1964-02-27

Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to continue to stabilize the price of hogs to producers for the calendar year 1964 by means of a deficiency payment program. The board is authorized to pay hog producers the amount by which the prescribed price of $23.65 per hundredweight exceeds the price determined by the board to be the national average price at which grade A hogs are sold by the producers during 1964.
As in recent years, the board will determine at the end of the year the national average price to producers at which grade A hogs were sold. If this average price should be less than the prescribed support price of $23.65 per hundredweight, then the difference will be paid as a deficiency payment to each registered hog producer on a maximum of 100 hogs graded A or B under federal inspection.
In 1963 the national average price received by producers for grade A hogs was $27.30 per hundredweight, which is well above the $23.65 support price. Therefore no deficiency payment is being made for the 1963 calendar year. The outlook for hog prices for 1964 is reasonably favourable, and prices should not fall much below the high level of 1963.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the statement he has just made with reference to deficiency payments on hogs. Would the minister not consider making these deficiency payments during the next fiscal year on a semi-annual basis instead of on an annual basis? Because in this way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been considered many times, and there is also under consideration at the moment the question whether we should make these deficiency
payments even on a regional basis. However, I will be glad to take this matter under consideration and pass it on to the stabilization board.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In view of the questions raised by his announcement today with regard to the support price for hogs, would the minister refer the operations under the Agricultural Stabilization Act to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization this session?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this question.



SWEEPSTAKES


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-71, to provide for the establishment of a hospital sweepstakes board.


Mr. Speaker:: This is subject to the same caveat that the Chair extended the other day.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: At this point I should like to direct a question to the Chair. Last session and the session before a number of these bills were determined to be out of order at the time of second reading. I remember at one point speaking to the Chair about this, and the house leader for the government during the last session said he felt some method should be devised whereby private members could be informed before second reading if there were anything substantially wrong with their bills. I should like to ask the Chair whether any method has been worked out whereby private members might be given this information before second reading, and I do so in view of this caveat that has been entered to all these bills.


Mr. Speaker:: In reply to the hon. member I must say that the Chair is suddenly faced with a series of at least 67 bills, so it is obviously impossible within a matter of two or three days, or even a week, to give the required attention to them in order to decide upon the legality or otherwise of these bills. It was for this reason the Chair, as has been customary, entered a caveat when

Inquiries of the Ministry these bills were first introduced, to the effect that they would be subject to careful examination.
To answer the hon. member's question specifically, I may say that this is a matter for the procedure committee, which I hope will be set up soon. I recognize the difficulty, and the Chair will do anything possible to save the time of the house and to assist hon. members. On the other hand, there is the practical difficulty of a careful review of 67 bills which are not seen by the Chair until such time as they are presented. This is the situation at the moment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether an order in council was passed to provide for the searches in these sensitive areas and, if not, was there a general army order issued to provide for these searches? In addition, how does an area become "desensitivized", and what provision is made for that?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there was a general order issued in respect to the operation, in which full co-operation was given at all points.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know in how many cases, following the searches in these sensitive areas, the arms have been returned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot give the answer to that question offhand, but I shall take it as notice.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly I might direct the attention of the minister to Windsor. Was there a seizure made in the Riverside school there, and were the arms returned yesterday? Further, who was sensitive? Was it the sensitivity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that was responsible for their return?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I shall be pleased to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Shortly after the theft of certain arms from the armouries in Montreal the police authorities there announced that they knew the names of a number of those who were responsible,

and that they would probably be picked up in the course of the next few days. I take it, in the absence of any other reports, that no arrests have been made. I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether these reports were in error, or is it a fact that these persons are known and no steps have been taken to arrest them?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in accord with my responsibility I must advise the house that it would not be in the public interest if I answered that question today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence in view of a newspaper report which has just been handed me, in which the eastern command indicates that some rifles and ammunition have been removed from certain areas in Nova Scotia, the areas concerned being undisclosed. Is it correct to assume that the department feels that there are certain areas in the province of Nova Scotia which are sensitive and, if so, would the minister define to us where those areas are?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that rifles had been removed in the province of Nova Scotia, but I will certainly take this question as notice and determine all the facts for the hon. gentleman.


George Clyde Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister given consideration to leaving some of these rifles and ammunition in the residences of these cadet corps as bait so that the students, who are young, athletic and intelligent, may be able to effect identification of the marauders, which so far apparently it has been impossible for the armed forces or the R.C.M.P. to do?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will be pleased to know that following an expeditious survey of the facilities of cadet corps, the rifles will be reinstated very soon.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister table a list tomorrow of the areas that have been designated as sensitive, and would he at the same time give us a list of those areas that were considered sensitive but which have now become "anomalies"?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question on this subject to the Minister of National Defence. According to some reports I have heard, there are large

stores of dynamite in certain warehouses. Are any steps being taken to protect these large warehouses which contain a lot of dynamite?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I certainly hope so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Raymond Langlois: Can the minister give us some of the steps he has taken to protect against break-ins so far as these warehouses are concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can only take one member at a time, even with the best of intentions. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since it is now quite obvious that subversive elements in Canada are arming for some type of uprising, can he assure the house that the government is taking firm action to keep the situation under control?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the government has taken all appropriate steps so far.


John George Diefenbaker: What are they? Pick up the Boy Scouts.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. My question concerns not only the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice but various departments of government, and 1 think we should be assured that the Prime Minister is seized of the seriousness of the situation and that the state of the nation is being protected.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of all the circumstances does he think it wise to leave the noonday cannon exposed and unguarded?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am counting on the veterans guard of parliament hill to keep surveillance over that.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that the government intends to carry the withdrawal of small arms from the cadet units further and discontinue all cadet and student militia training as reported recently?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question. Would the minister then inform all cadet units throughout the country of this assurance, so they will be prepared to carry on these very necessary activities in the schools?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think they will be reassured very soon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he or any of the senior officials of his department have issued instructions to the military personnel who are engaged in removing small arms or ammunition from high schools and sea cadet units, to the effect that press pictures of these operations may not be published until some time in the future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not to my knowledge.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Since I am informed that this sort of activity took place in Woodstock as late as yesterday afternoon, I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to look into the matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be glad to take the question as notice.



