 per cent, and will impose the balance of the 11 per cent in two stages, one of 4 per cent and one of 3 per cent.
I am suggesting that if the government listen to the people, they will remove that tax. I am wondering if the ex-minister of forestry, who is now the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson), and who has a long association with the lumber industry of British Columbia, did not ask the Prime Minister to relieve him of that portfolio. He is an honourable man, and I do not believe he could take the reasoned approach of the lumber industry of British Columbia. I thank the hon. member for his interjection, because it gave me a chance to put these remarks on the record.
In so far as dominion-provincial relations are concerned, we find the same sort of careless disregard for other people's interests. There have been pronouncements indicating a disregard of the end result. We had a glaring example of that during this debate when the Prime Minister spoke. He made a rather good speech, and the words were those Canadians like to hear. They were to this effect: "All provinces, all provincial premiers-we must get together. We must talk these things over for the benefit of Canada." But those words were hardly engraved on our minds before the Prime Minister took a roundhouse swing at the premier of Ontario with regard to the Liberal Canada pension plan. If it cannot stand any criticism, particularly after asking for it and seeking co-operation, then I say that the government with its pronouncements is in for a lot of trouble. If it advocates these things, then why not go through with them?
I have been told that the Prime Minister is no slouch on diplomacy, but if that is evidence of his diplomacy, his chopping away at the premier of Ontario in the middle of the throne speech debate, where there is no opportunity for reply by the premier, to my mind it does not seem to be in essence diplomacy.
I imagine it was a little hard for the premier of Ontario to take those remarks, particularly in view of Premier Lesage's attitude toward the Canada pension plan. Premier Lesage opted out of it, so we have the two largest provinces, one Liberal and the other Conservative, at loggerheads with the federal government. I suggest that the government sit it out, talk it out, and try and get a little more unanimity.
As I said, I want to confine my remarks more or less to cable television. At the beginning I think the government took a reasonable step. I refer back to last June

when it was decided to find out the impact of cable television on Canadian broadcasting as a whole. However, at the end of December it did something which is just one more example of bureaucratic handing out of stuff: "Here is the plan. We will listen to your remarks later, but this is what we are going to do". Dealing with cable television the government first issued a directive and then a press release dated December 31, in which it was stated:
For some time, the problem of the effect of the development of community antenna television on national broadcasting policy has been of concern to the government.
It is the policy of the government to maintain the Canadian identity and character of broadcasting to the greatest extent practicable and, to that end, the board of broadcast governors, with the technical advice and in consultation with the Department of Transport, has been asked by the government to inquire into and recommend any legislative action that may be required to ensure that, so far as the constitutional jurisdiction of parliament will permit, the use of community antenna television for the dissemination of television programs is subject to similar regulation under parallel conditions to that applied to direct broadcasting.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing at all wrong with that. In other words, this is a straight, general inquiry into a matter of great interest to all Canada, the impact of cable antenna television on broadcasting. However, I have one serious objection concerning the use of the word "broadcasting"; in other words, calling cable television companies broadcasters. What I object to most strongly is the bureaucratic ending of this directive and press release, which went out under the joint names of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport; and it is interesting to see that the then secretary of state is now the Minister of Transport. The next paragraph in the release stated:
Meanwhile, the government has decided that no new licences or amendments to existing licences will be approved for CATV-
-that is, cable antenna television-
-installations to broadcast programs emanating from broadcasting stations outside Canada. Until a long term policy has been adopted as a result of this inquiry, CATV licences will not be disturbed in cases where transmission had been commenced before December 31, 1963.
This is one more case of the government leaping before looking, issuing directives without following the consequences through, and I hope to point out a little later that it has a tiger by the tail. The reason the government should have taken a little more care is that the subject is not new in any shape or form. The whole matter was discussed in the special committee on broadcasting two years ago, a committee of which I and the present Minister of Transport were members. It has not arisen suddenly; it is not some

new danger. For that reason I say the government should have taken a better look at it.
This arbitrary action has produced the result that the industry-and it is a fairly large industry throughout Canada-is in an uproar. You can imagine why, Mr. Speaker. For the most part these companies carry United States stations, and now we have a directive saying that no future licences will be granted and that licences pending will not be granted. To my mind this is the crux of the whole matter. Like any other industry in Canada, this industry wants to expand. It has a right to expand. It was set up and constituted originally under an act of parliament. Why then chop it off in the middle?
There have been other results. For instance, in my own area two new subdivisions are being built. The people concerned wanted to take unsightly aerials off the rooftops and they put in cable television. The question now is, are people going to buy the cable television? They certainly will not if it looks as though there will not be any expansion in this field.
The cable television people tell me that their sales have gone down considerably. They also tell me that customers who used to buy cable television on an annual rental basis now only buy it by the month. Of course that is common sense, but there is one thing the government ought to know, and I wrote the Prime Minister on this subject during the recess, telling him about the number of well thought out letters I had received asking what the government thought it was doing on this subject. The thing I want to impress upon the Prime Minister is the fact that people took the trouble to write, and I should think that many hon. members on the Liberal side received exactly the same amount of correspondence.
These people are indignant because they have been put in the position that they do not know what the future will be. They are indignant because they feel there is strong discrimination against them, and because they think it is an invasion of their individual rights, as it well may be.
In my own area the television stations are providing an excellent service where they can. They carry Canadian content. They have good C.B.C. programs, and incidentally for the most part I think C.B.C. programs are rather good. The Okanagan and Similkameen areas are well served by one central television station. They have outlets all the way through. But in the Boundary area things are not so good. In fact they are rather poor. I always remember a Liberal candidate in one of the elections in which I ran not too long ago who got on the platform and said "If you elect a Liberal government you will have television within two weeks." Well, the two weeks have
The Address-Mr. Pugh gone by. Frankly I do not think they are going to get television now, but that is no reason why I should not keep asking for it, as I have done from the beginning.
Okanagan Boundary country includes Grand Forks, Greenwood, Christina Lake, Midway, and Rock Creek. All these places have been completely overlooked by the C.B.C. Not only have they been overlooked with regard to television, but I think that in radio the signals are extremely weak. A few months ago, as a matter of fact last June, the Secretary of State said he would look into this. How far he looked I do not know, but the results have been practically nil.
In Greenwood we see an example of what this decision can do. In Greenwood, which is one of the old, old mining cities and rather a wonderful old place situated in my riding, there is a cable company, a newly formed company which has gone in there, and despite the fact that they put their money down and applied for a licence they are not getting anywhere. This man's savings are invested in this thing. He had gone to a great deal of trouble and expense. He has a C.B.C. outlet on cable. He also has two United States stations on cable.
To get back to this objection that I have. Why should this government, right out of the blue, say "Hey, we are not going to issue any more licences at all"? Frankly I doubt whether they would have the right to do that. If they have, then those licences they issued previously might have been issued under an act which is ultra vires. Of course I do not think that is so. Why can this government say arbitrarily "No more T.V. licences"?
This is a point they should look at, I think. In this Greenwood area of the boundary, but for cable T.V. there would be no television whatsoever. I point out that there is a Canadian channel available to residents of that area, and instead of hamstringing this man, I think the government should get off its perch and look into it quickly and see that he does get a licence to go on. Certainly this restrictive business has gone much too far.
A few statistics would not hurt. Cable television reaches about 250,000 homes or a population of approximately 900,000. That is an estimate. C.B.C. television programs go to 92 per cent of the Canadian population. But 50 per cent of all Canadians are situated along the border, and they can pick up United States stations on their television sets without the use of cable or otherwise. When you talk about discrimination I get a little annoyed when I think of the people in my riding who are cut off and far away from signals emanating in the United States or Canada; that they are going to be restricted, they are going to

The Address-Mr. Pugh be cut off, when throughout the rest of Canada 50 per cent of Canadian citizens can turn their dials and pick up United States programs.
For instance, in the case of Victoria I understand there are 11 wave lengths, 11 channels, available. I do not know about Windsor and I do not know how many they can pick up in Niagara Falls, the Toronto area or the London area. But in Vancouver, New Westminster, all these places, all they have to do is turn the dial and they pick up these stations, and if they care to look at some United States programs what are you going to say? Are you going to say "We are going to have a big brother going around and saying you have too much contact with U.S. stations"?
What does the government expect to do about these things? What does it expect the board of broadcast governors to come up with? Is it licensing? Cable television is already subject to full control under the Department of Transport, and the nature and extent of this control is such that cable television cannot in fact join various systems together by a microwave network. They are not allowed to do their own programming. They are not allowed to do any advertising. Therefore I keep wondering what the government wants to do. Does it want to have a Canadian content on this thing? If so, it will just wipe out the whole cable T.V. industry, because it is individual choice which decides what you are going to take in over their system.
I see it is getting close to one o'clock, and in the few minutes before the recess I should like to finish my remarks by making a suggestion to this government right now. They have gone part way by a directive extending the time for those who have applied for a licence, which gives nine months to December 31, or the time they get their licences. I suggest that the applications go ahead as usual pending the inquiry, in other words that they rescind this rather stupid directive they put out. They put it on and I think they should take it off, and they could do that legally. With regard to cable television, I would say there is no suggestion of carrying a United States station where a Canadian station is available to that cable television proprietor. This would give the content, which may be the reason behind all this fafoo that has gone on.
Let me reiterate that this is just one more bureaucratic measure flung at the people of Canada before the matter was thought through to its end. It has produced tremendous discrimination. It has produced a tremendous feeling against this government. It is not the first time, incidentally, as I pointed out in my

speech; but this feeling, I think in all fairness I should point out to the Liberal party, is deep. It is deep enough for me to have received over 200 individual, long letters, some of them signed by as many as 50 names. I have probably 1,000 cable television cards which have come in as well. If that is a measure of the feeling all these people have, I suggest that the Liberal government should take the suggestions and the pleas which I have put to them now and immediately make them effective.


Robert William Prittie: Before you call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be allowed to say this. I see that the Minister of Fisheries is in the house. I propose to speak on the subject of his department this afternoon, and if his timetable permits I would appreciate it if either he or his parliamentary secretary might be here.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This being Monday the Minister of Fisheries will be in the house all day.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join those who have preceded me in this debate and congratulate the mover and seconder for their contributions. Their speeches contained a minimum of the fulsome praise of the government expected on these occasions, and in both speeches I thought there was something worth while.
I should like to comment on one item from each of their speeches. The hon. member for Longueuil had some well thought out words to say on the subject of national unity. This speech might be interpreted as a typical good will or bonne entente speech, but I suggest that the approach he takes is a sound one and is the only approach that is going to work if we are to have any type of harmony at all in this country.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard dealt with a subject that interests me very much, that of federal-provincial relations, and he expressed concern about the position of the federal government in the current controversy. I should like to quote briefly from his speech of February 19 as reported at page 24 of Hansard. He said this:
It disturbs me that an attitude seems to be growing that the government of Canada and the parliament of Canada should be nothing more than a clearing house for the collection and disbursement

to the provinces of great sums of money, and that there is a provincial veto over all that we in this parliament try to do.
Further, he suggested this:
But, I suggest, there are also national problems with which the government of Canada and the parliament of Canada must have the power and resources to deal. This parliament cannot be allowed to become simply the rubber stamp for ten provincial premiers. I can assure them that the people of this country look to us in this parliament to solve some of the problems besetting Canada. We must be free, I suggest, to enact solutions.
I quite agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member, and I suggest that most people in English speaking Canada take that point of view. In my remarks I want to deal with what I believe are the attitudes of the people in English speaking Canada on this question of the power of the federal government versus the provincial governments. I am specifically leaving out of this question the people of Quebec because I do not know-I am not being facetious when I say this-and I am wondering whether anybody does, what they think about this subject at this time, including the members who come from that province; because they are in a period of change. So I am specifically leaving out public opinion in that province because I do not know what it is, but I have some idea of what it is in the rest of the country.
I am reasonably sure that many people in this country are fed up with the posturings of the provincial premiers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert William Prittie: These gentlemen seem to have delusions of grandeur. They think they have a mandate from their people to make life miserable for the federal government, and I suggest this is not the case at all. They act as if they were the heads of sovereign states. A few months ago Mr. Peter Regenstreif, who is a graduate of McGill University, now a teacher at the University of Rochester, who has done a considerable amount of writing on federal-provincial relations, conducted a poll in several parts of Canada to find out the attitudes of people vis-a-vis the federal government and the provincial governments. As far as English speaking Canada is concerned there was no doubt about the result of that poll; it confirmed that the people in the English speaking provinces consider the government in Ottawa to be more important to them than their provincial governments. They look to the government in Ottawa to take the lead in solving social and economic problems. I have conducted my own poll in various parts of the country and have asked
The Address-Mr. Prittie people this question, and again the result was unmistakable; they look to Ottawa in these matters.
People are naturally pragmatic; they are more interested in solutions to problems than in constitutional arguments. For example, it seems to me that when a lady in Halifax, Toronto, Vancouver or Calgary receives a family allowance cheque every month, she does not say this sort of thing: "Here is another cheque from those nasty centralizers in Ottawa. I would be much happier if it came from my provincial capital". People do not think like that at all. They are interested in the money and not the constitutional arrangements. Yet this is the type of argument which seems to be advanced in connection with the Canada pension plan and in connection with the proposed loans for students.
The other day the hon. member for Three Rivers spoke on this subject, and I must say in passing that I was a little disappointed at his speech after the stirring speech which he made here last fall for national unity. But in this speech the other day, February 27, he seemed to revert to the old argument denouncing the centralizers, which is what his party does in opposition but not when it is in power. He referred to the invasion of provincial rights in connection with the loan fund. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the people in Canada generally will look upon the loan fund for students in the same way as they look upon family allowances and unemployment insurance; they want to have it and they are not too interested in constitutional arguments. But I do think that most people would prefer that this be handled on a national basis. This is the way in which unemployment insurance is handled, although I realize there were constitutional amendments to make it possible. This is the way in which family allowances are handled, and I think this is the way we want to handle the portable pensions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And loans to farmers and small businessmen.


Robert William Prittie: Quite. I do not think we should have to consult the provinces every time we want to act. I am absolutely sure that this is the opinion which is held in at least nine of the provinces of Canada; as I say, I am not sure about the other province.
I suggest to the government that if they feel it is necessary, they should consult with the provinces in connection with the loan fund for university students; but if the provinces are too difficult or put too many obstacles in the way, then I say forget about the provinces and deal directly with the students. The provinces will have no complaint as long as there is no invasion of
410	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Prittie their right to control elementary and secondary education. It seems to me that they have enough to do in looking after the needs of the expanding population, building schools, training teachers and modernizing the curricula. There is ample precedent for the federal government to assist at the higher levels of education, and indeed they do assist at the level of secondary education in vocational and technical education. If the provinces are obstreperous and cause too much trouble, then leave them out and deal directly with the students. I was a student after the war. I realize that the circumstances were different then, but I was quite glad to have my tuition at university paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am sure that students in every province will not object to arrangements to help them by any and all methods.
I noticed the press reports of the speech made by the Prime Minister in Toronto last Friday on the occasion of the opening of the airport. He seems to be taking this line of a stronger federal government. I am glad he has done that, and I suggest to him that he has nothing to fear politically in the country if he takes that stand. This parliament receives a mandate from the people quite apart from the mandate given the provincial governments, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that he be strong in his dealings with the provinces, and, what is just as important, that he appear to be strong. There is nothing which will cause more of a decline in the prestige of the government than the appearance of being weak.
Now I want to deal with another matter on the Pacific coast which is of some importance, and it concerns the fishing industry of the province of British Columbia. I am referring to a matter about which the Minister of Fisheries has heard a great deal, and it is a request which has been made for a limitation of licences in the Pacific coast fishing industry. This is not a new topic; it has been discussed before. This step was recommended in a report made in 1961 to the Minister of Fisheries by Dr. Sol Sinclair, a University of Manitoba economist.
However, the problem is particularly acute now, Mr. Speaker. As the years have gone by more and more people have engaged in the fishing industry, but this year, 1964, still a further problem presents itself. The authorities charged with the responsibility for conservation and conservation regulations have decreed, and perhaps rightly-I am not competent to judge this-that there will be very little fishing in some parts of the Pacific coast this summer. On the Skeena river fishing is going to be drastically reduced, and there will be some reduction along the south Pacific coast as well. So it seems to me that


because of these reductions which will face the fishermen this year this question of licence limitation takes on greater importance at this time.
The problem in connection with the numbers in the fishing industry is this. We have a certain number of people in the industry who are full time fishermen. This is their life's work and they invest their money in boats and equipment, making practically all their income from the fishing industry. But there are large numbers of part time people, or if you like moonlighters, who come into the industry at particular times at the height of the season. They may rent small boats of the type which cannot go very far, perhaps just into the gulf of Georgia or the mouth of the Fraser river; they are people with other occupations and incomes who are participating in the fishery at a time when the full time fishermen are trying to make a living for themselves. The consequence is that the available income is spread over far too many people.
To give you some idea, Mr. Speaker, of how many people enter the industry by buying a licence, which carries a minimum fee, doing some fishing and then leaving, I quote from a report prepared in 1961 by Mr. Blake A. Campbell, chief of the economics branch of the Pacific area for the Department of Fisheries. He noted that in 1960 persons taking out fishing licences for the first time totalled 3,036. The year before, 1959, 3,843 persons took out fishing licences for the first time. Those who took out licences in 1959 and failed to renew them the next year amounted to 30 per cent of the total number. So this shows that we have this group of people who come into the industry for a little while, make a little extra money-and, mind you, they have other occupations-and then may not return the next year, in the meantime making it difficult for the full time fishermen.
The problem has been further aggravated this year by the fact that the shipbuilding subsidy has been making it possible for those with large amounts of capital, such as fishing companies and some of the more prosperous fishermen, to build more modern equipment and larger ships with more efficient gear. This also makes it difficult for the ordinary fisherman who operates from a small boat. These things, combined with the conservation measures in sight this year, indicate that a very difficult year is ahead, and that it is time to take another look at the request for licence limitation.
I realize there are some objections to this. When the report was presented by Dr. Sinclair in 1961, the minister of the day said there was opposition from some parts of the

industry as well as from within the government. I can understand that some of the fishing companies would be opposed to it because it does not really matter to them; they can get the fish from whatever source catches it. But it is an important matter for the fishermen.
I suggest too that there is ample precedent for licence limitation. We do not have complete free enterprise in all our trades and occupations. In the professions in this country we have various ways of restricting the numbers. I know restriction is imposed by examination in some cases or payment of fees in other cases, but it is restriction. In the various trades there are also restrictions. It is not always easy to go to the average city and become a registered electrician or plumber. There are means for restricting the numbers of people. I am informed, although I do not have much information on it, that there is a limitation on licensing of fishermen in other countries; I believe the state of Washington has some form of restriction, and I am informed that Australia has also. So I suggest to the minister that this matter should be looked at; because if it is not, the trend which is now under way will drive large numbers of people out of this industry. If this is the intention we are going about it in the right way. The combined effect of these extra people coming in and the very large equipment used in these waters by the companies which can afford it, will eliminate many of the ordinary fishermen, but I do not think this is the purpose that the department has in mind.
I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that there was no reference in the speech from the throne to amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. We were given to understand that legislation would be introduced this session on that subject. I realize there will be legislation that was not mentioned in the speech, but my colleagues and I are very interested in this topic and we shall watch to see if legislation comes forth. It was very interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that there was no Canadian legislation to prevent the take-over of the Labatt Brewing Company by an American firm; rather it was the initiative of the department of justice in Washington which prevented it. We all know that the anti-trust laws of the United States are much stronger and much more rigorously enforced than such legislation is in this country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention one other local matter, and I am pleased that the Minister of National Defence is here. It relates to a decision which was taken some time ago to move the search and rescue unit of the R.C.A.F. from Sea island
The Address-Mr. Lachance at Vancouver to Comox on Vancouver island. I know that aircraft get around quickly, but I suggest that the Department of National Defence ought to have another look at this particular problem.
In the area of the lower mainland and greater Vancouver we have a great concentration of people using small craft, including fishermen and particularly, in the summer, other people operating literally thousands of small craft. There is always the possibility of an accident. There are some real marine traffic jams at times, and I think the search and rescue units should be very close to the main centre of population. Just last week it was necessary to carry out a rescue in the mountains across from Vancouver, a rather hazardous undertaking, and it is important that the helicopters and other aircraft be very close to the principal centre of population and not on Vancouver island, which could mean a loss of time before they could get over to the lower mainland.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize again a point I made earlier, that I am firmly convinced that the majority of people in Canada expect the federal government to take leadership, to be strong and to appear to be strong; and if the government, whatever government is in power in Ottawa, takes that line it will not lack support from the people of this country.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to congratulate the hon. members for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) and St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on their election to the House of Commons.
I know personally the hon. members for Laurier and St. Denis and I am happy to say that they are good friends of mine. I know that the house will benefit from their experience in politics as well as in their own field.
In the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne which was capably moved by the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote), seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Bas-ford), allow me to add to the unequivocal remarks made by these hon. members that the problems resulting from federal-provincial relations are not the only ones which should be of concern to the people of Canada, even if they are the ones that stand out most at this period of our history.
I know that several other members will want to add their personal remarks and take the opportunity of this debate on the speech from the throne to make them in the house. Therefore I shall mention to the house, but not in the form of a restricting