MID-CANADA LINE    REPORTED DESTRUCTION OF TOWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence relative to the questions asked yesterday about the towers in northern Saskatchewan. Is it true that two of these towers have already been demolished; and is it also true that neither the Saskatchewan government nor Saskatchewan government telephones were consulted before the destruction of these valuable towers took place?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did answer the question yesterday. It is possible that both these towers are now down. All the towers on the western portion of the mid-Canada line have to be down by March 31.


Mr. Crouse:: Why?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I also stated that the department had made inquiries as to any agencies or government departments which might be interested in these particular towers, and that no interest was shown by anyone except the C.B.C. The C.B.C. communicated with the department, but at the moment it was too late to be able to stop the destruction of the tower at Buffalo bay.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: A supplementary question. I am informed that neither the Saskatchewan government nor Saskatchewan government telephones, which might well have used these towers for communications in the north, were consulted prior to the demolition of the towers. My information is that they were not consulted. Would the minister verify this?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will verify that matter.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi (Macleod):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if his department gave consideration to a program which could use these towers before they were cut down and fell into the brush?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether any steps have been taken to meet the critical housing needs of the R.C.A.F. personnel involved in the current transfer of squadrons from Grostenquin to Zweibriicken?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will take the question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Has he received an application from the Laurentide Finance Corporation Limited for the right to open a new national bank with headquarters in Vancouver?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there is an application, which comes as a notice in the Canada Gazette. I do not know whether the notice has appeared yet, but these people have been in touch with the inspector general of banks about the possibility of applying for a charter.



POSSIBLE INCOME TAX REDUCTION FOLLOWING U.S. ACTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
{Translation]
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
According to a news report broadcast by the C.B.C. yesterday, the American government will reduce income taxes by $11.5 billion, which will mean a tax cut of $4 a week for 80 million Americans.
Does the Canadian government intend to follow the example of the United States government, as it did so well in the case of nuclear arms?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question deals with government financial policy, and the matter will be dealt with in due course, perhaps in the budget.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent remarks of Premier Lesage and Mr. Johnson in Quebec that Her Majesty should be given every protection on her forthcoming visit, and the remark of Mr. Cass, the attorney general of Ontario, who has stated that he is unaware whether the matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, will the minister now take responsible and positive steps to this end by instructing his officials to cause an information to be laid with respect to the threat against the life of the Queen? I refer, of course, to the statement of Dr. Chaput, and I quote:
Some of my own people are ready to let her know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -and brutally-that she is no longer welcome- Mr. Speaker: I am sure the hon. member must have heard me call for order.


Erik Nielsen: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, he hears me now. The length of the question, it seems to me, is altogether too great, even assuming it is in order. I realize the importance of this matter and the concern of all members in the house. I wonder if the hon. member could reduce the length of the question. Could he not let us have just a short, crisp question?


Erik Nielsen: First, may I say I did not hear Your Honour call for order. I was reading from the notes on my desk, and I did not hear the Chair because of the noise made by members on the government side.
The question concludes with the quotation of Dr. Chaput's words-"Some of my own people are ready to let her know, and brutally, that she is no longer welcome in French Canada". Are these not words which are clearly intended to disrupt the tranquility of the state and contribute to disorder in Canada?


Guy Favreau: answered that question earlier in the house.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question, if I may have the floor. The question was answered by the Minister of Justice

yesterday by saying that responsibility in this matter lay with the attorneys general of the provinces, a statement which Mr. Cass has refused in the last 24 hours by saying he is unaware that the province has jurisdiction. I wonder if the minister could clarify the position.


Guy Favreau: Well, Mr. Cass, the attorney general of Ontario, said he was looking into this.
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams {Bow River): I
should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Surely these words, which do disrupt the tranquility of the state, are of such a nature as to show a criminal intent, and surely the Minister of Justice must assume some responsibility for the administration of law in Canada. I should like to speak on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is developing into a debate. Has the hon. member a real supplementary question to put? If not, I recognize the hon. member for Megantic.


Mr. Woolliams:: I have a question of privilege. It does seem to me that when we are putting questions we should surely have some order in the house. It may be that the group over there has no respect for the crown in Great Britain or the crown in Canada, but we on this side have a lot of respect for it. It may be that they have no respect for the rule of law or for the constitution of the country.
Now, may I put my question again to the Minister of Justice. My supplementary question, briefly, is this. The Minister of Justice is certainly the Attorney General of Canada and responsible for the administration of justice in this country. As such, surely he takes responsibility for the implementation of the law as contained in the Criminal Code of Canada.


Guy Favreau: You have ruled time and again, Mr. Speaker, that questions seeking answers which are legal opinions are not in order, and I think I would not be in order if I answered that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly we could clarify the position this way. The Queen has been invited here by the government of Canada. Has the Minister of Justice, following the reading of the remarks made by Dr. Chaput, communicated with the attorney general of any province suggesting action?


Guy Favreau: I said yesterday, I think, that I had asked to be fully informed of the text of the speech. I have not yet received it, but I am told I will have it this afternoon. I
Inquiries of the Ministry plan to communicate with the proper provincial authorities as soon as I have it.


Erik Nielsen: A further supplementary question in view of the fact that the provisions of the Criminal Code in certain sections contain time limitations, one of which specifies six days from the time the words are uttered, so the day would be Friday. Does the minister intend to take prompt action with respect to what might be the seditious words used by Dr. Chaput?


Mr. Speaker:: I realize the intense concern of all hon. members, including the Chair, in this matter, but the rules are here; they have been devised by the members themselves, and it is my duty to apply them. On October 31, 1963 I gave the house a summary of certain general principles, amongst which were the following:
The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the house.
A question, oral or written, must not:
-ask a solution of a legal proposition, such as the interpretation of a statute or of a minister's own powers, etc....
Surely the importance of the matter and the concern of everyone in the country has been sufficiently brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice, who is-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is he doing about it?