The Address-Mr. Lachance list, the main points which are of interest to me.
My personal experience with the Lafon-taine riding electorate, which I have had the privilege to represent in this house since June 18, 1962-following Mr. Ratelle who was the first member for that riding and whose great integrity is well known to all and especially to those we have known him in the house-as well as with the people of the province of Quebec I have had the opportunity to meet since I was elected, leads me to believe that a particular question seems to concern the average Quebecker, and it is this: when are they going to end discussing federal, provincial, municipal or educational jurisdiction at the expense of the taxpayer?
For the fact cannot be denied that, no matter which jurisdiction wins the battle, the cost is always assumed by the same taxpayer. Let the people concerned examine this thought in their conscience.
Is Ottawa right in keeping certain fields of taxation to pay the cost of its legislation? Are the provinces right in insisting for a greater share of revenue to discharge their responsibilities? Is the Canadian people willing to accept that the federal government stop honouring the commitments it has made so far, especially as regards social security measures such as family allowances, old age pensions and others of a similar nature, unemployment insurance, hospital insurance, etc.?
And it should not be forgotten that the federal government's activity is reflected in a considerable number of measures which, in their application, have now become part of the lives of Canadian citizens. And it is always the same taxpayer who today witnesses his representatives battling, discussing eagerly, invoking political and constitutional arguments, and this in order to hold the distinguished honour of "squeezing the lemon".
This taxpayer knows very well that whatever jurisdiction wins the fight, he will not pay less, he may even pay more, and that a bird in the hand is quite often worth two in the bush.
When will it be realized that the Canadian citizen is much more interested in his small personal business, in his trade, in his work, than in political problems, particularly those of higher politics.
Instead of beating one's brain to find the mystery-solution which will get the frontpage in the press tomorrow, would it not be advisable to seek the political solution which would be beneficial in a round table conference, in order not to break the chain?

Our economic and labour problems, our foreign relations, the search for new markets should be the subject of our constant investigation.
Our system of a central government and provincial governments offers the possibility of trading in a common market which is interesting and profitable for everybody, because the advantages of well planned interprovincial trading are great and almost unlimited.
However, our economic activity must not be confined to our country, but must be apparent in our relations with other countries.
Until now, it seems that this economic activity, like a magnetic needle has oscillated between two poles: the United Kingdom and the United States. Following our wheat sales to various communist countries, we realized that new horizons were open to our trade, and I do not think our country has yet taken advantage fully of the many markets which have opened up since the independence of new countries, especially in Africa.
Allow me to touch here on a matter which is always delicate and stirs up the criticism of narrow-minded people of questionable sincerity, that is the matter of the recognition of communist China and its admission to the United Nations. To note the existence of_ a country does not imply the acceptance of its system of government, especially if it is considered that Canada has been trading regularly with that country for several years already. It is rather giving evidence of an enlightened and wise realism. Who would dare to maintain any longer that he can shove his head in the sand like an ostrich when a storm is blowing between the U.S.S.R. and communist China? Sooner or later that storm will have to be faced and, indeed, the safest shelter seems to be within the United Nations.
And to continue in the field of external affairs, if in joining the Organization of American States, Canada is able to promote greater economic activity, it should not hesitate to join that organization.
The right hon. Prime Minister shows all the interest he is taking in problems relating to international trade in the choice and qualifications of the persons who will represent Canada in the forthcoming GATT negotiations in Geneva. He wants Canada to play a full and active part in those negotiations. The Geneva discussions will be tough; the object of the conference or at least one of its main objects will be the general lowering of tariff walls, that is a linear tariff reduction.
The future of Canadian trade interests is at stake at that conference, and it is to be hoped that Canadian industry and all other sectors which might be affected by the result of the Geneva negotiations will answer the Prime

Minister's invitation to assist in the preparation of the Canadian participation in that important conference.
Our new Liberal government, under the vigorous direction of its leader, also recognizes the importance of reducing our international accounts imbalance by stimulating capital formation and investment.
Our interest and dividend payments abroad have been constantly increasing since the end of the war and reached nearly $1 billion in 1963. However, a severe warning should be given to the federal government, as well as to the provincial and municipal governments, to be careful in their spending, because this outflow of capital, being greater than the increase in value of goods produced, weakens national wealth, which is diverted from the private sector, the great promoter of economic growth and development.
We all know that excessive taxation discourages private enterprise, thus reducing opportunities for capital investment in Canadian undertakings.
There are other matters of particular interest to me, for instance the following item in the speech from the throne:
Comprehensive proposals to reform public regulation of the railways, and to facilitate the adaptation of the railway system to present and future needs, will be submitted for your consideration.
At this point, I would like to call the attention of the house on that particular problem of road transport, and I believe that the province of Quebec is particularly interested in the matter, especially when it considers the recommendations of the MacPherson commission, which I believe to be contrary to the interests of private enterprise.
I shall now refer to a speech which Mr. Camille Archambault, assistant to the president of the Association du camionnage du Quebec Inc., made to the chamber of commerce of the Montreal district, on January 25, 1962, when he said:
The railway companies, especially the C.N.R., now want to take over the trucking business. Never in our history have we seen a government agency in the red attempt to destroy, more still, bent Dn destroying a private business, even a public itility undertaking such as trucking, by setting up Piggyback services or by intruding into this field with the taxpayers' money. Under a sound transportation policy, the intrusion of railway companies n a competitive field is forbidden in most countries, ncluding the United States, because it has the pffect of reducing employment and of creating a :ransportation monopoly.
When we see a railway train carrying semi-railers on flatcars, we only have to count these o know the number of unemployed resulting from his system of transportation.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the house should give erious consideration to that problem when lew legislation concerning the C.N.R. is ntroduced here.
The Address-Mr. Lachance I am happy to see that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) is in the house. I heard him the other day when he spoke of the Liberal platform and of the promises and accomplishments of our party. Since he is a responsible man, I should think the hon. member not only attended the Conservative convention but took a serious part in it.
And if I refer to an article published under the heading "Bloc-Notes" in Le Devoir of February 10,	1964, signed by Jean-Paul
Fournier, I find the following interesting remarks:
The feeble thinking of the Canadian Conservative party is proverbial. However, it used to be sporadically lessened by some sparks of genius. But today, the party is exhausted, devoid of inspiration.
Here is a party which has really declined, within J. 'Veilr', s*nce A was the strongest government in the history of confederation and is now in the opposition.
11UW,
-T *u. [DOT] wnr IS tne resuIt of that self-examination. Nothing, absolutely nothing. The party is more than ever similar to the former beaten and ineffective government.
Such are the remarks made about the Conservative party, and this brings me back to what the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot said about the promises of the Liberal government.
Where the party seems to show some imagination m matters of defence, bilingualism in the civil service, it is soon realized that it is closely following the policy implemented by the Liberal government.
The minor reforms which the party recommends, when it recommends any, are so mild that one wonders why they were not implemented during the seven years it was in power.
Besides, nobody is less concerned with the planks of the Conservative policies than the Tory party itself.. The party's high officials have other irons
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives no doubt can bring up the promises made by the Liberal party and often they may envy them, since they are being kept, as evidenced by the many legislative measures being proposed to the house at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, there are other points I would like to praise but, as I said a while ago, no doubt many of my colleagues have other problems to submit to the house. I will, therefore, end these short remarks by expressing my elation about the present government's intention to go ahead with its program of economic planning which will mobilize the full strength of the country to ensure the welfare of its citizens. And no doubt we will be glad to praise its blessings in the climate of understanding and harmony which will prevail when Canada's centennial celebrations come around in 1967.

The Address-Mr. H. J. Flemming [Text]


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Vicloria-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, before making some observations which occur to me as being important in the debate on the speech from the throne,
I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion that an address in reply be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, for the excellent presentation of their remarks on that occasion. They brought credit to themselves and reflected honour on their respective constituencies.
I would also like to congratulate the newly elected members for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) and St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). They are following in the footsteps of distinguished predecessors as representatives of those constituencies. I had great pleasure in meeting the ex-minister of justice in various capacities, including the provincial capacity and also since coming to this chamber, and I always found myself received with great cordiality. I feel that he has left behind a reputation, whether in opposition or in government, inside or outside this chamber, of always being a gentleman.
While he has not gone as far afield to continue public service, nevertheless I feel that the ex-member for St. Denis served his constituency well in this chamber. And while he will be remembered on this side of the house in a little different way than the ex-minister of justice, nevertheless I am sure we all wish him well and were pleased to see him honoured.
I also want to congratulate the new Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) on assuming what to me is quite an important portfolio, since I held it at one time myself. I am sure he will bring to this portfolio great enthusiasm and great energy, and also I believe a great measure of ability, and I wish him well. I also wish the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) success in his role as member of the cabinet and on the fact that he is now one of the Privy Council of Canada.
I especially want to congratulate the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). Since he has adopted the Atlantic provinces I feel we can expect great things from him. Before I proceed to enunciate some of those things which I feel we might reasonably expect from him in his capacity as Minister of Transport, I would like to refer to the fact that we have had a new senator appointed from New Brunswick to replace the late Senator Emerson, who was personally a great friend of mine, and I would like publicly to acknowledge the fact that I feel he rendered great service to his province and to Canada. He was very prominent in Saint John city. He was chairman of the board of Saint John general

hospital when it was enlarged from a reasonably small hospital to a very large hospital serving almost the whole province. He served with distinction in the Senate and was chairman of the standing committee on finance in 1959 when, by special request, it presented a report on threatening inflation. He was honoured by King's College for his outstanding devotion to church affairs and to the welfare of his community. I would like to pay my tribute to him now, and I think all hon. members will feel it is well deserved.
I return now, Mr. Speaker, to the question of transportation. The paragraph in the throne speech dealing with this subject says:
Comprehensive proposals to reform public regulation of the railways, and to facilitate the adaptation of the railway system to present and future needs, will be submitted for your consideration.
I suggest that the phrase "to reform public regulation of the railways" needs to be enlarged and should read "public regulation of all types of transportation", because it is of other types of transportation that I wish to speak, and bring them to the attention of the house and the minister in particular. Transportation has always been very important in Canada. In 1867 and the few years before that the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by their consent to come into confederation, made confederation possible, but this decision was based on the assumption that an intercolonial railway would be built to connect those provinces to central Canada. Therefore they agreed to set aside local differences, as well as the material advantage of trading with the New England states.
The fathers of confederation set aside these differences because they had caught a vision of a united Canada. That vision has now become a reality, but to bring it about we have had a struggle with geography, and railways have played a very important part in it. The first struggle was to get the Intercolonial railway built to join the Atlantic provinces with central Canada. Then wc undertook to build a railway from central Canada to Winnipeg, and the more stupendous task of building a railway across the Rocky mountains to connect British Columbia with Canada. When they were all connected we had almost 4,000 miles of continent joined together by rail.
It is possibly because of the fact that the MacPherson commission was appointed, thai that commission has reported, and that the government is in receipt of its report tha we have now this item in the throne speech I feel that the MacPherson commissioi should have been aelmonished to keep then hands off the Maritime Freight Rates Ac and the Crowsnest pass rates. I say to th<

minister and the government that a transportation policy should be and must be a policy for all Canada and should have one aim and one purpose, to build, maintain and develop a united Canada. That should continue to be our aim and objective, because we all believe in the unity of all Canada.
Many hon. members have expressed themselves as being favourable to that general premise when speaking in this chamber during the last few days. That is what has been said here, and it was repeated time and again. I am sure it cannot be repeated too often. No government can contribute to the unity of Canada unless it indicates that it does not favour a policy which is designed to build up one part of Canada with public funds at the expense of another part, but that is exactly what is being done when icebreakers are used to keep the St. Lawrence open during the winter season.
My hon. friend from Saint John-Albert dealt with this matter just a few days ago. He suggested remedies for the situation, one of which was that the vessels concerned should be charged with the expense of icebreaking, whether they ordered it or not. I propose to make another suggestion, but before doing so I point out that there is nothing more unsatisfactory in business and nothing more unsatisfactory in government than uncertainty. So I ask the Minister of Transport why not, by regulation, set down the period of winter season during which eastern Atlantic ports will be utilized, and no responsibility will be recognized for keeping open the St. Lawrence at government intervention and expense? In the old days this period ran,
I believe, from December 1 to April 15. I suggest that these dates be re-established as the winter season.
What would happen if this were done? It would bring about a uniformity of competition. All the steamship companies and all companies using the steamships would know exactly where they stood. They would not be subject to the fluctuations of the weather. What I said a few minutes ago about uncertainty, I repeat now. People who ordered goods would be certain they were going to receive the goods at a certain time. Another advantage would be that they would use the facilities already provided in the ports of Saint John and Halifax at public expense. This would be to the benefit of the eastern Atlantic ports during the entire season, and surely that is something which would be of interest and satisfaction to all members within the sound of my voice this afternoon. This would also contribute to the unity of Canada in its best and broadest sense.
The Address-Mr. H. J. Flemming
For these reasons I urge the minister to recommend this regulation to the government before another season rolls around, because since we are blessed with an oversupply of certain commodities which are needed by the world population, we are surely entrusted with the responsibility of using a degree of intelligence in the shipping of these surplus goods to world markets. In the production of forest products, a business in which I worked for the greater part of my life, we learned that in order to produce economically we had to work with nature, not against nature. That is what I suggest relative to winter shipping.
I wish to refer to another paragraph in the speech from the throne. It is this:
A measure will be placed before you to establish a comprehensive system of contributory pensions.
I am amazed, shocked and disappointed at the absence of the word "portable" in that sentence. I say this because I believe the general desirability of portable pensions is something upon which there is complete agreement in this chamber, and something for which a great urge exists throughout our country. In order to discuss this matter intelligently may I make some comments in connection with portable pensions and the part they play in the private enterprise economy. My mind goes back to a young man who spoke to me a few months ago. He said he had been with his company for 10 years. He was not very happy there. He felt the job he had undertaken was one for which he was not particularly suited by inclination or training. But he found himself frozen in it because a pension had been established which would not move with him. Thus he was discouraged from moving even though he felt a move would be good for him and probably good for his employer also. It is my opinion that in making a change, for the better as far as he was concerned, the pension should accompany him.
It appears that the absence of the word "portable" in the reference in the speech from the throne to contributory pensions means only one thing, namely that the portable feature will not be introduced when the legislation is brought down, and to me that is a distressing thought.
My hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka placed certain remarks on record in the course of a brilliant speech a few days ago. I say to the government that they should correct some of the errors to which he made reference that day or they will find themselves less fortunate than they were a few nights ago when the votes of five members of opposition parties saved them from defeat on a motion of confidence. I say to the government that in line with the observations of the hon.

The Address-Mr. H. J. Flemming member for Parry Sound-Muskoka they should explain to this house the absence of any provision for survivor benefits under the Canada pension plan, the absence of any benefits for persons over 65 who have retired or who will retire before the legislation receives royal assent, and the absence of any benefits for the sick and disabled, the unemployed, the single woman at home, the self employed with limited income, and the casual labourer. What do members opposite say to the charge of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that more than 80 per cent of Canadians will not be covered at all? I am sure that the government and those representing it now on the front benches will find it necessary to take some notice of these representations.
To me it seems the announcement in the speech from the throne concerning contributory pensions contained one word which should not have been there. That is the word "comprehensive". It should be replaced,
I suggest, by the word "incomprehensible", because there is nothing comprehensive about the proposals in the Canada pension plan.
I suggest it is incomprehensible that any government should have the temerity to make use of the word "comprehensive" when only 20 per cent of the people of Canada are covered by the plan. That is very far from being comprehensive. We shall await with interest further word about this pension plan.
Now I wish to express an opinion with respect to what rumour says is contemplated by the government in connection with the fixing of the boundaries of new electoral districts. We in New Brunswick are now at our minimum as far as total seats are concerned. There may be internal rearrangement, but our total representation of ten seats is fixed.
I was impressed by, and find myself in agreement with, the observations of the hon. member for Cariboo a few days ago. He drew a comparison between urban and rural constituencies. I find many problems reach my desk from the rural constituency of Vic-toria-Carleton, problems which generally speaking do not exist to anything like the same extent in urban ridings. Questions of geography and distance also enter the picture. I urge the government to allow a very generous percentage degree of population difference between rural and urban ridings. I would particularly press the opinion that the realization of ultimate aims and objects be approached step by step rather than that an attempt be made to rearrange boundaries in too drastic a fashion at one fell swoop. Changes should be made in the light of changing conditions as they occur from time to time.