Mr. Speaker:: -assuming his full responsibility and is just as concerned as anyone else in the house about this matter. May I suggest that we leave the matter there, unless there is something extremely important this morning that has not already been brought to the minister's attention.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by Your Honour, I suggest that the matter, as well as being of importance and concern to all hon. members of the house and the people of Canada generally, is one of extreme urgency in view of the limitations which are contained in the provisions of the Criminal Code. Since the words were uttered on Monday the minister has not satisfied the members of the house that any action has been taken by him or the officials of his department. His department has a direct responsibility in assuring the safety of the Queen in the right of Canada, because it is at the invitation of this government that the Queen is visiting Canada. Surely, therefore, there is a responsibility on the part of the minister to tell us what action he or his officials are taking before the time expires on Friday, which is tomorrow. Surely we should know about any action that can be taken.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware, as my hon. friend has pointed out, of the time limitations and restrictions which

Inquiries of the Ministry are spelled out in the Criminal Code with respect to any aspect of this question. I thank the Chair for having assumed-and I hope everybody knows this-that my concern with this question is at least as deep as that of any of those hon. members who felt it to be their duty to put questions on the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: The last thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that with regard to this matter I intend to discharge my duties as Minister of Justice for Canada in a way that is fully consistent with the provision that the administration of justice is vested in the provincial attorneys general.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question. If it is true that the responsibility for making an investigation concerning the statements made by Mr. Marcel Chaput is that of the provinces as much as that of the federal government, and in view of the fact that those statements were made in Toronto, what prevented the Ontario authorities from putting Mr. Chaput under arrest to satisfy the Conservative members in this house?


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. How can the Minister of Justice tell this house of his deep concern in this matter when he has already indicated that he has not obtained a report?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid this is a statement and not a question. Would the hon. member care to rephrase it?


Malcolm MacInnis: If the minister is so concerned about this particular matter, why has he not had the remarks of Dr. Chaput brought to his attention, or why did he not make sure that he had them before now?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State answers to the house for the C.B.C., I should like to ask him whether he feels that

it is decent and proper for the wife of a minister of the crown to continue being mistress of ceremonies on a C.B.C. program.


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, Mrs. Maurice Sauve is still responsible for a most interesting program on the C.B.C. network.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have asked the Secretary of State a definite question, that is whether it is decent for the wife of a minister of the crown to continue being the mistress of ceremonies on a C.B.C. program.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, it is not for
me to judge what is proper or not in that field.
{Text]



REQUEST FOR GREATER EMPHASIS ON DOMESTIC NEWS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State and at the same time, rise on a question of privilege.
I note that three quarters of the C.B.C. T.V. news at 10.30 p.m. consists of international news. Would it be possible to ask for the broadcast of information on national events concerning parliament or provincial legislatures, so as to keep Canadians posted on what is taking place in their own country, followed by a general outline, perhaps, of happenings in the outside world?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to bring the views of the hon. member to the attention of the C.B.C. board of directors.



REPORTED INQUIRY INTO POLITICAL VIEWS OF STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed I should also like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe last Monday.

It is not true that the C.B.C. management has investigated or is investigating the political activities or opinions of the employees of the corporation.
Furthermore, the corporation alone is responsible for the appointment of its employees, and the C.B.C. management has not given any instructions of the type mentioned in the hon. member's question.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
CONSIDERATION OF FINANCING OF ACCESS ROADS On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister tell the house what the government intends to do to succeed in using up the fund provided to finance the building of access roads in accordance with federal-provincial agreements?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister wish to answer? If not, I suggest that the question be put on the order paper.


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.

SUGGESTED CONSIDERATION OF NEW FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if his cabinet is analysing, studying or intends to suggest a new tax distribution or sharing scheme at the next federal-provincial conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend would repeat the last part of his question which I did not get.


Gilles Grégoire: I would like to ask the
Prime Minister whether the cabinet is studying a plan for a new fiscal redistribution as between the provinces and the federal government, to be presented at the next federal-provincial conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, fiscal matters will indeed be considered at the next conference, and naturally the government will have certain plans and proposals.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question
20220-19i
Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm asked me last Tuesday, I might say that so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned protection is already being provided Canadian growers of flue-cured tobacco under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. It might be of interest to members to learn that consumption of tobacco was up by 4J per cent in 1963. This is probably due to the fact that we have a very buoyant economy and consumption of all agricultural products is up.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the revenues of farmers in Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes are constantly diminishing, what measures is the minister taking to prevent a catastrophic failure involving our farmers?


Harry William Hays: I would suppose, Mr. Speaker, that these matters can be cured if the present government stays in power.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would give serious consideration to having a special committee of the house set up to examine the position as a result of his statement which gave an imprimatur to Reader's Digest and Time magazine. I ask him this in view of the repercussions, he being aware of the law, which would result in Canadian interests being disturbed by this decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there will be ample opportunity for all members of the house to discuss this matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Secretary General U Thant has apparently failed to organize a peace keeping force for Cyprus, and also in view of the fact that President Makarios has stated publicly that he will accept a commonwealth peace keeping force for his island, is there any action being taken now to organize something which could be effective along the lines suggested by President Makarios?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is premature to say that the matter has failed before the United Nations, because it is still before the security council. It is my impression, although I would have to check before making the statement dogmatically, that it comes before the security council again either today or tomorrow.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Skeena last Tuesday, and with the consent of the house,
I wish to table in duplicate a list of the 22 outstanding orders for returns.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has approval been given to the government of New Brunswick to table correspondence exchanged between the government of New Brunswick and the government of Canada relative to the centennial grant of $2,500,000?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not hear the question.


Hugh John Flemming: Has approval been given to the government of New Brunswick to table correspondence exchanged between the government of New Brunswick and the government of Canada relative to the centennial grant of $2,500,000? This would be in the New Brunswick legislature.


Maurice Lamontagne: I have received a request for permission to table this correspondence, and as far as I am concerned I have no objection whatsoever to the tabling my correspondence with the premier of New Brunswick and Mr. Irwin, the provincial minister responsible for centennial celebrations in that province.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is it true that the railway association of Canada has served

notice to terminate the Canadian railway board of adjustment No. 1? If so, what arrangements are being made to meet the requirements of section 19 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the railway association of Canada has served such a notice of termination. This termination may have undesirable consequences if alternative procedures are not found, but I think the railway association of Canada is giving consideration to this question now.



INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL LABOUR CODE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Would the minister report to the house with respect to the preliminary steps for the drafting of a federal labour code?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The intentions of the government in this respect were communicated in the speech from the throne. I have nothing further to add at this particular time. I am referring, of course, to the statement in respect of the labour standards legislation.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has a decision been taken to move the women's prison from Kingston to Cornwall? Can the minister say whether there have been protests from some of the university and professional people in Kingston, who feel it would be better if the prison remained there where certain services can be made available to these prisoners?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. gentleman had the kindness to advise me verbally that he would put this question today, I will ask for leave to answer it tomorrow.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or the Minister of Justice. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court of

Canada in 1939 that the term "Indian" used in the British North America Act includes Eskimo inhabitants of the province of Quebec, and having in mind that section 91 of that act vests jurisdiction for Indians primarily in the parliament of Canada rather than in the government, can either of the ministers assure the house that any agreement made between the government of Canada and Quebec with regard to these Eskimos will be submitted for consideration to parliament?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think I made a statement the other day in respect of this matter, in which I stated we were fully aware of the paramount interest of the government of Canada as a result of the decision of 1939 on the matter referred to the court by the province and the federal government, and we will certainly continue to bear in mind the paramount responsibility of the national administration in respect of these people.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour, and arises from complaints regarding visits by the audit inspectors of the unemployment insurance commission. Is it the policy of the government to increase the number of these visits and investigations of employers of part time help, who have not been kept properly informed regarding the deductions they should have made and are being assessed considerable sums of money?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the administration, of course, is a matter for the commission and no directive has been sent to the commission by the government. However, I will ask the commission for a report on this particular matter.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister ask the commission to circulate more information regarding the regulations in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to ask the commission to consider this suggestion.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have given the Minister of North-
Inquiries of the Ministry ern Affairs and National Resources notice of this question concerning national parks. In view of the decision of the government of British Columbia to allow limited exploitation of the forest and mineral resources of provincial parks, will the minister assure the house that no change is contemplated regarding national parks?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to relate my answer in any way to any determination of policy on the part of a provincial government. What they do with their parks is their responsibility. I appreciate the opportunity of repeating our policy in respect of the national parks of Canada. We are restricted to maintaining our national parks in a state of nature, which means the preservation of the wilderness aspect of the parks. This will continue. We feel that the harvesting of resources, either above or below the soil, is not consonant at all with the maintenance of the state in which national parks should be maintained.
I want to tell my hon. friend that in one or two of the western parks we have unfortunately a situation where we are harvesting the forests at the present time. These are the results of very old dominion timber berths that were alienated as late as the nineteenth century, before the parks were set aside. As an indication of our earnest intention to pursue the policy which I have enunciated, we are now working very closely with the holders of these berths to reclaim them for the people of Canada.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether his department is negotiating now with the government of Alberta to turn over a portion of Wood Buffalo national park to the province?


Arthur Laing: There has been no official approach made to me as minister.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the government give consideration at this session of parliament to taking steps to improve the pensions of Canadian National employees who retired prior to April 1, 1962, along the lines supported by the Liberals when they were on this side of the house?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Trans- [Text] port): I shall be glad to discuss this matter Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of with the management of the Canadian Na- Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think it would be tional and make a report in due course. premature at this stage to get into a discussion of what may or may not be in the INCOME TAX	budget.



REQUIREMENT THAT RETURNS BE


[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 Revenue.
Can the minister tell the house why the citizens of Quebec and especially of the Saguenay area, have to send their income tax returns directly to Ottawa this year, instead of addressing them to Quebec city as was previously the case?

Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National
Revenue): I shall take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Lake St. John, as is sometimes the case something was lost in the translation, and I wonder could he restate his question.


Marcel Lessard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know from the minister why all the people in Quebec or in my region at least, Saguenay, are this year asked to send their income tax returns directly to Ottawa instead of to Quebec city, as they did previously.


Mr. Garland:: This is a matter of policy, Mr. Speaker, and of course taxpayers from all over Canada are sending their returns to Ottawa this year, for processing in the data centre.



INQUIRY AS TO CHANGES RESPECTING CHARITABLE DONATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
Could the minister tell us whether he is considering at this time or intends to put to the house, when he introduces his budget, amendments to the Income Tax Act to settle the problems caused by receipts for charitable donations?



REPORTED LIMIT ON SUBVENTIONS TO DOMINION STEEL AND COAL CO.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):: May I reply to a question asked on Monday by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. He asked whether there had been any recent intimation to the Dominion Steel and Coal Company that would have the effect of reducing the amount that is currently paid as a subvention on the movement of coal. The hon. member knows that after a royal commission in 1959, certain steps were taken to try to relieve the unemployment situation in that area, one of which was the payment of a coal subvention. I can report no change in the policy that has been in existence for the last couple of years.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I thank the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys for his reply, and I have another question on the same subject for his colleague the Minister of Labour. Is he prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the subventions required to market increased production of coal from Nova Scotia in Ontario and elsewhere should be forthcoming? May I ask him also if he would use his influence with his good friend the Minister of National Defence to prevent any confiscation of muskets from the Louis-burg fortress?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


Robert Muir: The minister has not answered either question.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: The other day I directed a question to the Minister of Transport regarding a transportation problem that exists on the prairies. He said he would look into the matter and give me an answer later.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I do not have an answer as yet. I directed the hon. gentleman's observations to the president of the Canadian Pacific, and as yet I have not had any reply.
I think the hon. gentleman asked also about the air service, and as the hon. gentleman no doubt knows the air transport board has a hearing on this matter at the moment. It seems to me it would perhaps be inopportune for me to intervene while that hearing is taking place. I have, however, brought the hon. gentleman's question to the attention of the air transport board, and as soon as I have something to communicate to the house I shall do so.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not want to appear to be facetious on this, but in this jet age surely to goodness the cancellation of air service on this run and the difficulties of getting reservations on the C.P.R. should be treated as a very urgent matter, because people cannot get reservations in that particular area at the present time. Because the hearing is on is no excuse for no action from the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman knows both these companies are private companies, and I had not appreciated before that the hon. gentleman had become a socialist.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could answer a question asked by the hon. member for Regina City. I think he asked me about a contract, and I believe I have it amongst my papers here. Perhaps I could send it over to the hon. gentleman. I am told that the contract between Trans-Canada Air Lines and TransAir was an appendix to an order in council and, presumably, therefore is a public document. I will send it to the hon. gentleman, and no doubt his interpretation of it would be quite as good as mine.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe Easf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether she has any answer to the question asked her
Inquiries of the Ministry yesterday concerning the drug parnate, and whether in the meantime she has been in touch with the standing drug committee.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have some further information in response to the question asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Sudbury and the hon. member for Simcoe East. Last night arrangements were completed with the Canadian manufacturers of the anti-depressant drugs parnate, parstelin and parstelin S2, to control and further regulate the distribution of these drugs in Canada. The company has agreed to withdraw the drugs from general circulation and limit their distribution to mental hospitals, psychiatric units in general hospitals and provincial mental health clinics where the patients are under close supervision by the medical staff.
This arrangement will be effective at once, pending re-examination of all the evidence concerning the drugs by a panel of experts which will be appointed by my department for this purpose. Furthermore, the company has agreed to communicate with all physicians and pharmacists explaining this new distribution arrangement, and I should like to commend the manufacturers, Smith, Kline and French, for their co-operation in this matter.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her very full answer, but I would like to ask her whether she has consulted the standing committee and, further, who the members of the committee are.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps my hon. friend would take an opportunity later in the day to speak to me in the hall.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister yet in a position to indicate to the house when he will be bringing down this year's budget?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, does the minister this year plan to enter into contracts with outsiders to assist him in the preparation of the budget?

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



GATT-REPORTED ILLNESS OF CANADIAN DELEGATION HEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Chaplin (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister would be glad to give an answer to it. In view of the recent reports in the press that Mr. Norman Robertson, under secretary of state for external affairs, will head the Canadian negotiating team in the tariff negotiations at the GATT meeting in Geneva on May 4, and also in view of the serious operation which it is reported he has had to undergo, does not the government feel that this might tend to weaken the negotiating team if this hon. gentleman is unable to give his best efforts, due to his reported illness?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Robertson's skill and experience in this field are well known, and the government is fortunate to have that skill and experience at its service at this time. We hope Mr. Robertson will be quite fit physically to take charge at the negotiations when they begin in May. Meanwhile the government and the country are also fortunate in having as his deputy in these negotiations Mr. Hector MacKinnon, who has come out of retirement to help in this matter. I am quite sure Canada's interests will be well looked after both before and during the conference.


Gordon Chaplin: I want to thank the Prime Minister for his remarks and his answer to my question. I assume from them that the government agree we should have the strongest possible representation at these GATT conferences so that Canada's vital interests, particularly in the field of secondary manufacturing, will be strongly presented and defended.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do indeed agree with that, and in due course I think we will be able to indicate to the house that all members of the delegation have done their best. I think my hon. friend's preoccupation with this important matter will be met when he gets the list of the delegates.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: On Tuesday the hon. member for Bow River asked a question about


the closing of a coal mine. While he did not name the mine, I have made some inquiries and I believe it is a mine in the Drumheller area that has been devoting its production to the household domestic market. I am informed that there has been an exceptionally mild winter this year in western Canada, and in consequence, while this mine usually lays off miners in the spring of the year, the layoff is somewhat earlier than usual this year.
I am informed also that present plans call for the transfer of the larger proportion of the laid off employees to an adjoining mine when Canadian household coal production commences again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May
I ask a supplementary question. The minister might not be aware of the fact that this is the Atlas mine. It is my understanding from the telegram I received from the chamber of commerce of Drumheller that this mine is being permanently closed. If that is true we will have a pool of 100 unemployed men in an area which already has a surplus of labour. I wonder if the Minister of Labour would care to comment on this matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the facts were clear as to whether these men were permanently unemployed, naturally I would be glad to ask the national employment service to render every possible assistance to these miners.



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister assure the house and the miners in Cape Breton that recommendations in the Rand commission report, which are detrimental to that area, will not be implemented despite representations now being made?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly concerned about the coal miners in Cape Breton, as is my hon. friend. This is a matter largely for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and is really a matter of policy too large to be dealt with on orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a matter of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the hon. gentleman. I do not think a supplementary is really called for at this time. Orders of the day have now been called three times. It is customary, in chambers of this sort, that when orders of the day are called we should proceed with them. Otherwise we shall make no progress at all.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, I have been rising continually to ask this very urgent question. This is a question which greatly affects economic conditions in the coal mining areas of Cape Breton. It is a question which has been put before, and I believe the Minister of Labour is in a position to make a reply on behalf of these miners, since he himself knows full well what the situation is. I think it is a question which deserves an early and prompt answer.
I am speaking on a question of privilege in relation to the asking of questions. It is quite possible that the truth of what the former secretary of state had to say in a recent C.B.C. program about backbenchers and how they got along in the house is now becoming only too evident, and that his statements are now being backed up in this house to the detriment of all backbenchers.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot accept any implication that there is any partiality shown by the Chair, and I am sure the hon. member did not have that in mind. If he did, it was a reflection on the house, not on the person who occupies the Chair. I think we had better leave it at that and get on with the business of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: If I cast any reflection on the Chair I apologize sincerely. The remarks I have just made can be very easily verified by the former secretary of state, who made similar observations in the course of a C.B.C. program some time in December.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ricard, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Langlois.
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I was reading an article yesterday- I trust I am not continuing my speech during the question period?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is some while since orders of the day have been called. The
The Address-Mr. Langlois hon. member for Megantic had the floor at six o'clock last evening, and according to our timetable there are at least 12 or 15 minutes remaining for his speech if he cares to utilize them.


Raymond Langlois: I knew I had time at my disposal, but I was not altogether sure whether the question period was over or not.

Mr. Speaker, last night, when the house adjourned, I was reading an article which appeared in L'Action, entitled:
The consumer is king.
The article ends this way:
The consumer's interest is essentially the legitimate interest of the salesman, the manufacturer and the public services: the consumer's interest is the general interest. The consumer is king in our modern economy. We should not forget that.
Mr. Speaker, very often, we seem to leave out the consumers' needs. And, in a country such as ours, it is quite essential to take these needs into consideration, because the day a government disregards them, we might as well say that such a government does not care about the Canadian people.