To try to effect an improvement which would solve all the difficulties immediately and permanently would be, in my opinion, to attempt the impossible. The changes should be made as the need occurs, and they should be made in stages.
My opinion is that the difference between urban and rural constituencies should be something in the order of 33J per cent, over or under, depending on size, density of population, the population itself, highways, communications and other salient features, including natural, well established and long established associations between communities. Suppose, for example, that one community has a shopping centre. People have gone that way to buy what they need, and so have their fathers before them, and their grandfathers. Any attempt to alter or ignore this pattern by immediate or abrupt action would be both unwise and unjust.
I was pleased to note the emphasis placed on the subject of national unity by the hon. member who spoke immediately before the hon. member for Lafontaine. A great deal has been said about national unity by hon. members opposite during this debate. I say to them that the Conservative party has always stood and acted for national unity. That is our record. Our policy in this regard was, I believe inadvertently, enunciated by the Minister of National Revenue a few days ago when he said, in answer to a question regarding the collection of income tax, that his department had "one policy for Canada". That is our party's national policy for this great country, "One policy for all Canada". I listened to the eloquent speech of my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) the other day. I pay a great deal of attention to him; he is ever sincere and never devious. He stated that we needed a direct, frank and definite dialogue between the two great founding races of our country and other Canadians. He stated that Canada should know what is the complaint of Quebec and what they want exactly. He was quick to acknowledge the progress that had been made and the happy results in many fields.
He mentioned that the standard of living of the average Quebecker is 10 per cent below the national average and 28 per cent below the average for Ontario. He mentioned the economic activity of 5 per cent compared with the population of 29 per cent. He mentioned that French Canadians in Quebec make up 82.6 per cent of the population but in actual management have only 10 per cent and hold only 20 per cent of the key positions. He stated that the 1963 average per capita income was $1,700 as against $2,000 in Ontario and $2,600 in the United States.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member considers that a per capita of $1,700 constitutes a grievance, then we in the Atlantic provinces have a much greater grievance than those in the locality he mentioned, the province of Quebec. For instance, in the province of New Brunswick our average income is about two thirds of the national average. In Nova Scotia it is slightly better, and I believe it is slightly less in the other Atlantic provinces. In the province of New Brunswick a very large percentage of people speak the French language as their first language, but we do not hear anything about separatism down there. We have a low per capita income as compared with the national average, but no complaints are made about it except at dominion-provincial conferences, where it is brought very forcefully to the attention of the federal authorities. I have a little knowledge about that. We have not mentioned the question of separatism, even though it might be argued that economically confederation has not improved our lot. In brief, Mr. Speaker, we in the Atlantic provinces have put our hand to the plow. We have seen our country grow in population, in production, in influence, in prestige, in respect since confederation became a reality. While we may not have shared to the extent we would have liked, I say to you now that the question cannot possibly be, "Do we wish to turn back?" The decision must be that we will go ahead. We must contribute to the objective of progress, and in my opinion we must do it under the umbrella of a united Canada and the concept of "One for all and all for one".
It would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the frequent conferences held between the federal government and the provinces since the present government assumed office have had the effect of indicating to the provincial premiers and their advisers that their advice and opinions have much weight with the government here in Ottawa, apparently more weight than that of elected members to this house, including those supporting the government from the respective provinces. I am sure others have gained that impression. It would seem to me that if this is an appropriate opinion and one which is justified by the facts, every member of this house must of necessity consider that he is here for the purpose of contributing to the growth of a great country, Canada, in the federal field and at the federal level, and that he owes his first allegiance to a strong central government rather than to the province from which he comes. This concept would put the well-being of the nation ahead of the well-being of any part of the nation, based on the principle,
The Address-Mr. H. J. Flemming of course, of equality of opportunity as enunciated on many occasions and at all times ever since he assumed office by the leader of the Conservative party who sits in this chamber. So I say to everyone within the sound of my voice this afternoon that we in this parliament should be Canadians first, with provincial and constituency representatives being a secondary responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to refer to what is presently contemplated in New Brunswick by the New Brunswick electric power commission, with apparently the blessing of the New Brunswick government. I refer to the so-called Mactaquac dam, 14 miles above Fredericton on the Saint John river, to which the Atlantic development board have made a grant of $20 million which they justify, I believe, on the ground that it will contribute to low cost power and will subsequently attract industry to our province. When this project is carried out it will cause a lake to be created which will be 55 miles long and of substantial width. It will completely replace the Saint John river as we know it, from Mactaquac near Fredericton to some distance above Woodstock in my county of Carleton. It will flood many cemeteries and churches; it will destroy many landmarks; it will completely flood out many islands and fertile interval land. Many knowledgeable people consider it will destroy the salmon fishing on the Saint John and Tobique rivers. It will be the most pronounced physical change to have occurred in New Brunswick in recorded history.
The reason and excuse given for going ahead with this revolutionary project, which will give the Saint John river such drastic alteration, is cheap power and progress. I want to refer to this argument, but before doing so I say that I yield to no one in my desire and urge for progress, and recognition of the fact that we must have progress. I fully realize that we cannot, and must not, stand still. I do, however, want to know if we must decide between progress on the one hand and the ruination of the Saint John river valley, as we know it, on the other. I do not believe this matter has received enough careful investigation. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in his capacity of answering to parliament for the Atlantic development board, this situation so that it may receive the attention which I believe he will realize it deserves.
One might ask the question, "Are there any alternative sources of supply of power at approximately the same price?" I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Passamaquoddy development bill before the congress of the

The Address-Mr. H. J. Flemming United States contemplates as part of the project a dam and power development on the upper Saint John river which will, without any development at Mactaquac, greatly increase production capacity of the plants now in being at Grand Falls and Beechwood, with 50 per cent of the downstream benefits going to the New Brunswick electric power commission free, with the probability of purchasing from the United States 50 per cent of these same benefits at a very attractive price, and with the suggested proposal to sell Quoddy power at something like four mills, which is a matter of public knowledge. Does this not add up to an argument for further examination before embarking on this venture?
That is not all. I have in my hand a report to the Chignecto canal committee made by the Hon. Louis J. Robichaud, premier of New Brunswick, who was chairman of that committee. May I say to this house-and I will only read two short paragraphs of the report-that this is a stupendous undertaking. The report says:
(4)	The preliminary estimate of capital cost for the total installation of 900,000 kilowatts (450,000 kilowatts each at the outlet of Shepody and Cumberland basin) amounts to $325 million, excluding interest during construction.
(5)	The preliminary studies show that 5.5 billion kilowatt hours per year could be generated from the 900,000 kilowatts of installed capacity at the Cumberland-Shepody sites.
This is a matter which has been brought to the attention of this house many times by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Coates) in his capacity of great prominence in the committee. Here are the assumed costs. I agree that these are not the result of years of study but they are the result of an examination of records which are available at this time.
It indicates that Shepody will cost 5.13 mills, the Cumberland basin 4.67 mills and the combined Shepody-Cumberland 4.90 mills. With the $20 million available, is it not a reasonable proposition to say that we might properly stop, look, examine and investigate all angles? Because once the damage is done it cannot be undone. Once the heritage of that beautiful river, the scenery along the river and the attraction it has for many people are destroyed, these things can never be replaced. There is no recovery. I have not even mentioned the Hamilton falls in Labrador and its seven million kilowatts of firm power which presumably could be made available. I have not mentioned atomic power, one ingredient of which is being made in the form of heavy water, or will be very soon, at a plant in Cape Breton at public expense. I have not mentioned the fact that the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick grid system is available to receive power in either of these provinces. I would
assume that the $20 million grant from the Atlantic development board is available for cheap power in New Brunswick wherever and in whatever way it may be practicable; and the New Brunswick electric power commission have only to satisfy the technical officials of the board that the grant is economically justified and feasible. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), in his capacity of answering to parliament for the Atlantic development board, to investigate all of the aspects of this huge development I have just mentioned so that no mistakes can possibly be made.
There are many matters, Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne to which I would be glad to give more attention, and about which I would be very pleased to offer some opinions. However, time does not permit and so I will resume my seat, and I thank the house for its indulgence.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think I should bring to the attention of the house the fact that the hon. member's time has expired, and unless there is unanimous consent no question could be asked of the hon. member now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member consent? Agreed.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. member's statements over the last 10 minutes, will he explain to the house what he recommends should now be done which was not done when he was a cabinet minister?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, as is well known to everyone developments in connection with many matters, including electrical energy, are taking place from time to time. This is a new situation which has developed recently from the need for power in the province of New Brunswick. I am making no criticism of the fact that there is need for this power; what I am saying is that there should be a careful examination into all its angles before this specific project is entered into. It is not a question which came before the government of which I was a member.


Mr. Mullally:: May I ask a question? Did I interpret the remarks of the hon. member correctly in assuming that he was opposed to the Saint John river project? Is that correct?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing in what I said which would lend itself to any such opinion. If the hon. gentleman has any doubts he can read what I said in tomorrow's Hansard.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, my first words in this debate will be to echo most heartily the congratulations already tendered by so many of my colleagues to those who moved and seconded the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. I feel they did an outstanding job. I wish 1 could say as much, Mr. Speaker, for the attempts by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) to criticize the Canada pension plan.


Hugh John Flemming: No one
expects you to, so there is no disappointment there.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The only people who will be disappointed are those who thought they would have some meaningful criticism of that plan from the hon. member. One of the most unusual criticisms of this plan which could be advanced in this house is that it is not portable, especially since it should be obvious to all hon. members that the pension will be paid out of a central fund with cheques available to people right across the country, in the same way that the present old age security cheques are paid and in the same way that the family allowance cheques are paid.


Hugh John Flemming: You will not find the word "portable" in the speech from the throne.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I did not interrupt the hon. member and I think I should be accorded the same courtesy, applying the principle established by that capable and experienced parliamentarian, his own leader.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that the only incomprehensible criticism which could be attached to this plan is the criticism advanced against it by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. Surely the word "portable" does not need to be attached to a reference in the speech from the throne to a plan which obviously has national scope. I might point out that, experienced though the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) may be, his own reference through some manipulation of figures which showed that only 20 per cent of the population would be covered by the plan does not by a long shot constitute any incontestable proof of this particular assertion.
I would also point out that when the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton makes reference to the need for a spread between the size of rural and urban ridings, I think we have to keep in mind that shopping centres do not vote, that riding boundaries do not vote, that trees and rocks do not vote, but that people do. I do not think there is a person in Canada who can say at this time
The Address-Mr. Gray that there is any reason why a person living in an urban area should not have exactly the same degree of representation as one living in a rural area; and I am sure that the legislation to be introduced will cover this point. However, I was pleased to note that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton echoed the splendid affirmation of Canada which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in his contribution to this debate. It was a speech which I am sure will be considered by history as one of the great moments in parliament in modern times.

Mr. Speaker, we of the Liberal party understand the situation and we believe in Canada. We believe in a country where all citizens, regardless of their country of origin, have the same opportunity of participating fully in the life of their country.

The speech from the throne makes reference to changes in transportation policy. Last Tuesday the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth) dealt with this matter when he spoke of the discriminatory freight rates structure which has been hampering the economic development of southwestern Ontario. I must say that he deserves some credit for bringing this matter before the house again, even though in doing so he was at most repeating, and perhaps echoing in a somewhat expanded form, points which I raised in this house on December 3, 1962. At that time I had the honour of bringing this problem to the attention of the previous Conservative government during debate on the Freight Rates Reduction Act; but I must say that the government of that day showed no inclination to do anything about the matter or that they even understood it.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), then minister of labour, about the same time told a delegation of mayors and reeves from the Windsor area that if they wanted these freight rates changed the only thing to be done was to go to the board of transport commissioners; and when my colleague the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) looked into the matter he was told that the board did not have jurisdiction at that time to make the type of changes which were needed but that they had to come through legislation. So I am happy to see the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) now calling for legislation to correct the freight rates problem, and I hope he has convinced his own party, including the hon. member for Ontario, that this is the way to go about it.
I could not criticize the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) too severely for not being aware

The Address-Mr. Gray of my previous reference to this important question. He was not present in the last parliament but he was present in the parliament before and I regret I can find no reference either to the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) or his government doing anything about it, although they had ample opportunity to do so.
The problem of freight rates from southwestern Ontario is serious and I think it is time something was done about it. That is why I was personally pleased to see the statement in the speech from the throne that "comprehensive proposals to reform public regulation of the railways and to facilitate the adaptation of the railway system to present and future needs" will be placed before us for our consideration, and I would urge that the government do everything possible to make sure that these proposals include measures to remove the present inequities in freight rates that are hampering industrial development in southwestern Ontario, and that they be brought before us for consideration at the earliest possible date.
I would suggest to this house and to the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) that the correction of the inequitable freight rate situation will not alone and of itself bring about a cure of the economic sickness that has been troubling certain communities in southwestern Ontario for the past several years. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that a meaningful program of special incentives of the kind put into effect by this Liberal government last fall are also needed to bring economic well-being to areas of slow growth and chronic unemployment not only in southwestern Ontario but in other parts of Canada as well.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) and others of his party unfortunately attempt to heap scorn on our area development approach to ending unemployment but this is far different from what other less partisan observers have said. As one example I would refer to the special committee that was appointed by the Windsor, Ontario, city council to look into the economic problems of the area. It was composed of representatives from labour, management and the University of Windsor. It brought down a report with a number of special measures. Freight rate adjustment was one of them, but only one. The rest were financial incentive measures of the type of which the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) thinks so little. This report was adopted by the Windsor city council and all the municipalities in the Windsor area, was supported by a number of cities in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia with similar problems, and was presented to the previous government who, although they had the brief some six weeks

before the delegation came, did not even bother to read it before meeting the delegation.
Regional development programs, where special incentives are made available to certain areas of slow growth, have worked very successfully in England, France and Italy and a number of other European countries. Many of the areas that have been classed as designated areas by this government, and thereby made eligible for the incentive program, were classed as labour surplus areas by the previous government. I must say that the unemployment figures during their regime show that the previous Conservative government certainly knew how to create labour surpluses. This made these communities eligible for something called double depreciation, a weak-kneed form of pseudo-incentive that the business world agreed was useless and ineffective.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) in his remarks has spoken of "ill conceived forays in unemployment." When he used that phrase, I suppose, subconsciously he must have been thinking of his own government's labour surplus area program, I have never heard of his criticizing this particular program and I must conclude that he would prefer something ineffective, provided it is done by his party, to something effective done by someone else. The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) pointed out- and I quote him from page 212 of Hansard:
It is my considered opinion that no short term bargains will have any effect on interesting a major industry to enter a designated area.
In this he is probably echoing the views of many of his fellow Conservative members who are not from the Atlantic provinces. I should point out to this house that the one time-the only time the previous Conservative government might have been said to have any success in interesting a major industry to enter what would now be called a designated area was when it in fact made a short term bargain with a European automobile company to locate in Nova Scotia, a bargain involving the duty free entry of auto parts for a certain limited number of years by order in council. I have never heard of the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) criticizing this particular short term bargain involving these particular monetary advantages which permitted a European automobile company to establish itself several thousands of miles from Chatham, Ontario. There is one aspect of the way this was done that he might well have criticized, because at that time there was no definite area development agency or program, as there is now, to handle these matters; and there is no indication that I have been able to find that Chatham, Ontario, or Windsor, Ontario, were even considered by the previous government

as being eligible for these same incentives, had the company located in either of those communities.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the present government's approach is better than whatever might have existed before. There is now a definite agency of government charged with coordinating help for problem areas. The government has established definite criteria for identifying these areas, and while there may be room for improvement or change in them they are at least a matter of public knowledge and are applied equally across Canada. There is a definite program of incentives and they have meaning for the business world. This program is also a matter of public knowledge and is available to any qualifying industry which locates in any designated area.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) indicated he does not seem to like this clear and definite area development program. I am surprised that any member of this house would prefer the approach of the previous government, which was either to do nothing or to operate in a haphazard, arbitrary way that always left it possible for one area of the country to feel it had not the same opportunity as another area.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Why is the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) back here now?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In fact I am sure the people of Chatham, Ontario, would be quite surprised and unhappy to find that the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) is against making available to his city the same kind of incentive measures he was quite happy to see the previous Conservative government make available to another city several thousands of miles away. I think that he should, and I am sure that basically the people of southwestern Ontario will welcome measures that will help and I think have already helped southwestern Ontario to move forward.
In Windsor unemployment has decreased by more than 2,000 from what it was at the end of January, 1963. In Chatham unemployment has decreased by some 500 from what it was at the end of the same month of January, 1963. There obviously has been a definite improvement. However, I am frank to admit that the figures themselves indicate a need for further improvement and, to paraphrase the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), while we do not intend to claim that this improvement was due merely to the efforts of the government we can say that, to date, the measures introduced have helped and will help move the Canadian economy forward.
Among these measures has certainly been the creation of the Department of Industry and its area development agency, the auto parts production incentive plan and the tax
The Address-Mr. Gray incentive program. I was also personally pleased to note in the speech from the throne that there will be placed before us still other measures to stimulate employment by strengthening and expanding the primary and secondary manufacturing industries of Canada. But there is something that the Department of Industry can and should be doing that does not need to await any legislative change. I suggest that this department must begin as soon as possible a major campaign to make known to the business world the existence of the incentive program it has available, and how these businessmen who qualify under it, as well as the communities in which they locate, can benefit in a meaningful way from the program.
It is true that although this program came into effect less than three months ago the area development agency, I am informed, has already had submitted to it over 103 projects for decision as to eligibility for the incentive, and of these seven are from Windsor and four from Chatham. But considering the need for new industry and employment in designated areas I would say there is room for many more such applications. I have found that many businessmen and their accountants and lawyers are as yet not sure of how these incentives work and how they may qualify for them. I realize that up to now the new department has been hampered in some of its efforts because of what I consider to be the unnecessarily cumbersome procedures of the civil service commission that have slowed down the hiring of necessary staff. I understand that this staff is now being hired, and it appears it will therefore be in a position to begin a high priority program to make known to all Canadians the details of the tax incentives available.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that one reason the $500 bonus plan to stimulate winter home building was so successful was that the department launched a major advertising campaign to create interest in it. I think we should use a similar campaign, with similar advertising about these tax incentives, in business publications and daily newspapers across Canada. The minister and the officials of the Department of Industry should seek every opportunity to speak to business audiences about this incentive program. Hon. members of this house, of whatever party, in whose ridings are found designated areas, should appoint themselves ambassadors of economic development and take the initiative in bringing this information to their municipal councils, chambers of commerce, industrial commissions and even individual firms. I know the officials of the area development agency would be most happy to provide the necessary material.

The Address-Mr. Gray Sound, useful and effective though the incentive program can and will be, the department must go out and sell it and make it known to the Canadian people, especially those in the development areas. As an example of what can be done, I should like to tell the house about something that is being organized in my own city of Windsor, which I have the honour to represent together with my colleague the distinguished member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). It was just announced last Friday afternoon that the Department of Industry and the area development agency will participate in a special industry incentive seminar which will take place in Windsor, Ontario, on March 25. Those who will take part in this seminar will include senior officials of the department and the area development agency, and they will conduct informal discussions about the new tax incentives. This seminar has been organized by the greater Windsor foundation, the Windsor and district labour council, the Windsor chamber of commerce, the greater Windsor industrial commission and the city of Windsor. Invitations are to be extended to businessmen, industrialists, local union presidents, contractors, accountants, lawyers and builders mainly in the Windsor area but also in other parts of Canada and the United States.
This seminar, Mr. Speaker, is the first of its kind and I hope it will serve as a model for similar gatherings in other parts of Canada. I think hon. members might be interested to know that the initiative to hold this seminar came from the community itself. It reflects the new and positive spirit of Windsor, a spirit of co-operation and teamwork to help the community of Windsor move forward. This spirit is reflected in the way that business and labour are working together on this and other projects in our community. As an example of this community spirit, I would point out that the steering committee for the seminar is composed of Dr. W. G. Phillips, president of the greater Windsor foundation and head of the department of economics of the University of Windsor, as chairman; Frank Quinlan, president of the Windsor district labour council; Charles Gordon, president of the Windsor chamber of commerce; Cuthbert Andrews, chairman of the greater Windsor industrial commission and John Ad-amac, city clerk, representing the city of Windsor. The fact that these men have worked together in this way may surprise many people outside of Windsor who have some rather weird, faulty and inaccurate notions about the Windsor area. But this effort is typical of the positive climate that exists and has existed for some time in our community.

I hope that the nature of the sponsorship and organization of this seminar will be noted throughout Canada and that business leaders, representatives of the press and news media generally, will come to Windsor not only to cover and attend this seminar but on other occasions as well to sense Windsor's positive climate and to see how it is moving forward. This is what our Liberal program of area development can and should mean for Canada-not charity, but a way to help people help themselves, to make use of the abilities and skills available in their own communities in every part of our country. In this way, Mr. Speaker, they will create better lives for themselves and a better Canada for all of us.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In his remarks about my speech last Thursday, the hon. member stated that I had manipulated the figures to produce the result in percentages. Can the hon. member tell me in what particular way he feels the figures were manipulated, in view of the fact they were taken from the government's own literature?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I merely attempted to suggest the hon. member presented his figures in such a way as to buttress his argument, with which I do not happen to agree and with which I do not believe the Canadian people agree.


Mr. Danforih:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question, and I shall try to stay out of partisan politics. I was interested in his explanation of the seminar and his explanation of what this government has done in these designated areas. Since the hon. member has looked up the figures for Chatham and Windsor, can he cite one single instance of a major industry coming into our area since this program has been initiated as a result of the special concessions made by this government?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I made it very clear that this program had been in existence for less than three months. There are already over 103 applications under consideration, and they must be checked to make sure that they qualify under the law. This is not something that is done in a few days or a few weeks. However, I believe the hon. member will find that before too much more time goes by this program will have positive benefits for Windsor and for his community of Chatham. I think he should speak in a way that would encourage this program rather than trying to destroy the positive effects which I know it can have for his community and for the whole country.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorklon):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I join with those who have preceded me in this debate in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) and seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply. The speech from the throne is a dull and subdued document. It contains only three new points. The balance is a rehash of measures carried over from the last session. It barely mentions, or ignores altogether, such important matters as national defence, high interest rates, unemployment, trade deficits and others with which this government must deal during this session.
The Canadian electors will remember the Liberal promises of full employment, reduction of federal expenditures, cutting taxes and increased social security, all of which was to be effected with a balanced budget. Today, the country faces an estimated deficit of $600 million. The speech from the throne consists of measures left over from the 60 days of decision, measures which were introduced and then left to die on the order paper.
The fumbling policies of this government have resulted in bewilderment and confusion. The on again off again sales tax; nuclear war heads-now we have them or do we have them-all reveal the fumbling efforts of this government, added to which we have that fumbling effort to control foreign investment in Canada and to increase Canadian ownership. If one subtracts the export sales of prairie grain from the total exports, he gets a true picture of this government's efforts to increase exports. The record is not one that warrants the complacency of this government.
It is true that the government increased old age security pensions by $10 per month. However, I should like to remind hon. members that it was pressure from the official opposition which resulted in this increase being made retroactive. I am heartily in favour of this increase, and I have no objection to the 1 per cent increase in my contribution.
Prices increased when the 11 per cent sales tax was imposed. Some prices did drop with the reduction of the tax to 4 per cent, but the cost to the consumer of many of the items required remains well above that in effect before the imposition of this tax. This increased the cost of construction and home repairs, a large factor in the rising cost of living. This was the result of the confusion created by the Minister of Finance.
The switch to the graduated tax created a situation where large firms can stockpile and are assured of a 4 per cent gain on their capital investment, plus a favourable competitive position in the coming year. The 20220-28i
The Address-Mr. Clancy smaller firms are not in a position to commence this type of operation, and as a result they are in an increasingly unfavourable competitive position. Surely the Minister of Finance must have foreseen the hardship this would impose on the small contractor and the small manufacturer wishing to expand?
The imposition of the sales tax on rebuilt and remanufactured goods is a serious blow to hundreds of small operators. The number of employees in each firm is not large, but in total these small firms employ an important percentage of the labour force.
The small independent businessman is already laden down with income tax collection and records, unemployment insurance collection and records, compensation payments and reports, as well as tax collection and record keeping for provincial and municipal authorities. The cost of providing these services adds to the cost of production by introducing a cost factor over which the operator has no control.
Will the sales tax imposed on this group accomplish its purpose? Will the increased revenue compensate for the liquidation of many of these firms and the resulting unemployment?
The Canadian tire dealer and retread asso-cation, on behalf of its members, points out (1) the direct sales tax will be collected from in excess of 700 firms, while formerly fewer than 10 firms collected the tax on all retread materials. The cost of collection will further reduce revenues. (2) The direct sales tax places a further burden on the small businessman, and increases his operating expenses with a net result of a lower net taxable income and, (3), the direct sales tax is inequitable in that the rate of tax on a retread is double the rate of tax on a comparable new tire. For example, the sales tax, as a percentage of the retail price on a 750 x 144 ply D.L.X. new is 3.6 per cent, and on a 750 x 14-4 ply D.L.X. retread the percentage of the sales tax as related to the retail price is 11 per cent.
The association further points out that increased costs will reduce sales. Unemployment will result over a wide area due to the failure, either by voluntary or compulsory liquidation, of many small Canadian owned businesses. The result of the tax on the small independent firms engaged in this trade will have a parallel effect on the hundreds of small independent firms engaged in the rebuilding and remanufacturing industry.
It was pointed out the other day that there has been a drop in the number of unemployed. This is good news and it is welcomed by every member of the house. However, there are some questions to be answered.

The Address-Mr. Plourde
How much of the decrease was due to the policy of the former government in giving capital grants for technical school construction and the setting up of upgrading and retraining courses, to prevent the labour market being flooded with young and untrained people? How much of the decrease was due to a winter which was unusually favourable for winter construction? Will summer construction slow down due to over-building during the winter by large firms which had the capital to take advantage of the coming change in sales tax, and other incentives? Will the small contractor curtail his activities during the summer season because of his unfavourable competitive position due to the graduated sales tax?
I think the complacency of the government is premature. It is disappointing to rural members, as indeed to all hon. members, that the government has no policy for agriculture. It is apparently going to allow the sound and long term policies of the former government to wither. Agriculture, once again under a Liberal government, is becoming the forgotten segment of the economy.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to make the voice of Quebec West heard in this house.
On the last day of the throne speech debate, it affords me pleasure to join with all my previous colleagues in extending my warmest congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) and seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
All Canadians have been disappointed in that speech, because they expected at least that a more dynamic position would be taken with regard to the evil of unemployment, which has become a problem of prime importance, as well as to the lack of purchasing power aggravated by the lack of jobs.
When I read press reports that would have the people believe that unemployment is declining, that it is merely seasonal unemployment, I am amused, because I know that the present unemployment, far from declining, has become chronic and prevails the year round. In the province of Quebec, a percentage of 7.5 has more particularly been mentioned, according to a Montreal daily, which later had the audacity to say that unemployment was still on the decrease.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. What does that percentage mean? Well, it only comprises those who were lucky enough to receive unemployment insurance benefits properly so-called. But how many other
[Mr. Clancy.l
people without jobs cannot obtain unemployment insurance benefits for one reason or another which some civil servants endeavour to find?
I am myself acquainted with the case of the head of a family with eight children, who had to be hospitalized. That same man, after having paid his contributions to the unemployment insurance fund for 17 consecutive years, did not get any benefit payments, because the unemployment insurance office in Quebec denied him that right by saying that, being unable to work at the time, he was not entitled to benefit from unemployment insurance. This is quite logical in itself, but the terrible thing is that this same head of family who does not know where to turn to feed his dependents is denied aid by the social services where he cannot find any help as long as they have not received an official copy from the main unemployment insurance office in Montreal, confirming that this man with a dependent family is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, though the office is perfectly aware of his not being able to get anything for the next two, three or four weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have here a blatant case of injustice to those people who have shoulder the burden of providing the necessary money to feed and maintain their family. They pay a contribution for many years, and when the time comes when benefits, or help from a social agency are needed, they get the answer: "Quite impossible, sir". Meanwhile, let them try to help themselves by getting into debt. Everything is done to discourage a man with a family.
Here is a man out of work with nine dependents and who, as far as the state is concerned, is not unemployed, since he is not entitled to benefits. How many similar cases are there? Undoubtedly hundreds of them.
On the other hand, persons out of work who draw unemployment assistance are also not considered as being unemployed. Nevertheless, they actually are unemployed. In the province of Quebec, the number of such cases reported in the press is frightening, it is a frightful figure. It is then realized how many thousands of families which have received unemployment assistance are not considered as being unemployed.
The authorities are aware of these facts, but what do they do to cope with the situation? Nothing tangible except deliver sonorous speeches to make people believe that unemployment is unavoidable for thousands of reasons.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) introduced his budget last year, he tried to have the people of Canada believe

that he wanted to solve the unemployment problem by promising a $500 bonus for every new house that would be built during the winter months in accordance with the federal plan. But we all know that this is deceiving the Canadian people because the tax increase on building materials will add from $800 to $1,000 to the price of a house. Who is going to pay this amount, in the final analysis, if not the purchaser of the house? I know personally that work is always more expensive in winter than in a warm season, like summer. Winter climate is severe, especially in Canada.
Winter works require special protection for the materials, which means additional expenses. Who pays for that? First the unfortunate buyer who wanted to take advantage of the $500; he was lured into doing so, but when he gets the bills, then he realizes he was fooled.
When will the authorities stop deceiving the people? When will they tell them exactly the whole truth, exactly what is wanted and expected of them?
Another crucial problem is also facing our country. I refer to the lack of purchasing power in the hands of consumers. For the time being, under the present obsolete system, the only way to solve that problem on a temporary basis is to increase family allowances according to the cost of living, because we know that for the last 20 years, there has been a terrific increase in the cost of living, while family allowances have increased by only $1. That is a ridiculous situation.
Moreover, the case I mentioned a while ago, of the unfortunate head of a family who has to support seven, eight, 10 and even 13 people with only the income he gets from his work shows that those homes lack even the bare necessities of life. Therefore, it is imperative to increase family allowances in order to increase the purchasing power of those large families, so that there will no longer be misery in the midst of plenty.
When I came back to the House of Commons, I expected that at least two things would be mentioned in the speech from the throne: sensible family allowances, and some means of stopping unemployment.
We, that is, not only the representatives of the Canadian people, but the whole population, were disappointed by that empty throne speech, which contained nothing definite or concrete.
Unemployment still prevails. Production slows down, of course, in times of unemployment. The lack of buying power on the part of the people as a whole, leaves many products unsold because, on the whole, buying power never catches up with the price of unsold goods, and this causes producers to
The Address-Mr. Frenette slow down production, to discharge their employees and even to close down their plants.
The result is a state of unemployment which is reflected on the economy as a whole. As they only have a partial buying power, Canadians are only partial consumers. An appreciable part of the goods people used to buy at a certain rate, will necessarily remain unsold.
The unavoidable consequence-unless another source of buying power is found whether in public works, capital expenses, higher allowances, and so on-will be depression.
But all those expenses, though they may be a temporary source of buying power, have to be paid back one day at which time, there will be larger debts and heavier taxes, which will bring about a new decrease of buying power.
Mr. Speaker, we would have many more things to say to press the government into doing something, into taking quick action. There is now a feeling that the Canadian people wants something new in this country and that more particularly the French Canadians are dissatisfied. How did this come about? Well, there is, first of all the fact that the part played in our economy by the province of Quebec is smaller than that of the other provinces. That problem must be tackled before it is too late; and the government is fully aware of the fact.
Indeed, the Prime Minister's own statements like the one he recently made in Toronto, to the effect that he was quite aware of something being wrong, of a latent menace, or, to sum it up, of a bomb being about to explode in our province of Quebec, and even throughout Canada, if quick action was not taken, prove that our leaders are well informed in respect of the present conditions.
I believe therefore that it is high time to tackle the unemployment problem first. I beseech this government to do something within the next few days. The matter is urgent. The government should immediately put a stop to unemployment and increase family allowances. I do not doubt that such a policy would be most welcome everywhere in this country if the government were to apply it within the next month or so.


Mr. Jean-Louis Frenette (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, we are now living the last day of the traditional debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. For a week, we have heard suggestions, some fortunate, and others less fortunate, from all sides, the purpose of which was to accelerate or improve administration in Canada.

The Address-Mr. Frenette
Like those who spoke before me, I wish to offer congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address, who fulfilled their task eloquently and brilliantly.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to avail myself of the fact that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is of a general character, in the sense that every member may follow his own inspiration, to place before the house a brief which was handed to me by the chamber of commerce in my constituency and to explain the contents thereof.
I wish to say to the Canadian government, on behalf of those who have delegated to me the authority I hold at the present time, that the representatives of the chamber of commerce pointed out to me, when submitting this brief, that they did not at all claim to cover the needs of the whole population in the constituency, but simply what, in their view, was the most urgent.
As I said, this opportunity seems appropriate to speak on behalf of this group of businessmen and ask the government to apply concrete and immediate measures with a view to an early implementation of the recommendations set forth in this brief.
The first article of this brief deals with the income tax basis, and here is the text of the first solution referred to.
Our chamber is of the opinion that a revision of the income tax basis is necessary in Canada and that such revision should comprise an examination of the federal and provincial taxation fields, and also of the financing problems of cities, municipalities and school boards in Canada. In this respect, the chamber believes one of the most urgent needs at the present time, for the provinces and especially for the province of Quebec, is the funds necessary to provide for essential needs.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is necessary to stress any further this imperative need for a revision of our taxation system, by giving back as soon as possible to the provinces the powers allotted to them by the British North America Act.
The most pressing needs are being felt at the municipal and school levels. These bodies cannot meet the present needs because, overtaxed as they are by the provincial governments, they dare not tax their citizens any further.
I refuse to believe that there is unfairness on the part of the provincial authorities, and I readily understand their difficult situation in the face of the problems they have to solve. That is why it has become increasingly urgent for the provinces to regain their vested rights, as allotted to them by the British North America Act.
IMr. Frenette.]
It is difficult for me to understand the reasons why the federal government impinges upon fields which are not under its jurisdiction.
Personally, I think this is the price we will have to pay to save confederation. Respect for the 1867 agreements is a prerequisite if this splendid institution is to endure.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the perennially critical question of taxes is concerned, I should like to quote, with the consent of the house, from a speech by the Hon. J. M. Dessureault, before the annual meeting of the Banque Canadienne Nationale, on the tax problem. I quote:
When a country such as ours, which is comparatively poor in financial resources, finds it necessary to invest its capital abroad it seems obvious that what is lacking the most is a favourable climate to promote private enterprise, which is the driving force of the economy. Now, to revive private enterprise, it would be necessary to ease the burden which increases industrial production costs.
Among the innumerable briefs submitted to the royal commission on banking, there are some which, in the light of true economic facts, provide useful information on what a rational fiscal system should be, that is a system which, while levying essential budgetary revenues, would have the effect of promoting a policy of economic progress.
Let us hope that this will serve as a guide when, as a result of the inquiry by the royal commission, a fiscal reform is undertaken. A reform or, better still, a revision is all the more necessary and urgent, in view of the fact that the American congress will very likely, in the not too distant future, pass a bill to enact a general tax cut. Such tax reduction will place our neighbour's industry in a far better position than ever before to compete with the Canadian industry on the world markets, including our own.
Mr. Speaker, those words of the senator who was at that time vice president of the Banque Canadienne Nationale are thought provoking and should encourage us to study objectively the problems now confronting us.
There is also another excerpt from the speech that I should like to emphasize and put on record. It is the one where the senator speaks about his confidence in Canada's private enterprise. I quote:
It is not paternalism which built our country.
If Canada today ranks among the foremost industrial and trading nations, it is due to the foresight, the initiative and the energy of the businessmen who knew how to benefit from its resources. It is men of that caliber who will ensure the future of this country. The growth of the Canadian economy since the last world war is the best guarantee of its future progress. If all those who are engaged in production are conscious of their interdependence and if they co-operate loyally and if when necessary they resort to the arbitration by the state, our country will continue to forge ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have there a profession of faith in the value of free enterprise, and it would be advisable, in these troubled times, to meditate from time to time

on such wise words as I just quoted which were written by an experienced businessman who certainly did a lot for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I come back to the brief which was handed to me by our chamber of commerce, where the second paragraph reads as follows:
Our chamber strongly urges the Canadian government to adopt a national distinctive flag and an official version of "O Canada", before 1967.
May I be permitted to insist further on this point, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I am not being presumptious in relying on the promises made by the right hon. Prime Minister of our country who, on various occasions, promised we would have shortly a national distinctive flag.
Needless to say that this problem is particularly ticklish, in view of the fact that our country is made up of two different ethnic groups, but I remain convinced that the majority of the Canadian people will welcome and commend such a step. I am sure that when parliament assumes its responsibilities and gives our country a distinctive national flag, it will choose one which bears no relation to any country and shows no foreign allegiance.
With regard to the national anthem "O Canada", I see no problem there since already it is sung everywhere in Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver.
Mr. Speaker, in that brief, reference is also made to bilingualism in the federal civil service:
Our chamber recommends to the Canadian parliament the adoption of a measure providing for a bonus or a gratuity to every bilingual federal civil servant or employee of the crown.
Mr. Speaker, I do not insist any further because my group has already put forward, during various election campaigns, some suggestions which were supported by other organizations. It stands to reason that we have not changed, and we submit that such a step on the part of the government would certainly promote bilingualism in the civil service. It is recognized by all that significant progress has been made in that field these last few years. We hope that this government will continue its efforts to achieve the recognition of the rights of the French language, and not only of the French language, but rather of bilingualism in the civil service.
A special paragraph in that brief concerns a project of a particular interest for our region. That is the construction of the Three Rivers bridge, and I am pleased to read that paragraph into the record:
Our chamber considers that the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river at Three Rivers is closely related to the economic and industrial development of our region, all the more so since the announcement of the development of
The Address-Mr. Frenette a steel complex at Becancour, and it insists that the federal government take the necessary steps to remove the difficulties which could hold up the immediate carrying out of that project.
Mr. Speaker, it seems lately that there has been an imbroglio concerning that project which was accepted by the last parliament. Politics should not be played with that absolutely essential project for the region. I hope that this administration will remove the difficulties as soon as possible and work in co-operation with everyone in order to further promote the economic development of our region.
Mr. Speaker, the next paragraph concerns the national employment service and reads as follows:
The chamber reiterates its request that an office or a sub-office of the national employment service be established at some strategic point in the riding. Recent developments have shown the merits of this request since our region, with the exception of a very small sector, has been cut off from federal assistance designed to stimulate economic and industrial development.
The establishment of an office or a suboffice of the national employment service and of the unemployment insurance commission would, of course, be a valuable asset for my fellow citizens, for the workers and more particularly for the unemployed in my riding.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, if we anticipated for the near future the end of that disaster which is unemployment, we would not insist anymore upon the establishment of such an office. But in the face of a quite poor situation and a future not too promising in that field, I urge the government to set up, especially in Portneuf riding, an office or an agency of the national unemployment insurance service, because the unemployed in my riding live quite far away from the Quebec city's office they have to report to. As a result, it costs them a good deal of money in travelling and other expenses when they have to deal with that office, since the distance may vary between 40, 50 and even 100 miles, which seems to me ridiculous and obviously creates many problems to taxpayers who have to avail themselves of the services of that office.
Moreover, there is another difficulty, one which I have already referred to, and it is that so-called designated areas, labour surplus areas, have been established according to statistics supplied by unemployment insurance offices. And here is the result: the Portneuf area which, in my humble opinion, is surely a labour surplus area, has been ignored since it has been included with that of greater Quebec, where the needs are obviously not the same as those of the Portneuf area.