As I was saying yesterday, there has been a great deal of activity in this country in an effort for national unity, in an attempt to co-ordinate all the efforts of both nations in this country to form one strong nation, the Canadian nation. But there cannot be peace while there is one section of the country which is under the impression that it is not making economic progress and is not receiving its just share from confederation.
I would remind hon. members of the points I enumerated yesterday concerning industry in eastern Canada, particularly in Quebec, and concerning unemployment in that province. I called attention also to certain taxes which are imposed all over Canada; provincial taxes, federal income taxes, municipal taxes, school board taxes and so on. From this it can be seen that consumers, the Canadian people, are saturated with these taxes and cannot absorb any more.
Our tax system at the present time is driving the people to bankruptcy. Add these things together and you have a total loss of 25 years of progress in the province of Quebec. We do not blame the Anglo-Saxons or the English part of Canada. That is not the view of the province. What the province wants now is the restoration of its right to a full share from the federal administration. The province would like to have more control over its currency, more control over its direct and indirect taxation, so that it might take the reins itself and achieve its
294	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Langlois own economic progress. It does not wish to do this at the expense of the other provinces. Until Quebec is given these possibilities there is bound to be friction between English Canadians and French Canadians, not because of differences in race or language but because there is an economic problem at the bottom of it all. French Canada wishes only to be an equal partner in confederation, nothing more. That was the basis of confederation in Canada.
We do not expect to make French Canadians out of English Canadians in Canada, nor do I see French Canadians becoming English Canadians, either. What I see are two Canadian nations on an equal basis striving for national unity and for the good of Canada as a whole. We must secure economic progress in both nations. In the past 96 years the country has been administered from this parliament by both Conservative and Liberal governments. What has this brought Canada in a hundred years? What has Canada received from it. The story economically speaking, has been friction upon friction, injustice upon injustice. Then one day we wake up and say "How is it that Canada is not satisfied with confederation?" I think the basis of our difficulty lies in the fact that Canada, by reason of its present monetary policies, cannot solve its economic problems. There must be a radical change in our economic system if these problems are to be solved.
As I mentioned yesterday, we have in Canada natural resources of all kinds. We have technicians and we have engineers, yet there is unemployment across the country. Why are we suffering from economic stagnation at the moment, in the face of such a situation? One could understand stagnation if there were nothing to be developed, or if there were a lack of labour or of technicians. But at the present time the only thing which is causing economic stagnation is the fact that the Canadian government is telling all the ten provinces that there is no money available for the development of our country. It is a fight between the provinces and the federal government to see which is to have the greatest share of tax revenues.
The Canadian people are saturated with taxes. It is not possible to collect from them more than they possess. We need to change this situation and amend the Bank of Canada Act so the federal government can obtain credit, interest free, for the development of public services. Until we have that we will continue to crawl; we will continue on our hands and knees in front of foreign moneylenders either from the United States or Europe; we will continue to be backbenchers as far as economics are concerned. We must

have control of our own credit so that when we ultimately develop our natural resources Canada will, in the final analysis, still belong to Canadians.
We have among English speaking and French speaking Canadians all the good will that is needed to assure the co-operation necessary to solve this problem. National unity will not be realized until we have such an understanding between our two great nations. We have that understanding in this house. 1 am sure every member of this house wants national unity. Nobody wants to leave English Canada aside, and nobody wants to leave French Canada aside. But we have to understand the basic problem first. Everyone is striving and working to attain this national unity so we can finally have a stronger, truer Canada as a whole.
In the last resort the action to be taken falls upon the present government. We in the opposition can say all we like; all Canadians with good will across the country can say what they wish. In the final analysis the course must be taken by the government and the responsibility falls upon them. It is up to them now to find a solution. They have had the problem placed before them for the past few months, and Canada's future is in their hands.
Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that the solution to this problem will be a fair one to all Canadians. With the good will of the Canadian people, with the help of every member of this house, the government should be taking action now. We cannot save confederation until the Prime Minister and his ministers accept the responsibility and have the desire to save confederation. The decision as to the final course to follow and the final solution to this problem is the Prime Minister's alone. It is his decision as to what alternative should be taken and when to take it. The finai decision lies between you alone, the Prime Minister, and God. You choose it.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Megantic in effect moved his motion last evening and wishes the motion put now?


Raymond Langlois: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to put the motion before the house.

It is proposed by Mr. Langlois, seconded by Mr. Boutin:
That all the words after "18 years" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
and have not proposed at the same time a general increase in family allowances according to the cost of living index.