The Address-Mr. Frenette
Mr. Speaker, I find that the brief submitted by the chamber of commerce refers to congratulations to be extended to the government, and it gives me pleasure to read the following excerpt:
We should like to express our satisfaction at the substantial improvements brought to the wharf in Portneuf. We are convinced that harbour facilities now to be found in this locality will be of great help in attracting new Industries.
Mr. Speaker, to be honest, it should be pointed out that those congratulations are meant for the members of the previous government, since they are the ones who took the necessary steps to have the wharf in Portneuf restored. And, in all sincerity, I am glad to recognize the fact.
On the other hand, there is another problem. The riding of Portneuf has a magnificent deep water wharf where 10,000-ton vessels can berth at high or low tide. Although the government allocated $4 million for the construction of that wharf, it remains that that harbour has not been used up to now.
I feel that in view of the needs of the area and the facilities offered by that harbour, the government and its technical advisers should study the possibility of putting it to use.
Mr. Speaker, the brief also mentions problems relating to feed grain. I quote:
It must be acknowledged that eastern farmers are going through difficult times. Therefore, we feel that one way to improve their lot would be to facilitate delivery of western feed grain to eastern farmers at reasonable prices.
We expect, sir, that you will strongly support any appropriate measure taken by the government.
Mr. Speaker, needless to say that I am most happy to speak not only on behalf of farmers of my riding but also of those of all eastern Canada, to ask again what we have been claiming for two years, that is to make it easier for eastern farmers to buy feed grain so that they can reduce their production costs and live decently from their farm operations.
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat tempted to ramble off into digressions to point out, after many previous speakers, the state of decay in which agriculture finds itself, particularly in eastern Canada.
One has only to travel through our rural districts, more especially in the province of Quebec, to note with dismay how many farms are deserted. Our concessions are more than ever depopulated and farmers increase the number of unemployed in our cities.
In fact, even after having worked without respite, those well-meaning persons who, with an enormous amount of work and sacrifices, had become owners of a small plot, are now compelled to give it up because they are unable to survive. Why? Because, as I said earlier, farmers find no customers for their products.


However, the remedy seems simple enough: increase the purchasing power of the people who need those goods, thus stimulating the purchase of farm products.
But the same point, the same problem of unemployment is constantly brought up again. In my opinion, if there was no unemployment, the farming situation would inevitably improve. By solving unemployment, we would also solve the problems of our farmers. It is essential to carry out vigorous measures to fight against this evil.
I would like now to quote part of a lecture given on January 31, 1964, by Mr. Fowler, president of the Canadian association of pulp and paper producers in which he dealt with unemployment. I was struck by Mr. Fowler's words:
Let us imagine that through an incomprehensible reversal of our economic system, the rich, instead of the poor, would be unemployed. Let us suppose that tomorrow, 303,000 persons, among those with the highest income in Canada, found themselves out of work. Every Canadian now earning over $7,500 a year would then be unemployed.
And Mr. Fowler concludes by saying:
I hope this will not happen.
Mr. Speaker, I was amazed at the logic of this item.
But, if the situation were reversed and the rich were unemployed, instead of the poor, I wonder whether the government would not then do its utmost to correct the situation without delay.
Unfortunately, it is the poor, the low wage earners, who are being exploited and who suffer most from the deplorable situation resulting from unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, since all of us, as members of parliament, advocated a certain program in asssuming our term of office, I feel it is only fair towards the people who elected us to denounce unemployment as the worst evil that is reducing us to slavery. I feel that we must at all costs make every effort, not only to find a solution to this problem, but to check it altogether. In my opinion, this situation has already lasted long enough.
And how should we go about it? I feel that an efficient and immediate solution to the unemployment problem, which has already been suggested by many others but which I should like to repeat, would be the creation by the Bank of Canada of new capital that municipalities could borrow in order to carry out public works or public utility projects.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in the irresponsible diffusion of unlimited capital, but I sincerely feel, like some members of the government, that it is possible to issue money bearing no interest. I think this could and should be done. In fact, we have just seen

an example of that when a measure was mem-tioned in the speech from the throne concerning interest free loans to students.
If it is possible to make interest free loans to students why should it not be also possible, in the same perspective and always with the co-operation of the provinces, to make loans to municipalities for the execution of public works which, in my opinion, would be an immediate cure for the disastrous problem of unemployment?
Mr. Speaker, this is a new formula. It may be daring. It may seem ridiculous to some people but is the present fiscal policy of the American government which has just reduced taxes by $11 billion, not just as paradoxical? Does that policy seem nonsensical?
The situation is serious and deserves consideration.
I should not want to commit anyone, but I sincerely feel that the monetary reform we advocate is already under way and that steps have already been taken. The only thing is that some people do not want to acknowledge it. I believe that the movement which was launched some 20 years ago cannot be reversed, that it cannot be stopped and that, little by little, economic circumstances will bring us to put into practice the principles of Social Credit.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the session, we have taken the position that we will officially support the present government in most cases. Once again, when I say that, I do not wish to bind the group to which I belong; I am merely speaking in my own name.
On April 8, we received a mandate. We have not been elected members of the Canadian parliament just to oppose systematically all government proposals, but also to assist in the management of the country.
Considering how confused the political situation is now, I feel that elections would constitute a national disaster. Our responsibility, our duty and our obligations compel us to participate in the management of the country in every possible way. We cannot achieve that goal by supporting non-confidence motions regardless of their subject matter. As a member of parliament, I think I would fail in my obligations and duties if I did anything to precipitate an election.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, this is a restatement of the question, in my own name, without any member of my group being involved.
I am personally convinced, at this point, that bold and courageous measures are much needed and should be taken to push forward the economy of our country. The government, therefore, needs a measure of stability in order to implement its program.
The Address-Mr. Mullally
Mr. Speaker, this is the end of my remarks. I would have a great many more things to say. Unfortunately, I have not been able, as I had hoped, to carry through the submission of the chamber of commerce's brief, but I am sure that during the course of our debates, I shall have another opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents.


John Cooney Mullally: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address, my colleagues, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Basford). I wish to congratulate them upon the outstanding manner in which they discharged their time honoured responsibilities and to compliment them for the contribution they made to the address. Their contributions and the memorable address by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), have set a tone for this debate which I believe even our most experienced members will agree is one of high calibre.
The question of national unity is not a topic of current conversation in our province nor a major problem in the area generally, although I can assure hon. members that we are all deeply concerned about any developments which affect our country's future. I believe that we in the Atlantic provinces can play a very significant and constructive role in bringing about better relations between the two major provinces in our federation, Ontario and Quebec, which I believe represent the two poles of opinion in this matter. I liken our role in this controversy to that played by Canada for so many years in the field of international relations when Canada as a middle power was able to bring together the major forces and act as mediator between the conflicting and opposing parties.
When I spoke on the address during the first session of the twenty sixth parliament I devoted the major part of my time and attention to matters affecting agriculture, fisheries and trade. I do not intend at this time to repeat what I said then, not because the problems have been solved or have ceased to exist, or have been remedied to any great extent. Unfortunately, such is not the case, and although it is not accurate to say that the situation has deteriorated it is likewise most difficult to point to any significant improvement, especially in the field of agriculture. In 1962 farmers in the maritime provinces had an average realized net income of $980. In the prairie provinces for the same year it was $3,900 or four times as much. The national Canadian average was $2945 or three times the average in the maritime

The Address-Mr. Mullally provinces. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, these statistics give undisputable indication of the sickly state of agriculture in the maritime provinces, a condition which is a blight on the national agriculture picture.
If agriculture is to survive in the maritime provinces, and indeed in much of eastern Canada, we need action and we need it immediately. We require measures that are bold, imaginative and daring. Farming is one of the most noble and rewarding vocations in which man can engage. The family farm is, I believe, the ideal economic unit and the most suitable place for family living. The place of the family farm and farming generally in relation to the nation is well expressed in the words of a former president to the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he said:
If there is one lesson taught by history it is that the permanent greatness of any state must ultimately depend more upon the character of Its country population than upon anything else. No growth of cities, no growth of wealth, can make up for the loss in character of the farming population. It is upon the welfare of the rural population, material and moral, that the welfare of the nation ultimately rests. It is not just common place to say that the farm is the backbone of the nation. It is an economic and basic fact.
But, Mr. Speaker, unless positive steps are taken soon we will have neither the family farm nor the farm family. The government cannot do it all. Farmers themselves and farm organizations must work hand in hand with the government and its agencies. Our farmers must be impressed with the realization that the farm, besides being the ideal place to live and rear a family, is also an economic unit, a business, and as such needs the adoption of sound business practices if success is to be achieved.
In so far as the government is concerned, however, there are five areas in which I should like to see action as soon as possible and to which I urge the government to give immediate and sympathetic consideration. The first of these is the improvement of farm credit. In this connection, I might make two observations: First, I should like to suggest consideration be given to the advisability of providing adequate staff in the offices of the Farm Credit Corporation to assist and advise farmers on their credit problems and to assist them generally with other business aspects of their farm operations. I suggest also that special credit terms be provided for farmers who wish to change their farm operation from production which is unsuitable to an operation involving new crops or new farm activities which are more productive, or which can be more economical.

Second, I should like to see the establishment of national marketing boards in cooperation with the provinces and farm organizations. Third, there should be some method of relieving the present high cost of farm machinery. Fourth, I suggest that the ARDA program be greatly accelerated and expanded, especially in its agricultural aspect. Finally, I urge the establishment of the school milk program in co-operation with the provinces. I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is all that should be done, but I feel those are the essential first steps which could produce desirable results.
In so far as fisheries are concerned, I should like to compliment the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) upon his initiative in calling the first national fisheries conference and for the outstanding success it achieved under this leadership. We look forward to greater achievements flowing from this conference as part of the development of a national fisheries policy. I also wish the minister and his colleagues every success in their negotiations on the 12-mile territorial fishing limit, the establishment of which will mean so much to fishermen on the Atlantic coast.
I wish to refer briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the matter of federal-provincial fiscal relations, especially as they affect the province of Prince Edward Island. I believe, however, what I have to say could be applied equally to the other Atlantic provinces as well. At the federal-provincial conference last fall, a formula was adopted which resulted in an increase in the amount of the annual per capita grant as follows:	Prince Edward
Island, an increase of $5.55; Newfoundland, an increase of $6.66; New Brunswick, an increase of $8.95. This formula resulted in increased annual national per capita direct payments on the following levels: Newfoundland, $95.34; Prince Edward Island, $90.25; New Brunswick, $75.31; Nova Scotia, $72.69. I cannot criticize the formula which was adopted because we all realize the difficulties involved in trying to apportion a certain amount of money amongst ten provinces, all of whom have very urgent and legitimate requirements for it.
However, I believe our province has a special claim for a more generous contribution. I should like to cite a number of reasons why I believe this is so. In the first place, Prince Edward Island has the lowest average income of all the provinces as was recently revealed in a dominion bureau of statistics report. The average income, in 1961, and this includes earnings, old age pensions, family allowances, transfer payments and other payments, for the province of Prince Edward

Island was $2,187, while the Canadian average was $3,131, which is $1,000 or 50 per cent more than the average income for Prince Edward Island. This surely points out the dire need for additional consideration.
Second, during 1962, as I have mentioned, the average realized net income per farm in Prince Edward Island was $980. This is the lowest in Canada and is less than one third of the national average. Third, since we have a small population, slightly over 100,000 people, the cost of government administration, in fact of all services, is of necessity higher than in other provinces. Fourth, our unemployment rate in the maritime provinces is the highest in the country.
Fifth, during the decade between 1951 and 1961, over 11,000 people left our province to take up residence in other parts of Canada. These were young people in the prime of life who had been reared and educated in our province, but because of the limited opportunities at home they moved to other parts of Canada where their education and productive capacity will contribute to the province of their adoption. This continual outflowing of our educated youth reduced our productive capacity and at the same time placed more strain on our educational finances and other similar programs. We speak of equal opportunity to all Canadians. Certainly, the young people in my province cannot possibly have equal educational opportunity, compared with the opportunity available to young people in the wealthier parts of the country.
Finally, with low income and higher unemployment, and the attendant problems which those conditions create, the need for social services is much greater than in those areas where these problems are not so prevalent. This is all summarized by the fact that our ability to pay is less while the demands on our resources are greater. For these several reasons, and for others which I could present, I believe we are deserving of special consideration. Formulae which give a reasonable and fair share to other provinces do not benefit a small province such as ours to any extent consistent with our needs. As I have mentioned before, our needs are much greater than other provinces, and our ability to meet these needs from provincial sources is less. I am therefore suggesting that special consideration be given to this request, which I believe is consistent with sound reasoning and fair play.
I realize we are now receiving fairly substantial amounts, but I point out that these do not enable us at present to provide the services required, especially in the fields of education and social services.
The Address-Mr. Mullally
Transportation, Mr. Speaker, is of vital concern in every part of the country, but for those Canadians who live on an island it is the very lifeblood of their economic survival. This may explain why all islanders are watching so anxiously the studies under way to determine the best method of building the Northumberland causeway.
Mention of this major, national undertaking is sometimes viewed with scepticism by people in other parts of the nation. This is certainly not the case in Prince Edward Island. We are seriously concerned, and we are anxiously awaiting the report of the engineering surveys conducted during the past summer. Everything revealed to this date has given us cause for optimism on this most essential and important undertaking. I urge the Department of Public Works to proceed with all possible speed to the completion of its studies, and I suggest that the Minister of Public Works, as soon as the report is studied, give us a full and detailed review of the present status of this project and the plans for the future. We islanders are hopeful and confident that this great national enterprise will be in full swing of construction as one of the great centennial projects undertaken by our country.
We have been alarmed, especially during the past year, at the rapid and rather drastic curtailment of railway services, especially in the eastern and western portions of Prince Edward Island, I know this concern is shared by hon. members in every part of the house, who represent ridings where railway curtailment and abandonment is under review. Passenger service, at least in the eastern and western sections to which I have referred, has been completely removed, and freight services have been reduced by as much as 50 per cent or more. We realize that railway companies, like any other enterprise, must follow sound economic practices, and with the dwindling passenger traffic offering we could not seriously criticize the elimination of passenger service. However, we are deeply concerned with the cut-back in freight service, especially because it seriously affects our primary producers, our farmers and fishermen.
It seems inevitable, despite our strong and most persistent objections, and despite the objections and arguments presented by boards of trade, organizations, business people and citizens generally, that railway service is going to be continually curtailed. If this is the direction in which the railway company is moving and if ultimately, even against the strongest protests, the service is removed entirely, then I point out to the government and especially the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill)-in fact I am advising them

The Address-Mr. Mullally very frankly-that we must have a system of all-weather roads to every part of the province of Prince Edward Island.
This could cost $20 million or more, and I am suggesting it as a project for consideration by the Atlantic development board. If rail service is for the most part removed, we must also have firm and secure guarantees that any freight agreements, preferred charges or other advantages which we presently enjoy with the railways, are adequately safeguarded and preserved.
Since I have mentioned an all-weather road throughout the province as a project for consideration by the Atlantic development board, I would like to say a brief word about this agency. Some hon. members opposite have prophesied that the Atlantic development board will soon be bankrupt, and that $100 million is not enough for its work. I am somewhat surprised at their lamentations, especially in view of the fact that this is $100 million more than the previous government gave the board.
When this measure was before parliament during the last session the minister responsible, the present Minister of Transport, expressed the view that $100 million was a floor, and that when it was used to good advantage he would ask parliament for additional money for the board to carry on its work. I think, if we review the minister's statements during discussion of the bill last session, any fears we have in this regard will be removed. My suggestion is that the Atlantic development board should continue to work on constructive projects that would benefit the economy of the Atlantic area, and that we should cease our criticisms and lamentations.
Despite what the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) said this afternoon, we are pleased that the Atlantic development board has made possible the Mactaquac power development in New Brunswick, and we are hopeful that this will be of real benefit to both our provinces as a source of cheaper electric power. I should therefore like to support the recommendation for a submarine cable across Northumberland strait so that we on the island can enjoy the advantages from power development in New Brunswick.
I also want to urge the Minister of Transport, as the minister responsible for the Atlantic development board, to give favourable approval as soon as possible to the request for the fisheries development project in Georgetown in my constituency. This is a most important development for the county and for the entire province, and this participation by the Atlantic development board would be of immense benefit to this industrial complex and to the town in which it is located.

May I also solicit the assistance of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) because we will be calling on them from time to time to help us with other problems connected with this integrated large industrial development in Georgetown.
In the field of social services and related activities I feel I should point out that parents and young people alike are most anxious to see the family allowance payments extended as soon as possible. This is looked upon with great interest by the people in my area and I am sure any announcement in this connection will be received most favourably by them. I can well realize that the government is committed to many programs and certain priorities have to prevail, but I sincerely hope it will be possible to have family allowances extended to age 18 when our young people return to school next September.
This year, Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating the centenary of the Charlottetown conference of 1864, a meeting which gave birth to our Canadian confederation, a confederation which is today a matter of concern to all Canadians. But certainly the problems that we face at this time are not as great or as many as those which confronted the founders of our nation. I think we could all benefit by recalling again the story of that time and by placing ourselves in the position of the fathers of confederation. Our province has been called, and rightly so, the cradle of confederation. We are proud of the part that Charlottetown and Prince Edward Island played in sowing the seed which gave rise to our great confederation. During this year we will be celebrating the centennial of this conference as a fitting prelude to our national centennial of 1967. I extend to you, sir, and through you to all the members of this house, and to all whom they represent, a warm and cordial invitation to visit Prince Edward Island this year and to join with all Canadians in the celebration of this event.
On a bronze mural in the historic confederation chamber in Charlottetown the spirit of the fathers of confederation is captured by the following sentence which is inscribed thereon, "Providence being their guide they builded better than they knew". I think we should ask divine Providence, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of that event to be our guide, and especially to give guidance and direction to those whom we have chosen to direct the affairs of our nation at this time.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, before I make my comments on the speech from the throne, I should like to

mention two matters. First of all, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) and the seconder (Mr. Basford, Vancouver-Burrard) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, for the gracious manner in which they performed their tasks. Of course, this privilege they had at the beginning of a new session will put them in an orbit which will be an honour reflected upon their fellow citizens and their respective electoral districts.
This afternoon, as I was listening to the speech on the address, I was proud to note that in this federal parliament, the representatives of all parties can express themselves in their own tongue and be understood by their colleagues.
Much has been said since the beginning of this session about national unity, bilingualism and biculturalism. We have in this house a proof that a certain party did not merely talk about those questions but acted in such a way as to provide this national parliament with a system which enables us to understand what our colleagues are saying in their own language. I am referring of course to the simultaneous translation system which was given us by the Conservative party and by the leader of that party who has too often been slandered in the province of Quebec, and who, rather than making elaborate speeches about bilingualism, preferred to act and to give us something which permits the hon. members from the province of Quebec to express themselves in their own tongue and to be understood by their colleagues from the other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I should like this afternoon to make a suggestion to this government. I should like them to find out whether it would be possible to set up that same system in the House of Commons galleries so as to permit visitors to listen to their representative whenever he is not using their own language. This, Mr. Speaker, would help to promote bilingualism as well as prove to the Canadian people that here, in this House of Commons, we practise that bilingualism which we proclaim on the official level.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also at the beginning of my remarks to congratulate the newly-appointed ministers.
I wish also to extend my congratulations to those private members who have become members of the executive council of this country. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that in the performance of their duties, they can count, despite difficult moments they will have to live through, politics being what it is-on the support of all hon. members of this house, even those who are not of the same political
The Address-Mr. Vincent allegiance. Very often, we criticize in order to obtain better legislation for the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I have represented the people of the beautiful county of Nicolet-Yamaska in the federal parliament since 1962, that is for nearly two years; I have heard about co-operative federalism, bilingualism, biculturalism, bi-ethnical nation, separatism, pseudo-separatism. I feel these concepts are most important and must be studied if we want to reach a better understanding of the role we have to play as a Canadian nation, that is two distinct nations seeking a definition of the objectives they must meet in order that Canada may become a beautiful country. But I feel that we should not overlook another role which is just as important. I mean the responsibility of seeking means of increasing the economic welfare of the people we represent. In that connection, I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a situation which took place during last session. How many members took part in the sittings of the railway committee in order to question Mr. Gordon and Mr. McGregor and hear what they had to say? How many newspapermen attended those meetings in order to report on them? My intention is not to blame the newspapermen, for what seems important today is sensational news; the public is eager for sensation. Now, during the last session, the members who sat on these committees, such as the committee on agriculture, had to wait for a quorum before being able to start working, and the work of that committee is most important. I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at these committee sittings there was room for reporters and spectators. One morning of the last session, I remember that we were 13 Conservative members and that we waited at least 20 minutes to have a quorum, that is 20 members. The sitting resumed in the afternoon and again we were 15 Conservative members and we had to wait at least 15 minutes to have a quorum.
This fact I am reporting, everybody has experienced it.
Let us stop seeking only excitement. Let us be practical. Let us study the problems which confront us. As for us, the members for the province of Quebec, and even those representing other provinces, let us avoid referring to purely regional questions; let us avoid bringing up questions which may give rise to an endless controversy.
As far as we are concerned, in Quebec, when we have succeeded in turning our fellow citizens into economically strong citizens, the question of separatism will no more crop up. The only means to possibly resolve this problem is to work towards strengthening

The Address-Mr. Vincent the economic situation of our fellow citizens, and this in the agricultural field as well as in the labour, trade, and industrial fields. One could say that presently we act under the impact of some movement, the interest of which is to see us discuss only those subjects which make headlines, and so hinder us from working on things which would ensure a better livelihood for our farmers and our labourers.
Now, to check this movement, I suggest to those responsible for covering the proceedings of the committees and the debates of the House of Commons-and this for the next three or four months-to have published in our local and national newspapers, under front page headlines, only the main aspects of the problems encountered by the farmers and the workers.
In so doing, they would render a tremendous service to workers and farmers. Hon. members would thus be able to get some information with regard to those very important matters in order to find the necessary means of settling issues affecting thousands of people, farmers and workers, who are expecting our help.
Mr. Speaker, this introduction has led me to speak of a class of our society which needs government help. I want to point out to hon. members that there are many problems which that class of people has to face. Some strong action is imperative on the part of federal and provincial authorities.
Let us, in matters of farm policy, stop taking the roundabout means which we have witnessed ever since this government came to power.
During the last election, we were promised a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. The farmers in my area and those of the province of Quebec in general were told that this would settle every problem. For several months we were told: The post will be created in a few days, in a few weeks, in a few months. But, as we have seen, hon. members who were lobbying the future minister of agriculture for eastern Canada were not even able to make themselves heard.
Now, another piece of legislation is announced in the speech from the throne. The minister who has been appointed to the forestry department is a member from the province of Quebec. We, in the Conservative party, had appointed one, Hon. Martial Asselin. Today, it is suggested that this nomination will solve all the problems of Quebec as well as those of eastern Canada. And, in a short time, a new department is to be created, that of rural development. Several farmers whom I met told me this: We wish the best of luck to the new Minister of Forestry who will be responsible for rural development; we

would not like to see the new minister becoming later the minister of rural displacement.
You are certainly aware that some farmers have perhaps good reason to wonder if the new minister will not be the minister for rural displacement, because we know that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) was the under secretary of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, the Gordon commission which advocated moving to the centre of the country a part of the population of the maritimes and the Gaspe peninsula.
Therefore, it is a wish I humbly offer. Let us not bet on a minister who could become the minister of rural displacement.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know what the new minister thought about farming problems in eastern Canada. In order to do so, I read the speeches that the hon. member for lles-de-la-Madeleine delivered in 1962.
Unfortunately, the hon. member for iles-de-la-Madeleine never spoke about agriculture in this house. I hope that, in the very near future, he will give us a broad outline of his policy so that we can reassure eastern farmers.
I wish to congratulate the member who spoke before me for having discussed agriculture, because although he is not a member of my party and we do not share the same opinions, he raised very interesting points which deserve careful consideration by the federal authorities and by the minister concerned.
Agriculture in eastern Canada is suffering. That has been repeated for a long time. Less than one third of eastern farms yield an income equal to the vital minimum for their operators.
In my province, those farms are located on the banks of the St. Lawrence and in the Richelieu valley, where the soil is rich enough and the climate relatively favourable; they are in the vicinity of large markets such as Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers and most of the large centres in the province.
If one third of eastern farms yield an adequate income, this means that two thirds of them do not. Those who depend on them for their living must count on grants to make ends meet.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, during the last session and on several occasions, I protested against the decisions of the federal government to decrease the subsidies paid to the dairy industry in eastern Canada and in my province.
Many are opposed to those subsidies paid by the federal government. It should not be deemed that these subsidies are too costly, that our supplies are too abundant, that our stocks of butter or dairy products are too high, because-I tell you, and I am not the

only one to say so-there will be a shortage of dairy products in a few years. Then, we will be glad to have the necessary surpluses to meet the ever increasing demand.
To come back to the desperate situation of our eastern farmers, it should be pointed out that the aim of a well-to-do farmer is high, because he must be able to enjoy a standard of living and a security comparable to those enjoyed by other classes of society. Unfortunately, that aim has not been achieved by the farmer.
Let us see now what could be done to give new leadership to agriculture in eastern Canada.
1.	Intensify and accelerate the work started under ARDA.
2.	Provide the farmers with sufficient credit facilities to enable them to set up an economic unit.
3.	Stabilize prices through the Agricultural Stabilization Act so that farmers may rationalize their production. Prices should be determined following discussions with the advisory council representing farm organizations.
4.	Seek new outlets and at the same time expand the domestic market.
5.	The adoption of special measures if necessary. In fact, if everybody recognizes that there can be no rigid agricultural policy because of such factors as the climate, then the government must be ready to face the problems and come up with a flexible policy.
In my opinion, any program of co-ordination and orientation which seeks to improve the future of eastern agriculture should include the five points I have just mentioned.
Allow me to go over those points briefly to tell you what I think of them. I have already had the opportunity of discussing the ARDA program in the house, so I do not intend to repeat what I have said in that respect.
However, such legislation would enable us to show to the farmers not in schools but on their own farms the three points which one must follow to succeed in agriculture. There can be no success without that. In my mind, those three points are like a triangle; a triangle forms a whole figure; when the three angles are there, it is complete.
The first point is the kind of operation a farmer has. It must be a good business. Whether it be for slaughter or for dairy production the cattle must be of a good quality to bring a profit.
The second point is feeding. Our farmers must give their cattle balanced feeds if they wish to make profits.
The third point is control or the organization work. How to organize his farming or his breeding to make a profit from dairying, cattle breeding or from raising hogs or
The Address-Mr. Vincent chickens. If one of these three points is lacking you may be sure that the farmer will not be successful with his farm.
Now, to carry out those three points, government help is necessary, to choose the subject or the farm itself, as farm credit or technical assistance.
To my mind, ARDA should play an important part in the farmer's education in rural areas.
It is true that farmers have to buy western Canadian products to feed their animals and the government must do something. We are asking for a feed grain agency in the east and we have already made a proposal to this end. Such an agency should be set up immediately so as to meet eastern farmers' needs.
Now, the second point I should like to emphasize briefly concerns the ensuring of an adequate form of credit which would enable farmers to set up a profitable unit. A few years ago, the maximum federal loan was set at $15,000. This amount was increased to $20,000 and to $27,500 on third part loans. Such an amount is not adequate any longer; it will have to be increased as farm equipment and the purchase of economic land are always more costly. This ceiling on these loans granted under the Farm Improvement Loans Act which formerly was $5,000 and was increased to $7,500 by the Conservative government should be raised. It has to be raised in order to enable farmers to purchase the machinery which is increasingly expensive. Moreover, district offices which are open in many areas of Canada, and especially in our province, where farming advisers have been placed at the disposal of farmers, should be established in greater numbers. There is a great need for more of these advisers who will be able to advise farmers who come to them to inquire about credit facilities for their farms or for the management of their farms. We need more and more people to help farmers. The farmer could go and meet them, just like businessmen meet their bank manager or a technical adviser and ask him how to get organized so as to make more profits, or increase their income and reorganize, in short, to make the farmer better qualified to play his proper role on the farm.
As far as farm credit is concerned, a detailed study should be undertaken in that field, and a number of improvements should be made. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that the present government will follow the example set by its predecessor, doing the best it can and putting its trust in the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation, in order that
436	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mather they may amend, if need be, the Farm Credit Act, thus enabling the farmers to set up economic units.
Mr. Speaker, the third point I want to raise deals with the Agricultural Stabilization Act. It must be remembered that the dairy industry is the main source of income of the eastern farmers. As a matter of fact, it is the main source of income of 90 per cent of the farmers in my district and in eastern Canada.
And even if the income of the dairy industry equals only 40 per cent of the farmers' total income, the government must undertake at once a review of that legislation in order to ensure a reasonable price to the eastern farmers.
Besides, it is the government's responsibility to seek the advice of farm organizations in order to set prices proportionate to the expenses and the cost of production of the dairy producers.
Mr. Speaker, I also mentioned that we should find an export market while developing at the same time our domestic market.
We have, for instance, Formosa or nationalist China. The Granby farm co-operative has set up a milk powder processing plant.
This plant is very flourishing for the time being, but we must keep working along that line.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) will leave soon to visit communist China-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, it is said that the value of a speech may be estimated somewhat in these terms. Forty per cent depends on who is making the speech, 40 per cent depends on how he makes the speech and 20 per cent depends on what he says in the speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This will be a good one.


Barry Mather: On that basis I was about to say that I feel my own contribution to the throne speech debate will probably be only one fifth effective, except I am fully convinced that the logic of what I have to say will speak for itself. At the outset let me say that the members of the New Democratic party have no desire to add unduly to the difficulties which face the government at this time, difficulties which it inherited from the previous administration, difficulties which we feel are inherent in our present social order, and other difficulties which it seems intent on manufacturing for itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forty per cent again.


Barry Mather: It will be recalled that in the last general election campaign, when it was obvious that no one single party would be able to form a majority government, the New Democratic party alone among the parties gave an undertaking to the public of Canada that it would in its representation in the house give time to whatever party formed the administration to begin at least to bring in those promised reforms that whatever party formed the administration had undertaken. We did that, and continued to do that all during the first session of this parliament, with the exception of the basic matter that is fundamental with us, our opposition to the spread of nuclear arms. We went along a good deal of the way with the present administration and tried to show that we were not here necessarily to defeat the government at the outset, but rather to impel it forward, to push it onward and to get the best results for the most people of Canada in the shortest time.


An hon. Member:: Is that why you abstained?


Barry Mather: Yes, that is true. Having that in mind we point to the fact that we are now in a new session and looking back over the backsliding of the government up to the present time we have come to the position where we feel that in the interests of the public of Canada the time has come for us to press the government and challenge it on its backsliding before it backslides out of existence altogether. I have many criticisms to make on this and other subjects. It is only a few months ago that the government was going to establish a 12-mile Canadian fishing limit for the benefit of our fishing industry and our fishermen, as so many countries have done before us. But now we find from reports which reach us from Washington, and go undenied by the government, that the 12-mile fishing limit which the government may establish will be one which will recognize in perpetuity the so-called historic rights of our American friends to the south to fish inside of the 12-mile zone, and as they are the only people who are fishing there anyway it is fairly obvious to a wide section of the fishing industry in the B.C. area that the new 12-mile fishing zone, if established under these terms, may do more harm than good to the industry and the fishermen.
Again, we understood that the government was going to protect the Canadian publications field by introducing legislation which would protect magazines in this country from the unfair advertising advantage enjoyed by the many American publications which flood into this country in an avalanche. Instead we find that the two major invaders in that field, Time and Reader's Digest, have been

given what amounts to an historic fishing right in the publication field. The government's stand may do more harm than good to the Canadian publication industry and to the fostering of that free and independent Canadian feeling, which I am sure we are all keen to see brought about.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we were told in the election campaign that the government planned a very fine pension plan for Canada. It was going to do this and going to do that for the people of the nation. We find now that the pension plan, like the 12 mile fishing limit and like the Canadian publication regulations, has been very much watered down, due to the financial pressure of the provinces and the insurance companies. Again we were told during the election that the government planned to extend 10,000 scholarships to deserving students, but now in reality we find that they are going to get interest free loans, which is a quite different and minor thing. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we and a great many others in the house and in the country are not satisfied with the government's whoa, whoa, slow, slow, no, no attitude. We are not satisfied with it and we are going to do what we can to impel the government forward and get some worth-while efforts out of it for the mass of ordinary Canadians. I feel that the government does itself as well as the country harm by its present weak-kneed attitude. If it would take its courage in both hands and go forward boldly with a made in Canada for Canadians policy, I think it might be surprised with the widespread support it might still elicit. It is no use criticizing without offering something in the way of alternative proposals.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose I was saying that, having given the government every opportunity during the last session to deliver the goods it had been selling during the previous election campaign, the New Democratic party is of the opinion that in this session it is up to us more than ever before to challenge the government on its backsliding ways, to urge it to improve its line and to ask it to rise to those better things which it perceived so vividly while it was on the hustings. I had said, though, that there was no point, and it was unfair, to criticize weaknesses without putting forward some alternative proposals.
The Address-Mr. Mather
I am putting forward these specific points, therefore, at this time. In the international sphere, since we are all living in the same interdependent world today whether we like it or not, I believe one of the best things the government of Canada could do, and should be doing a great deal more, is to try to arrange for better international feeling. I feel, and I am sure many other hon. members in all quarters of the house feel, that it is manifestly ridiculous to find Canada is able to recognize the revolutionary regime in south Viet Nam within 15 days of that regime seizing power, and yet it seems impossible for our government to make up its mind to recognize the regime that took power on mainland China 15 years after that regime was established. Whether we like it or not, it is the regime which governs the most populous country in the world and which is a good customer of this country. It can be a great power for good or ill in the world today. I am sure that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who feel the same way I feel, and there are many people in the United States who are coming to this point of view. I propose that Canada recognize mainland China in the year 1964.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I draw attention to the sombre fact that between our defence costs and our payment of interest on our federal borrowings alone, we now spend the enormous amount of almost 40 per cent of all our federal tax revenues. I have calculated that we are spending almost $2 million a day to pay the interest on our federal debt, and that we spend $2 million every 14 hours to pay for our defence costs in a world in which many people are coming to the point of view that there is really no fundamental defence left for any country in the world.
I believe that a major revision of this vast and dubious area of our public spending is essential. Reform in this area of public expenditure could result in either a reduction of taxation, a reduction of our debt or an increase in social benefits, such as an increase in the benefits of old age pensions to people of 65 years without a means test. This is a measure which would be in line with the tragic needs of thousands of people in the country, while at the same time being in line with the modern and progressive effects of automation on employment. If we were able to bring about such a reform of our defence expenditures and our public debt, this would also provide money for the repatriation of some of our Canadian industries.
Personally, I agree with Premier Manning of Alberta when he says that he sees no reason why the central bank, in this age, cannot make low interest loans, at about 1 per

The Address-Mr. Prud'homme cent, available to the provinces or municipalities for essential public works and nonprofit enterprises. If we could get from the central bank 1 per cent interest loans to the provinces and municipalities for such essential non-profit public enterprises as sewers, sidewalks, schools and hospitals, this would naturally remove a great deal of the pressing tax load on the residents of municipalities across Canada. In addition, it would free vast private funds which now go into the purchase of municipal bonds for some more worthwhile Canadian risk enterprises.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the government for its expressed intention of proceeding rapidly with the redistribution legislation in order to bring about a more realistic representation of the electors of Canada in this chamber. I come from the constituency of New Westminster which is the most populous constituency in Canada, west of Toronto. It is in the heart of the lower mainland of British Columbia, an area which now has a population more densely packed than in Holland or Belgium. In that area of the lower mainland, sir, we add 35,000 people every year, or the population of a fair sized city. There are more people living in the New Westminster constituency than there are in the province of Prince Edward Island, the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, and yet we in that area have but one representative in this house. I hope the government will proceed rapidly with this redistribution measure so that more people can be represented in that area from which I come. I think this is long overdue.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I reiterate my earlier remarks and urge the government to pull up its socks and get on with the job which it undertook. Many people tonight are in doubt as to whether it is tackling that job well. It would be a sad commentary on this administration if it were to go down to defeat with the verdict that its performance did more harm than good for Canada.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, it is not without deep emotion that I rise to speak for the first time in the Canadian parliament. I do it without any notes to better express what I feel.
Allow me first to extend my warmest congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cote, Lon-gueuil) and the seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and to the new ministers.
How could I let such an occasion pass without saying a few words about my predecessor in this house and I mean everybody's friend, I am sure of that, Hon. Azellus Denis who, now that he sits in the Senate, will represent

the people of Quebec with as much good nature and wisdom as he knew how to represent his electors of St. Denis for 28 years.
I thank them for their support, their sincerity and their friendship.
I should also like to mention a person I knew well, for whom I always had a great regard, and whose absence in this house will surely be felt by everyone, as in the case of Hon. Mr. Denis. I am speaking of Hon. Lionel Chevrier whom I have always greatly
admired.	.
As you know, the federal riding of St. Denis includes almost all the provincial constituency of Laurier represented by the Hon. Rene Levesque. It means that in the matter of federal-provincial relations, I shall have a great deal of work to do, but I shall gladly
do it.	,,	,
I should also like to thank all members and ministers of the various provinces for the warm welcome they extended to me when I first came into this house. From the start, I felt at home and I shall be forever grateful to them for it.
As Santayana said, I believe:

It is not wisdom to be only wise,
And on the inward vision close the eyes,
But it is wisdom to believe the heart.

While listening to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), I felt immediately at ease to recall those words which I dedicate to him:

He is as full of valor as of kindness,
Princely in both.

The Prime Minister of Canada has played a very important part in my political career. I have confidence in that man and this is why during my election campaign, I was proud to mention his name everywhere I went and this did not prevent me, on the contrary, from being elected.
The Prime Minister of Canada speaks out with sincerity.
I would be happy if all hon. members from all sides of the house would be able to speak with sincerity, that is, with understanding of mutual problems that each of the two ethnical groups have to face, of this desire to live together to make our country an outstandingly large and beautiful one, where all people, whether English speaking or French speaking, would live in harmony and celebrate together what will soon be the centenary of our confederation.
I would be remiss if I did not offer my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) for his remarkable achievement in regard to the first

phase of the preparations for the centennial celebrations and also to offer my best wishes to the one who will be entrusted with the second phase, that is the commercial aspect of those celebrations, so that he may, with his very able assistant, who was at one time my professor of political science, extend to the whole country the benefits that will flow from the confederation centennial celebrations. These celebrations are to take place in the province of Quebec, in Montreal, which is none the less an integral part of this territory, of this beautiful and great country of ours, Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I should like so much for us to have that opportunity-and I am sure that it will present itself, because Canada will soon have that national anthem so hoped for as well as its own national distinctive flag-for the centennial of confederation, to see all the Canadians united under the same flag in that unity which must admit diversity.
I make this appeal to all hon. members, to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and also to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) without omitting the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette). I make this appeal to the house.
Free from any prejudice, as I am myself a new member in this house, we must all strive in order that, like reasonable and intelligent people, we may give priority to reason over emotions. I repeat that like the intelligent people that we are, we ought to sit down and discuss these problems facing our beautiful country.
Mr. Speaker, this centennial of confederation, which we will celebrate soon, will be celebrated through inter-governmental exchanges such, for instance, as the one which has just occurred between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Our celebrations will be all the more happy and satisfactory as we will encourage our youth to associate with people of either race, to mix with one another, either through associations or by frequent interprovincial visits.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not by withdrawing-and I speak as a French speaking Quebecker-by withdrawing within the so called Quebec reserve that we will have a better future.

I prefer the words of Lord Tweedsmuir:
Give me men to match my mountains Give me men to match my plains Men with empire for a vision Men with eons in their brains.