Mr. Herman Laverdiere (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, following the pattern set by previous speakers, my first words will be to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne; furthermore, I cannot let this occasion pass without congratulating the new ministers and those who have assumed new functions.
Allow me, however, to say how pleased I am by the appointment of the new Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) who will be responsible eventually and very soon, I hope, for rural development. I am particularly happy for the simple reason that I can now expect that rural development will at last come to the fore, and that this is an effort to find solutions to the crucial problems facing eastern farmers and, in particular, those of Bellechasse who make up more than 70 per cent of the population in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, allow me at the beginning to make a few remarks about the very precarious situation in which live, or rather try to live, the majority of my fellow citizens of Bellechasse. My hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer), was able to see the situation for himself last summer when he accepted my invitation to visit the farmers in my riding. The hon. member was able to see the poverty and misery which are the lot of most of our farmers, especially in the southern part, the most hilly in the riding. Believe it or not, the income of most farmers in Bellechasse is less than $1,000 a year, in a country as prosperous as ours, and that in spite of their putting in a work week which is far from the 40 or 45-hour week, since they work twice that many hours and even more. They work hard, in very difficult conditions, and they get very little out of it.
I therefore want to say to the house, on behalf of all farmers of my riding, that I am aware of the hardship they are undergoing, which I have shared, because I was brought up on a low income farm. I want to tell those people how much I admire their indomitable courage and their persistent labour, the like of which is rarely seen today. I also want to tell them that I can understand their discontent with regard to the various governments.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, those fine artisans have really grounds for complaining, because very little has been done for them until now. They have been somehow forgotten and their existence ignored. I am telling this true fact, even as a member on the government side, because it is, indeed, a fact, as they have been neglected long enough. I also want them to know that their problems are my first concern, and that I spare no constructive 20220-20i
The Address-Mr. Laverdiere effort which might help them. And I repeat "constructive effort", because, in my humble opinion, mere lamentations will hardly bring about the realistic and concrete solutions that are needed.
I do not think that repeating, shouting from the rooftops that our farmers cannot make both ends meet will help them. I rather believe in a sensible organization which will bring about a positive solution. I know how complex the position of the eastern farmers is. Yet, I cannot but repeat that I deplore that so little action in this field has been taken until now. There is, of course, the feed grain storage which was paid by the government this year. The storage is adequate, as well as the shipping grants for this grain. I fully appreciate those measures.
Nevertheless, I wish we could go further and more quickly ahead in this field, and that an organization responsible for the required control of grain purchases and sales be set up as soon as possible for our eastern farmers, in order to put an end to speculation at their expense.
Some brokers have made millions in these transactions, but that was not enough. In the last few years they have attempted to control not only the buying and selling of grain, but even cattle breeding, by financing some farmers' projects in that field. Is it out of altruism? Is it to save the family farm, as they are trying to tell us, that these brokers show such an interest in breeding and grain? It is rather easy to doubt that apparent intention when some of those very companies got rich at the expense of the eastern farmers and furthermore, when they are directly interested in the sale of farm products. I admit that this way we allow certain farmers to make a profit, but that profit would certainly be considerably increased, at least doubled, if it were not for that trust which controls grain transactions from western Canada or the United States and also the marketing of farm products.
I am positive, Mr. Speaker, that a detailed investigation would show control allowing some companies to make an unreasonable profit which private enterprise is not permitted.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question?


Herman E. Laverdière: If the hon. member would wait until I have completed my remarks, I shall be glad to answer him if I have any time left.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: But my question is related to what he just said.

The Address-Mr. Laverdiere


Herman E. Laverdière: I am sorry but I still have some remarks to make. However, if I have any time left, I shall be pleased to answer the hon. member.
I should also like to mention the increasing harm that is done to bona fide farmers, I mean those whose main occupation is farming, by men of all professions who raise cattle today. A number of professionals, whose profession is most profitable, go in for that sideline, and so take on the market a place which, in my opinion, should be left to farmers. Farming is one of the most noble trades. Let every man stick to his trade. The farming profession is entitled to the same protection as the others.
As the Prime Minister said to the house last Thursday:
No field of activity is more important for our country than agriculture and forests.
And a little farther he went on:
A number of the most acute problems resulting from low farm income arise especially in eastern Canada.
I will add that certain farmers must be unusually courageous and love tilling the soil -something, unfortunately, which is disappearing-to hold on to their farm, while waiting patiently for assistance that is slow to come. However, in view of the present situation, many who struggled year in year out for a means of livelihood, who tried to stay despite all the difficulties, now find themselves compelled, though reluctantly, to leave their farm.
Then skilled agricultural workers, experts in the true sense of the word, though quite often having no other trade, are deserting the country in great numbers for the city, where they become the first ones to be stricken by unemployment, especially nowadays where skilled labour is required in most jobs offered by industry.
Steps must be taken so that the farmers' income may reach at least the average level for other trades.
Too often our farmers' income cover only the incurred expenses; not being sure to get adequate and stable prices for their products and moreover suspecting, with reason, that they are being abused somewhere along the line, they get discouraged, and not without cause. Nevertheless, the family farm is and will continue to be the most fundamental enterprise in our society, and it is our duty to protect it.
I should also like to make a few remarks concerning industry. It is not my intention to speak at length about it, although I think that new industries must be set up in Bellechasse to absorb the labour available in that area. A few industries are maintained there whose development is due to the acumen and ability

of their management; but other industries are much more needed now than they were in 1956, when the then hon. member for Bellechasse Mr. Ovide Laflamme, described these needs in the speech he delivered as seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne; Mr. Laflamme stated then the following:
Each year, however, many of Bellechasse's native sons have to look elsewhere for jobs. That is a problem which could be solved, at least in part, by the development of small scale industry. These young people leave our constituency for larger centres where, especially in winter, they merely swell the ranks of the unemployed. I feel that government assistance to small industries would go a long way towards solving the difficult problem of unemployment as well as the housing shortage.
I would add that the movement has gained momentum these past few years not only among the young people, but also among entire families; they would have liked to remain in their native parishes, but they had to move to the cities because of the lack of work.
The industrial development bank helps the small industry by granting loans, but I feel that this government agency could lighten the burden of the small industry by reducing its rate of interest and by easing its lending formalities, especially in the case of small industries.
It should be noted that the large industries feel the need to rely on smaller companies to which they may award subcontracts. They are sure to make savings that way and the automobile industry is an example of that. In co-operation with the provinces, the federal government has set up a program of financial assistance to the small industry.
In addition, the tendency is towards the decentralization of industry. Administration and technical courses are being given and, in my opinion, those courses should be more readily available to everybody, especially to people who live in rural districts. I also feel that the government should strive to establish new industries in strategic areas, also called depressed areas, and insist more than it does on the decentralization of industry in the best interest of those areas.
In that connection, I must say that I am disappointed because only a few parishes in my riding are considered as designated areas. Those areas have been selected on the basis of statistics supplied by national employment offices. I admit that statistics show some facts, but they do not show everything. It is not necessary to make a thorough investigation in order to realize that Bellechasse, for instance, is one of the poorest areas in the province of Quebec and that personal income there is extremely low.