Mr. Speaker, I love the Rockies, in the western part of my country, and I should like my friends in western Canada to feel
The Address-Mr. Prud'homme perfectly at home on Quebec's magnificent "Cap Diamant".
We have a beautiful country, one where everybody should feel at home.
We have often been asked: What do the French speaking people want? Well, I could answer that, among other things, 1 want to live while speaking French, without, on the other hand, forcing upon people who feel no need for them, my native tongue, my culture and my traditions.
May I ask my hon. friends from the prairie provinces, who perhaps do not see the need for it, to understand the aspirations of the Quebec people, of the French speaking people, and let me add they have here, in this house, a spendid opportunity to write history with us so that together we may become-and I say that in all seriousness- the fathers of the new confederation, the centenary of which will be celebrated in 1967.
We, French speaking Canadians, want to live side by side with our English speaking friends, but on an equal footing. We firmly believe that an economically strong Quebec will make Canada all the stronger.
If we want to have a strong unity, in this country, we must have strong components, and that is the objective that we in the province of Quebec are trying to reach at present.
For a long time, in the province of Quebec, we had difficulties to overcome in order to survive. This is why we had, for several years, an association called "La Survivance frangaise au Canada et en Amerique." That time is over. We have survived and we want now to live with you, according to our aspirations, but with you.
Do not be afraid if suddenly Quebec wants to live and wants its place under the sun. In Canada there is room for you and for us; we can work together to make this country of ours the finest in the world.
Mr. Speaker, as I told recently, in Toronto, our friends of the Toronto and district young Liberal association, what is happening now in Canada is somewhat like this story: a mother loved her baby but she loved him as a small baby and wanted him to remain small; her love for him was unequal but suddenly she saw him grow and became afraid. She did not know any longer what to make of her love in front of her growing baby.
I told them that something similar is happening here in Canada. Those who do not like it will have to pardon me, but in Quebec, it seems we are in the same situation as that little baby, neither too strong nor too weak, who was well loved, but now that he wants to grow up, not to take somebody's place, but to live side by side with his brothers, there are some people who seem to be frightened when they see him grow up.

The Address-Mr. Prud'homme
I tell you not to be frightened, not to listen to the voice of the extremists from any quarters. Personally, I firmly believe that the voice of reason will prevail over emotions, and the one who is speaking to you at this moment is a very emotional person indeed.
I think that as intelligent persons, we can build a great and prosperous Canada with the contribution of people who are not of English or French culture, and to them I say also: "Do not be afraid, but give us the benefit of your traditions, your culture, realizing that our country, Canada, is made up of two fundamental races and that together, we can surely hope for better days."
Mr. Speaker, we know that of all Canada's resources, the greatest and the most important is its double culture and its biracialism. Are we going to listen to those who, with a view to an electoral gain, in the hope of saving their seat or their party in this house, begin to use an extremist language? I say no.
Let us take for instance the kind of election campaign we have to face in our ridings. I wonder whether some of our leaders, whatever their political group, realize the full implications of their words? Let them stop spreading through the press and television a philosophy contrary to the general philosophy of our peaceful people.
They should think twice and try to find out from their listeners how they interpret their speeches. I say to those extremists from any part of our country that the young people give a different and violent interpretation to the words they uttered in so-called non-violent speeches.
I myself met in my riding, during the last election campaign, young extremists whom I unfortunately had to have arrested and whom my own friends went to bail for and whose fine they paid. But I had the painful obligation to have them arrested. Later on, they admitted that their appeals to a morbid nationalism had been misinterpreted.
I am certain, whatever the political party or the part of the country we belong to, that if we wish to sit down and work as intelligent people, we shall find a solution to the problem which confronts today, in 1964, our Canada, the centenary of which we are preparing to celebrate.
Why do we listen to the voice of extremists? Let us not forget that extremism begets extremism. Are we ready to drift towards one form of extremism or the other? I think not.
But, if such is the case, would it not be better for either of those ethnic groups in the country to find remedies applying to today's evils rather than wasting our energy to incite our population to sedition, than multiplying noisy press conferences, even

sponsored by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; would it not be better, I say, to find in the quiet of our offices a solution to unemployment and to the various ills presently in existence?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Prud'homme: I hope my hon. friends opposite are not applauding because there is still unemployment under the Liberal government; there is, it is true, but to a much lesser degree.
In which frame of mind are we determined to work? I do not know what others think, but as far as I am concerned, the answer is already there, it is in a spirit of co-operation.
I want to return and see the people of my province and tell them: In Ottawa, there is room for us; we are as much at home in Ottawa as our English speaking friends of British Columbia may be.
This is what I want to do during the weeks, the months and the years to come; I want to go back to my people and tell them: "Let us go together to Ottawa and let us feel at home in Ottawa and everywhere in Canada." Should we not be in a position to maintain that it is possible for each of us to live according to one's culture anywhere in the country.
Allow me to conclude my remarks with the words of Shakespeare, when he said in Richard III:

God, if thy will be so,
Enrich the time to come with smooth-faced peace,
With smiling plenty, and fair prosperous days.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote), the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and the seconder, the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Basford). I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking the last speaker for his remarks, the new member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I think most of us in this house would echo his sentiments, and if everyone in our country felt the same way I am sure we would have a great many less problems than we have at the present time.
In making remarks in this particular debate there is always the question of what one should discuss. While there is great latitude in the speech, one toys around in his mind with what he should discuss. For instance, there is national defence. That is a very interesting subject at the present time, but I think perhaps a more appropriate time will come when that matter can be discussed. Then of course there is a subject like the good old C.B.C. I think a great many people

in this house have a number of rather interesting views on that institution. But if I understood the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) correctly today, we will have in the reasonably near future perhaps a more appropriate time to make remarks on that subject.
Consequently I thought I might this evening make a few remarks in this debate, as is often customary, concerning certain local matters. Then I wish to deal with a subject of perhaps a little more general interest, namely that of a distinctive national flag. First of all dealing with local matters, I should like to direct these remarks to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) and I hope he will read them in due course. This part of my remarks concerns the town of Ingersoll in my constituency, which has been a thriving town for many years. It was the birthplace of one of Canada's most famous Canadian ladies, Laura Ingersoll, sometimes known as Laura Secord. It is a very thriving industrial town. For a number of years this town has been hoping to get letter carrier delivery. In the 10 or 11 years I have been in this house I have been attempting to persuade postmasters general as they have come and gone to do something about this matter, but I have not yet been very successful. However, hope springs eternal in the human breast, and I believe that Ingersoll has now acquired the requisite number of delivery points, namely 2,500, to be able to procure letter carrier delivery. I hope that the Postmaster General will look into this matter and have a survey conducted so that Ingersoll may receive letter carrier delivery.
There is another interesting matter which I should like very briefly to refer to the Postmaster General. I noticed the other day in the newspaper that the Postmaster General had been speaking about various kinds of commemorative stamps. There is one such stamp I should like to suggest to him. This year is the 100th anniversary in Canada of the commercial production of Canadian Cheddar cheese. Coming from that part of Canada that is well known for the production of that substance, I think there is some occasion to bring this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General. One hundred years ago in the county of Oxford the first commercial Cheddar cheese factory was started by a Mr. Farrington and Canadian Cheddar cheese has since become very famous throughout the world. Naturally, the cheese produced in my constituency is the best. There are some secondary types produced, such as Black Diamond and the like, in Belleville and other parts of Ontario. I am sure that all hon. members representing those areas would support my contention in this regard.
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt


Mr. Moreau:: What about a sample?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My hon. friend across the way from York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) suggests that he might have a sample. I would of course be very glad to send him one. Another local matter which I should like briefly to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is one I should very much like him to refer to the board of transport commissioners and other appropriate officials. I refer to the discontinuance of the Canadian Pacific Railway's dayliner from Windsor-I am sure this will be of interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin)-to Toronto and back every day. It is sometimes known as the businessman's train. It is my understanding that Canadian Pacific Railway intends to discontinue this service in the next two or three weeks. This will be a very serious inconvenience to people from Windsor, Chatham, London, Woodstock, Galt, Kitchener and various other points. This train, I know from personal experience and from inquiries I have made, is filled nearly every day. While I realize that the railways may have other purposes in mind, I do think they are under some obligation to provide some sort of passenger service to the travelling public. This is a matter of considerable concern to people living in southwestern Ontario from Windsor to Toronto. I certainly hope the C.P.R. and the board of transport commissioners can be persuaded to give the question of the discontinuance of this daily service a very careful second look. I know the railways are not very interested in passenger service any more; they are much more interested in other projects. But this is a service which is very essential to people of that part of Ontario, and I certainly hope this matter will be given further consideration before the service is removed.
There is one other small matter I should like to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is nothing very drastic but is a suggestion that I hope he might refer to his department or perhaps more appropriately to the department of external aid. It was recently drawn to my attention that a number of book stores in Ontario-and I presume elsewhere-and a great many high schools and universities have been disposing of a number of textbooks which have been slightly used, or in some cases have just gone out of print and are not being used any more. A great many of these books would be very, very useful to the newly developing countries of the world such as Africa, Asia and the West Indies, and many of them would be glad to receive these books.


Paul Joseph James Martin: An excellent idea.

The Address-Mr. Nesbitt


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs might suggest that some of our service clubs or similar organizations might collect these textbooks and distribute them through the offices of the department of external aid. I understand that recently in my town there was a bonfire of some books that had not even been used; they were perfectly good textbooks but simply had not been used. To my mind this is a terrible waste when they could be used in other countries of the world which really need them.
Having said that, I should like to discuss a matter which is of some general interest, and that is the question of a Canadian flag. Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) undertook to this house last year that Canada would have a distinctive flag within two years, and about a year of that time has now passed, I think a few remarks on this subject would be appropriate. However, I should like to make one thing clear, and that is that any remarks I may have to make on this subject in the next few moments are purely personal observations and do not purport to represent the viewpoint of the political party of which I am a member. As I say, these are purely personal observations.
Symbols of sovereignty such as a national flag are matters of deep emotional concern to most people. Not only are they matters of deep emotional concern but they are also matters of deep emotional conviction. Matters such as this and questions of moral importance-for example, capital punishment-are really matters which are suitable for a national referendum. However, I agree that it might be rather a difficult problem as far as a proposed national flag is concerned to have a referendum on that question, as there have been so many proposed designs submitted. Consequently, I think it is up to a member of parliament in such a case as this to be a delegate as far as his constituents are concerned, instead of a representative as defined by Mr. Burke in his well-known essay on the subject of parliament. In this case I think it is up to any hon. member to represent what appear and what he understands to be the views of his constituents on matters such as this-matters such as a national flag, or capital punishment, and so on.
If my mail is any indication in this matter, Mr. Speaker, the people in the constituency of Oxford seem to have a vast and overwhelming preference for the red ensign as the national flag of Canada. I have received a very large number of petitions and letters in this regard. I have had one or two suggestions to the contrary, but the overwhelming amount

of correspondence which I have received in this connection indicates a leaning toward this particular design.
I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, to bring this matter to the attention of the house at this time. There has been a lot of discussion on this matter. Every hon. member of the house has had large quantities of mail suggesting different designs and a great number of members have made speeches in the house on this subject. And everyone is entitled to his own view on the matter. However, I think it should be made quite clear that there are a large number of people in this country who do prefer the red ensign as our national flag, and I wish to put that on record.
Now, Mr. Speaker, personally I am quite happy to accept and to support the red ensign as our national flag. However, I think it is only fair to note that it may be necessary at some time or other to make a compromise on the matter, and I have a few personal comments and suggestions on the essential elements of any national flag, and also on the proposed design, that I should like to submit for the consideration of this house and which might meet, if necessary and as an alternative, at least some of the many different points of view on this question.
Many views have been expressed, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of a national flag for Canada. Everyone knows, for instance, that the Canadian Legion, of which I am a member, is strongly in support of the red ensign. There are a very large number of other people in support of this design, too. On the other hand there have been many designs submitted of varying kinds. I think probably several thousand designs have been submitted over the years. Some of them are very interesting, some of them might be quite acceptable, and some are exceedingly bizarre. A competition was held recently by one of the newspapers in the country and most of the designs submitted to this paper were a conglomeration of multi-coloured squares triangles, circles, and various other abstract designs, which were so abstract and so subjective that I am sure they conveyed nothing to anyone except the author, and sometimes I doubt whether they even conveyed very much to the author. Therefore I do not think that most people in Canada would be very happy to accept a design of that character. I think it is also safe to say that there is no one group in Canada which is likely to be successful in that eventually in all likelihood some kind of compromise may well be necessary.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, a national flag -any national flag-should have three very distinctive characteristics about it. First of all, the flag should be distinctive, and I agree

with any hon. member in the house who has said in the past or will say in the future that the national flag of this country should be a distinctive one. Second, I think any such national flag should be reasonably simple of design. After all, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be facetious but young people do have to draw these things at school, and we do not want something which is practically impossible to draw: we want a nice flag of fairly simple design. Again, Mr. Speaker, a little more seriously, the third point I should like to make is that any national flag should not be something just dreamed up like some of these abstract designs to which I referred a few moments ago; a Canadian flag or any national flag should symbolize the institutions and the traditions of the country which it purports to represent. That, Mr. Speaker, is most important. We should not be ashamed of our background. We should not be ashamed of our institutions and traditions. They are here, and even if we do not like them we have to acknowledge them.
I should like to return once more to the red ensign, because that is a design which I have mentioned on several occasions. This is the choice of quite a number of people in Canada, as I have said. It is the choice of the Royal Canadian Legion, and in support of this choice they point out that the red ensign has accompanied Canadian forces into battle in two world wars and that a great many of our citizens of all racial backgrounds died beneath this flag in defence of the ideals which this country represents. In addition to that, the red ensign symbolizes much of our traditions and backgrounds. All that is quite true. There is also another point, and that is that many people in Canada wish the red ensign, regardless of the logic or reasoning of their argument. Many people in the country want the red ensign as our national flag. On the other hand, there are also a great many people in the country who do not wish the red ensign as our national flag.
One question which arises in my mind is this. Is the red ensign a distinctive flag? In some ways you could say it is, but outside of Canada it has been my experience, Mr. Speaker, that despite the coat of arms on the fly the red ensign of Canada is confused with the merchant marine flag of the British navy; to foreigners it looks very much like the old "red duster" of the British merchant marine; and in some cases it is even confused with the Bermudian flag. The design I would like to suggest for consideration of this house- and I am not suggesting this design is going to receive wide acclaim, although I would hope people would give it consideration at some future time-is that instead of the red
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt ensign we substitute a white ensign, and instead of the Canadian coat of arms on the fly we have a large green maple leaf surrounded by three royal blue fleurs de lis, with a gold band at the bottom. You say: Why would you suggest that? It is very simple. First of all I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a simple design; actually if you had to draw these things, it would be quite simple.
Why does one suggest these particular things? Well, in my opinion as I have already mentioned the symbols on a national flag must represent the background of history and institutions of our country, and I say our country has a background of which none of us has any reason to be ashamed whatsoever. The union jack symbolizes certainly many of the traditions we have inherited from Great Britain, such as parliamentary government, our system of justice, freedom of speech and many other things.
The white background, rather than the red one, is one of the original colours of French speaking Canada, and the three royal blue fleur-de-lis, and the gold band are also symbols of the French culture that has contributed so very, very much to this country.
The maple leaf is a symbol of something that is purely Canadian. I know some of our American friends might say there are maple trees in the United States too, but I know in most parts of the world the maple leaf is associated with Canada.


An hon. Member:: What about the prairies?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have seen some rather scraggy looking trees out there called Manitoba maples, but they might make a very good symbol as well. To turn to the more serious aspects of the problem, the maple leaf is symbolic of all Canada, and I suggest even symbolic of the prairies as well.
To summarize, the union jack in the flag would symbolize the British tradition which we inherited and which we have adjusted to meet our conditions in Canada; the white part of the flag with the blue fleur-de-lis symbolizes the great benefits and the great treasure of French culture which we have inherited, and the maple leaf would symbolize all of Canada and our future hopes and aspirations.
Now I point out that there is another thing you might say in this regard from a purely visual point of view. Such a flag would be quite distinctive, there would be no other flag like it in the world. I have had the opportunity of seeing a great many flags at the United Nations over the years, and there would be no other flag like this. It would be very beautiful in colour. I am sorry
444	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gauthier to see my friend from Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) over there, does not like the suggestions I am making; perhaps he would have some others.


Mr. Roxburgh:: I wouldn't say that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I think it is something that would lend itself to very careful consideration. In addition, there is another interesting aspect to this design and that is this: Australia and New Zealand, which are sister commonwealths of ours, have very similar flags. The flag of New Zealand is a red ensign with the southern cross on the fly. The flag of Australia is a blue ensign with a slightly different design of the southern cross on the fly, and if Canada were to adopt a white ensign I think it would make a very interesting combination with our sister countries in the commonwealth.
As I have said, I do not expect too much general agreement on this, but if some of my colleagues in the house who have been indicating some measure of disagreement at this point would give it careful thought, I think perhaps the design I have suggested might possibly, at some future time, lend itself to careful consideration at this time when a national flag may be chosen.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, before starting my brief remarks, may I congratulate the mover (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) and the seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The time provided for the discussion of the speech from the throne will soon come to an end, and I am not sorry, because I think it is a great deal of time to spend on such a small document. Indeed, it was so brief, that His Excellency hardly had time to sit down. The speech from the throne was, nevertheless, a great surprise to us, but mainly because of the things it did not mention. At one time, when listening to the reading of the speech from the throne, I thought that the government wanted to play one of its little tricks again. Speaking of tricks, Mr. Speaker, it really was a trick.
First of all, in the field of agriculture: I remember when, during last session, I made a speech to commend the government in power for having at last, included some legislation to create a department for eastern agriculture in the speech from the throne. I can assure you that my enthusiasm has been much dampened during that session, because I saw our chances of at last obtaining the hoped for department becoming more and more remote.

This year, you may be assured that the farmers in my riding are most disagreeably surprised to see one of their greatest hopes vanishing in this way.
Mr. Speaker, I am told that another organization may perhaps replace that department, but I wonder whether it will be able to answer all the needs of the province of Quebec. I shall just say that I consider it very doubtful. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), is well aware of it, because, first of all, agriculture is under provincial jurisdiction and second, because the western provinces would lose a few cents, which would be most prejudicial in a future election.
Then, what are we doing? We are playing on words, we draw back, we go forward, we hesitate; it is precisely, on the other hand, one of the characteristics of the present government: indecision.
This should prove to you, Mr. Speaker, how much risk you run when you trespass on other people's property. Nevertheless, the Liberal government takes mischievous pleasure in making such incursions in the province of Quebec, sometimes in the field of agriculture, some other times in the field of education or health insurance. And as a maniac who proves repentant, it constantly falls again into the same errors. In fact, during each election, the Liberals swear to amend, to do better in the future; they promise before the people to leave Quebec alone, but the day after, they cannot help it, old habits come back and their perverse feelings awake. Therefore, reading each speech from the throne, the opposition parties are all amazed at the new pranks of the Liberals in the field of provincial property. At first, they seemed repentant, since they promised not to do it again, but today, they have become dangerous, even sadistic, for they advise us they will continue to plunder the province of Quebec, but that, in future, once the heinous crime is committed, they will inform the beautiful province.
And I see all our nice little French Canadians, in their seats behind their leader, happy at this invasion of Quebec's territory.
There is an invasion of the economic field, the educational field, the social field and even of the territory itself, since one third of our territory on the coast of Labrador is slipping away from us.
Our little Liberal friends secure in the warm comfort of the small victory which their slush funds gave them at the polls are sleeping peacefully until a new election comes along.
To them, it is the party that has to be saved, even if it means the death of a nation.

But can you not see, gentlemen, that this is precisely the kind of partisanship that has weakened Canada?
After such a betrayal of your mandate, by not intervening to stop your leaders, even at your private caucuses, how will you dare face again your fellow citizens?
No, the dialogue must begin before it is too late.
And that dialogue must first begin at Liberal caucuses level to reach all parties. In order to discuss, we must take the time to sit down and centre our thoughts on a given point. That is to say, all people concerned must stop once and for all dancing ceaselessly first on one foot then on the other, as boxers do.
Indeed, the government claims in all newspapers, that it will end those famous joint programs and then in the speech from the throne it comes up with new ones. There is something wrong somewhere, and we are not to blame; indeed, we are going from surprise to surprise with regard to a government which is certainly not sure of itself.
Are we going to watch unperturbed that premeditated infringement by Ottawa upon Quebec's prerogatives?
Infringement upon fields that are the most sacred for the provinces and that the 1867 confederation act was to guarantee.
And then they have the nerve to say: what have you got to complain about?
Keep quiet, let us dispossess you and do not resist.
And as a tranquilizer, a new drug has been invented: co-operative federalism. What a joke.
The most centralizing party the country has ever known is now talking about cooperation. And to top it all, right when it wants to put this federal-provincial co-operation at work, it loses no time undermining the last possessions.
I think that the present government has made a fool of itself long enough and that it is time for the provinces, at least the province of Quebec, to assert themselves.
And I hope with all my heart that there will arise in Quebec a leader strong enough to save what is left of the rights of the French Canadians.
We have to bow to facts. If the provinces have created this monster, the federal government, it is their responsibility to limit the, damage it can cause.
I feel that the only solution would be for Quebec to get back its own rights in the field of agriculture and for the federal government to give up a very unbecoming responsibility.
I wish to mention another oversight in the speech from the throne. It is about family allowances. Last year we were told once 20220-29
The Address-Mr. Gauthier more that they would be increased, but there is not a single word about it in the speech from the throne.
"I remember". When I say those words, Mr. Speaker, I think of the interesting speech the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) made the other day when he described so nicely the heroism of French Canadians who lost their lives for their country, and I would like the hon. member for Leeds to take note -I say that the motto of the province of Quebec "Je me souviens" much transcends the limits of Dieppe.
We remember that our forefathers came to Canada armed with faith and equipped with a plough. We remember also that another people came later, armed with the sword. Moreover, we remember that during the American aggression of 1812, the British appealed to the French Canadians, and that the two great nations which constituted our country at the time, joined together to defend Canada. The British people asked the French Canadians for help. The latter have answered: yes, we shall defend Canada but on one condition, on the condition that our rights will be safeguarded in the future.
Out of this, our constitution was born. You have there, Mr. Speaker, the constitution for the whole of Canada.
That constitution we remember well and it is for it that we are pleading today so that our rights guaranteed by this constitution, will not be jeopardized.
Mr. Speaker, I have something else to say. I shall be brief, for I have been allowed ten minutes only. I should like to speak about two other points that are most important to our country. I am referring to the Canada Elections Act, and especially to the section that governs votation.
As I had always taken part in elections in rural areas, I was wondering what the procedure was like in large towns, like Montreal, to have men elected who had been defeated two or three times before, in other towns.
I have had the answer to this query during the last by-election of February 10, 1964.
I spent three days in Montreal, including voting day, in order to find out how the old parties' electoral machine works.
I found out, first of all, that anyone could vote, and as many times as they could collect forms left by the enumerator to each resident of the electoral district.
Since only 20 per cent of the voters go the polls, you will understand how easy it is for one who wants to vote in all the polls to secure the necessary certificates by changing his name in each voting poll.
That is why I said a moment ago that a mere 20 per cent of the Montreal voters go

The Address-Mr. Gauthier to the polls. Probably halt of the votes are cast by people who like to vote more than once.
Mr. Speaker, I hear voices on the other side, while I am discussing which party is more ailing. I am getting to see which one it is.
To give you an idea of the problem, let us say that a party decides to pass off 20 to 25 irregular ballots per poll-which are commonly called "telegraphes" in French. When the polls close at seven o'clock at night you will see the same thing as happened in Montreal during the last election when there was a majority of 6,200 for 310 polls.
I could not positively state that this accounts for the last majorities, but the validity of our elections should be seriously questioned.
And what is more serious, Mr. Speaker, is that neither of the old-line parties want to change radically the Canada Elections Act.
Why are they against any reform? Is it because both play the same game? It might be precisely that race to the poll in order to cast the greatest possible number of votes by the fewer people possible that has been called an electoral contest.
I am under the impression that if another party managed to defeat this instrument of finance and succeeded in coming into power, it would discover some pretty things following an investigation on the election methods of old line parties.
I am therefore challenging the two old-line parties to amend the Canada Elections Act and to make compulsory the identification card with picture and fingerprints.
Election lists should be permanent and the administration of oath on voting day should be abolished.
Such reforms alone would be a proof a sincerity on the part of the old line parties. The refusal to introduce them would be proof of their guilt.
However, I am convinced that nothing will be done, because the only wish of old-line parties is to cause confusion, confusion among elected members and confusion among electors.
Where are we going, what are we? Are we British subjects in a Canadian country or Canadians in a British country?
That is the question facing many young people and also older ones who have not been submitted yet to the dictatorship of the old parties under which the French speaking element supplies the co-operation while the English speaking element supplies the factor No. 1 of centralizing federalism to which the Liberals have now given a new name, that

is co-operative federalism, no doubt to hide the old solution. But the result will always be the same.
And while this operation goes on, what do we see on the political screen? A prime minister shouting to the four winds in a desperate effort to soothe the French speaking patient who asks nothing more than to live under the 1867 constitution.
The Prime Minister looks strangely like the anaesthetist who administers the drugs according to the patient's resistance.
We hear demands concerning provincial autonomy, respect of provincial rights by the central government and the return of taxation powers to the provinces, so that they may again be independent states within a free country in accordance with the spirit of confederation.
In fact, we realize that today we do not have independent states nor a free country because in politics we are nothing but British colonials, whereas our economy is 80 per cent in the hands of the United States. The provinces are the powerless victims of the capitalist and centralizing government in Ottawa. Under such circumstances, how can there be a dialogue? We are a country without a leader and without possessions.
Indeed, if England demanded her royalty rights and if the United States claimed their economic dues, what would be left to us? Nothing. In that respect, India is far ahead of us. And who we are discussing? What for? I think it would be very difficult, even for government members, to give me a clear answer. And the hypocrisy which prevails in this house proves my point.
Let us start at the beginning, that is let us agree on the principle of a country, of Canada. What are we, from Quebec, asking for? We are asking for one thing. We do not want to take any other essential rights away from Ottawa, but we firmly object to Ottawa taking any more of our essential rights. We are asking Ottawa to stop the frantic invasion of the rights of Quebec so that we can, if necessary, give a new definition of the rights and responsibilities on both sides.
We want Ottawa to give a chance to the French Canadians to develop their province at the same rate as the others, in order to make our contribution to the building of our great country, Canada.
We want this jungle law, which always gives Ottawa the lion's share, to be abolished once and for all. We want the great French Canadian nation to walk proudly beside the Anglo-Saxon nation, equally great. It is in that perspective that we see Canada's future.

It is also the only way that will lead to understanding between the two nations which confederation was intended to make equal partners.
I trust that in placing the discussion in that light, all Canadians of goodwill will surely come to an understanding wholeheartedly desired by all Canadians, whether they be French or English speaking.
We believe that the time for idle talk is over, and that after 97 years, we should strive towards a great, united and strong Canada.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: I, too, should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address-the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford).
I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the house to talk about the Canada pension plan. During the debate on the speech from the throne many members of the official opposition have referred to this plan, sometimes obliquely, often with disparaging comments. One hon. member devoted his whole speech to an attack on many features of the plan which is to be submitted to this parliament for its approval. I refer to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). After reading his speech in Hansard it would seem to me that, in summary, it falls under these several headings. First, he says the plan does not cover a sufficient number of our people; he complains it is not wide enough laterally. Second, he says that those Canadian citizens who are covered are not covered adequately. In the third place, he tells us this Canada pension plan would have inflationary effects. Another point he makes is that because it is partially funded it would constitute a drain on our investment resources. That contention is, I think, somewhat contradictory of his previous statement. It also seems to me that his statement about inflation is somewhat inconsistent with the two points he made about inadequacy of coverage.
Then the hon. member went on to say that the rate of contribution of 2 per cent-1 per cent from employees and 1 per cent from employers-was insufficient to maintain a fund of this kind. He pointed out that under private schemes the rate was 4 per cent to 6 per cent, and that this 2 per cent basis could not possibly work. Again, I suggest that this is somewhat contradictory of his previous contention that even at 2 per cent the fund would be a considerable drain on the investment resources of the country. The hon. member went on to indicate that it was impossible for the private plans to co-ordinate with our
The Address-Mr. Munro plan because the average Canadian under the Canadian pension plan could not predetermine at the time of the commencement of his contribution what his pension at retirement would be.
I think, now, I have given the house a fair summary of the points which have been brought up in criticism of the plan not only by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka but by many others. I think it can be stated that not only do many of these points contradict each other but they are certainly inconsistent with the facts of this plan as they have been revealed to the house. I point out also, that in the conclusion of his attack on the various features of the plan the hon. member said he was opposed-I do not know whether he was speaking for his party -to a parliamentary committee being constituted to, as he put it, ram this plan through the house. Well, this is the first time in my experience I have ever heard the setting up of a parliamentary committee being interpreted as a device to ram something through the house. If an argument of that type has validity it must give any government pause when considering the advisability of constituting parliamentary committees in future to discuss such issues as these. As a matter of fact, I think it is only fair to say that the setting up of a parliamentary committee should be interpreted in some other light, rather than suggesting it is a means of trying to ram something through the house. In fact, of course, it will give a valuable opportunity for members of the house to discuss many of the features of the proposal.
In any event, these are the grounds upon which this plan has been attacked not only by members of the opposition but by the premier of Ontario. These attacks have one thing in common, it seems to me. In all of them, whatever their length or scope, there does not seem to be any indication either from the hon. member to whom I have referred or from any other member of the official opposition, or from one premier, as to just what kind of plan would be preferred. They are not advising this house or the Canadian people of any reasonable alternative. They content themselves with a summary indictment along the lines I have indicated.
However, a most serious piece of misinformation was brought into this house by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka when he stated that 81 per cent of the Canadian people would not be covered by this plan.
I think this is how he got the final figure up to over 14 million people. First of all, he included five and a half million people from Quebec. Of course, they are not counted in this contributory Canada pension scheme,

The Address-Mr. Munro because it has been indicated they are going ahead with a contributory scheme of their own. Surely, the hon. member would not suggest that we should cover Canadian citizens in Quebec who do not even contribute to the plan. The hon. member then included over 700,000 old age pensioners presently over 70. Apparently the fact that this is a contributory plan based on wage earnings completely escapes him. These old age pensioners were covered by legislative action taken in this house when we voted a $10 increase in old age security benefits. If the hon. member, or any other hon. member of this house, feels that something additional should be done for them, surely it is not suggested that coverage should be given under a contributory scheme when these people are retired, and not earning wages, and when it is openly acknowledged that the present plan is based on contributions from wage earners. Surely the hon. member is clouding the issue when he talks about 714,000 people over 70 not included in the plan. If he is disturbed about the level of benefits to these people then, surely, he should talk about amending the Old Age Security Act for he is certainly not talking about the Canada pension plan.
The hon. member then went on to talk about children and widows. For some reason he did not attach a numerical figure to this. He then talked about the sick and the disabled, the unemployed, single women at home, the self-employed with small wages, and casual labourers. To suggest that these people are not covered by the plan is just ludicrous. Can we seriously suggest that under the Canada pension plan a single woman is never at any time, from the time she is 18 to the time she retires at 65 or 70, going to be in a position to contribute to the scheme either on a voluntary basis or as an employee? So when an attempt is made to count every female person over the age of 18 and include her in a figure of 14 million, we soon see how ridiculous these figures are-how ludicrous they are.


An hon. Member:: What about the half million unemployed?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Carr Munro: My time is very limited, as the hon. member knows. The hon. member then referred to the disabled and the unemployed as if they would never be covered under this plan. In other words, his interpretation must be that at no time will these people ever have a job in their lives between age 18 and 70; they will never have a job where they can, either on a voluntary basis


or a compulsory basis as an employee, contribute to the scheme. On the face of it this is ridiculous.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: They will be over 18 then.


John Carr Munro: Right there I think we can recover a goodly number of the three million people who are in this grand total of 14 million, to say nothing of the 714,000 people over age 70 who should never have been included in the first place. Then the hon. member arrived at a grand total of six million in this over-all figure under the age of 18 who would receive, in his words, little benefit under the plan. I am now referring to Canadians under the age of 18. On the face of it this also is ridiculous. These six million people will also have to be deducted from the grand total of 14 million, for the simple reason that they, as far as I am aware, are not complaining about being included in a Canada pension scheme. They represent a goodly portion of the 70 per cent of the Canadian people who are covered by no pension scheme at all. These are the people in many of our ridings who are most vociferous in wanting the implementation of a Canada pension plan. These are many of the people who want to be helped in their desire to take care of their parents, who wish some alleviation of the hardship and onus of worrying about the support of their parents when they attain old age. So they are more than happy to have the implementation of a Canada pension scheme on a contributory basis to which their parents can now contribute and obtain full benefit at the end of a maturity period of ten years. Certainly if the hon. member is talking about persons of 18 years and under in his riding, he has a most peculiar riding, because I have not noticed any similar sentiments anywhere that I have been.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: But they are still not included, regardless of what you say.


John Carr Munro: Perhaps I may continue, Mr. Speaker. These six million people will be participating in the plan; they will themselves obtain benefit on retirement. These six million people will have parents who will receive benefit under the Canada pension plan. Therefore perhaps it is not too outlandish for us to deduct these approximately six million people from the grand total of 14 million.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: They are not qualified.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member went on to arrive at his grand total of 14 million by talking about part-time employees and seasonal employees. Again, he did not put a number on these. When you put back the

six million Canadians under the age of 18 and the three million people, many of whom are made up of single women over 18 to age 65, you see that we have gone a long way to recovering the great percentage of Canadian citizens who are going to benefit from the implementation of this plan.
There are one or two other points I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, and which I think should be emphasized in defence of the Canada pension scheme. After all, I think we must all concede that this plan will be of great significance to the Canadian people. I can think of no other national issue that is more important. I can think of no other national issue that will benefit more many of our urban areas and many of the agricultural areas, especially farmers who have not sufficient means to take care of themselves adequately in their old age.
These people are most concerned about the implementation of this plan. Surely it is something that should be considered seriously. Certainly it is something that should not be subject to rampant misinformation deluged upon this house. Certainly it is something to which we should give every type of consideration. I am not saying for a moment that we should not have honest discussion on it. I am not saying there should not be criticism of it. But it should be constructive criticism. To just go through a list of points as ludicrous as those which have been put forward and try to build them into an argument against the Canada pension plan seems to me anything but constructive. At the conclusion of a ludicrous argument such as was put forward, no reasonable alternative at all was presented for consideration by this house.


Mr. Winkler:: It needs a good alternative; there is no doubt about that.


John Carr Munro: I would hope that if this matter does go before a parliamentary committee the discussion on it will be on a far more intelligent level than some of the ridiculous arguments that have been presented in this house against the pension plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member talked-I think this should be on the record-about the wives and children of breadwinners who would not be covered because there was no survivorship or dependency of benefits. I would point out that the hon. member says a man could pay into the Canada pension plan for 40 years-I think these were his words- and at age 64 neither he, his wife nor his children would receive any benefit from the plan. He is wrong when he says that. I think this can be pointed out by all the literature that has already been distributed on the plan,
The Address-Mr. Munro and these are the facts. If a contributor such as the hon. member spoke of dies at the age of 65, his widow will be able to receive at age 65 a pension of 60 per cent of the benefit he would have received. If he is over age 65 at the date of death and is receiving benefit, she will be entitled to receive 60 per cent of his benefit, provided she is over age 65. Thus there are benefits for survivors under the Canada pension plan.
What about married contributors at age 65 or over who will receive no earnings-related pension for their wives? In this case, if the wife of such a contributor is 65 or over she will be entitled to an old age security pension. Therefore a man and wife both aged 65 or over will receive more in benefits than will a single person of the same age. Surely these facts, which are on record, completely debunk any suggestion that there is no survivor benefit under this plan.
Another point which was raised by the hon. member and repeated by others was the question of the unemployed and disabled. I think one fact that has been missed in this whole argument is the average 10 per cent dropout provision. As hon. members know from reading the literature, the Canada pension plan actually takes into account the fact that there will be some people who will be unemployed or disabled part of their lives. This is true. As has been stated in the material already released in regard to the Canada pension plan, there will be excluded from the calculation of a person's average earnings, his earnings in 10 per cent of the years from the end of the transitional period-the first 10-year maturity period-to the date of his retirement. This provision is to ensure that when a person's earnings in some years are abnormally low, or zero, because of sickness or unemployment or for other reasons such as disability, those earnings will be excluded from the calculation. Such a person will not, therefore, be excessively penalized. Surely this gives considerable leeway to those people who suffer sickness, unemployment or disability of some kind. I think this point has been missed completely in the arguments which have been advanced to date.
I wish to point out one other thing. After this attack on some of the features of the plan, especially with reference to those who allegedly would not be covered, the hon. member went on to say that this pension scheme would create a great drain on the investment resources of the country. Presumably he is talking about private investment, and presumably he feels that if there is any public investment in this country or any additional funds put at public disposal through government agencies, this is not
450	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Munro going to lend itself to the development of the country, but only when it is in private hands. That is a traditional concept that he has every right to espouse; but I am afraid he will find many in this house who will not agree with him. However, this is his argument. He went on to say, after making this point, that he felt there should be a more generous allotment among the provinces. Surely he is contradicting himself there. If he feels that this will cause a drain on resources if the scheme is funded in this way, it will also create the same drain on our resources no matter whether the funds are placed at the disposal of the federal government or at the disposal of the provinces, or by whatever means the investment is made. So there seems to be considerable inconsistency in that argument.
Then the hon. member goes on to ask where the money will come from. He talks in his speech about 2 per cent being completely inadequate and that it will take a long time to build up the fund. Then he says, as reported on page 323 of Hansard:
It cannot be sound on payments of 2 per cent on a person's income because private trusts and insurance companies, and even Canadian government annuities, can only be found sound on the basis of something between 4 per cent and 6 per cent of income.
I would point out here that a good portion of the over-all total, namely, the wage related contributory part of the pension comes, it is true, from contributions, but at least half, $75 comes out of the old age security fund, which is not composed of contributions at all. This point must have been forgotten when the hon. member suggested that the 2 per cent is not sound. He arrived at his figures by comparing the rates of private plans, where the whole amount is financed by the contributors.
I think the hon. member has also forgotten another point when he compares the plan with private plans. He has forgotten that under this scheme the wage related contributory part of the old age security payment is regarded as a minimum contribution with minimum benefits. The old age pension is for people to live on. When the hon. member talks about more than 6 per cent being required he must be talking, and in many cases is talking, about pension plans which

provide far more excessive benefits than will be provided under this plan. These benefits must be regarded as a minimum. So on these two points alone he cannot be regarded as serious when he advances the suggestion that the plan is unsound, and uses as a comparison rates required by private companies with plans not similar in any degree to this one, and which do not take into account the old age security feature as does the plan which we are bringing forward to parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 9.45 o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 5 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
Motion (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lester Bowles Pearson: That this house at the next sitting will resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That this house will at the next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. March 3, 1964