Mr. Speaker, we provide millions of dollars in assistance to underdeveloped countries and, believe me, I am not against that. It is my duty to point out, however, that there are, right here in Canada, areas that are in even greater need of such assistance than some foreign countries to which we give millions.
I admit that these underdeveloped countries need some assistance and we are justified in helping them. Agronomists, technicians, all types of professionals are sent to these countries at the expense of the Canadian government. However, our farmers here can hardly reach a district agronomist who is swamped with paper work and is unable to deal with farmers. Yet, farmers feel that they need some guidance and advice; they are anxious to learn and improve their lot and it must be recognized that, in agriculture, the basic problem is education and guidance.
Mr. Speaker, before making a few remarks on national unity, I wish to mention that I agree entirely with the views set forth a few days ago by my colleague for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) about the kind of programs broadcast by the C.B.C. for the Canadian people.
As the hon. member said, surely it is not with all those scenes of gangsterism, crime, passion and immorality now taking up most of the time on television, surely it is not with those meaningless plays which take an hour and a half to say things that could be told in five minutes, plays that are called modern out of snobbery, surely, it is not with this kind of programming that we are going to raise the intellectual and moral level of the Canadian people.
And to show you that the population of my constituency is anxious to see an improvement in televised broadcasts, I received complaints against a television program put on last Tuesday evening.
May I say that people want entertainment on television, but decent entertainment where butchery and scenes of violence and passion have no place.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on Canada's main topic of discussion at the present time, that is to say national unity.
I am aware, like every one else in Quebec, of all those ideas of independence rising in all circles across "la belle province". During the last few years especially, it would seem that French Canadians have been trying to make up for lost time and their nationalism is finding many ways of expression.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the nationalist unrest in Quebec is not a passing fancy. On the contrary, it satisfies a deeply
The Address-Mr. Laverdiere felt desire that circumstances had only repressed. Until now, French Canadians had resigned themselves to a situation which history had somewhat imposed upon them.
Yet, he knows today that this situation is not normal and that we cannot any longer accept to be considered as foreigners in our own country. We ask our partners in confederation to try to understand that exultation because of our freedom regained and the awakening of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the French Canadian soul. We ask them to start a true dialogue which will pave the way to a deep and realistic mutual understanding.
I am most happy to proclaim my feelings of pride in seeing that the vitality and nationalism of a youthful people is openly expressed and I can only subscribe to the efforts of our young people who want Quebec to develop as soon as possible and become an adult nation.
However, I deplore the manifestations of extremists, who will not add anything constructive to this irreversible struggle which we have undertaken in order to become equal partners in confederation. I deplore also the unfortunate and unfounded statements which can only be due to petty politics. Common sense and reason certainly remain the best weapons at our disposal.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that there is a superior race. There are races, each with its own language, its culture, its customs, its traditions, its qualities, its deficiencies. Let us learn to know each other as we are, and we shall get along.

As an example, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have great admiration and respect for my mother tongue, but this does not mean I consider it superior to the English language. Each is a great language, but each in its own capacity. I have had the opportunity of knowing English speaking Canadians, especially when I taught at the Academie Proven-cher in St. Boniface and also while I followed courses given at the University of Western Ontario. I am sure that by taking time out to look around, and thus trying to become better acquainted, we will realize just how fond we would be of one another, and we would then me most willing and proud to join as a united family from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Before I conclude my remarks, may I add, for the guidance of my fellow citizens whose ethnic origin is not the same as mine, that I think this surge of nationalism should be a motive of pride and hope for all Canadians. It seems to me that those fellow citizens could

The Address-Mr. MacEwan have only one conceivable reason, if any, to consider us as inferiors, and that would be the lack in us, French Canadians, of pride, and of nationalism.
Therefore, I say to them: "Rejoice with us, since your partners are proud of what they are, proud of their culture, proud of their origin, proud of their language and traditions. They are partners who can stand up and fight with all their vitality, their youth, their vigour, to make Canada, our country, the most united, the most prosperous country in the world.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, may I first join with others who have taken part in this debate in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In doing so I do not necessarily intend to indicate that I agree with the substance of what they said, but the form in which they carried out their duties was excellent.
I should like, however, to take exception to some of the remarks made by the seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I am not going into detail in my reply, but I should like to refer to some of the remarks the hon. member made when he offered some advice to the Prime Minister and his government as well as to the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to the speech from the throne as a lean, progressive, businesslike document. He characterized it as a let us get on with the job type of speech. The government, he said, had indicated its willingness and its desire to give to the people of Canada the things for which they are looking, and parliament should address itself to the problems of the country.
Then the hon. member said he realized that the Leader of the Opposition had certain important responsibilities; that it rested in his hands whether or not parliament is effective or grinds to a complete standstill. I stand subject to correction, but I believe the hon. member first entered this parliament at the last session. I do not believe he was a member when the party to which I belong formed the government and, shortly after presenting the speech from the throne, were thrown out of office. He was not here when obstruction was the theme of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Perhaps if he will wait a little longer he will be able to see just what goes on, and what a party in opposition can do.
If the hon. member thinks that obstruction may be carried out or was carried out at the last session, I should like to refer him to a witness who is definitely not for the defence on this side, namely the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). During the last
[Mr. Laverdiere.l
session, on November 29, as recorded on page 5268 of Hansard, the minister referred to this subject of obstruction. He said:
Certainly I have not, and I want to make that very clear. I have not made any such allegation at any time about the opposition. I think there has been a reasonable measure of co-operation-
Then on the same page of Hansard the minister is reported as having said:
Perhaps the hon. gentleman will remember- and here perhaps I am breaking the rules myself by referring to the debate on redistribution the other day-that I am one of those who think there ought to be debate in parliament, and I do not regard debate as obstruction. I have not said and I have not thought that, taken by and large in this session of parliament, particularly since we met in September, there has been anything I would be inclined to describe as obstruction.
May I refer the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to this statement; and may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that debate is the essence of parliament. In so far as responsibility is concerned, I suggest that he recall what has happened in the last few days in so far as his ministers are concerned. The party to which I belong has shown it knows what responsibility means and will carry on the role of a responsible opposition party.
I do not want to forget the Minister of National Defence. I recall that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard appeared on a C.B.C. broadcast with him not long ago. However, since it is almost one o'clock, may I call it one o'clock before I launch into these few remarks?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock I was entering upon paragraph 2 of the speech which I had prepared, and I had referred to a program which I saw on a C.B.C. free time broadcast in which the two principle participants were the Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. During the broadcast the minister set forth various matters of importance in the field of national defence. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard can correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that when he was asked about the major cut-backs and the cancellation of the general purpose frigate program he said he believed the constituents of his area on the west coast would go along with these decisions as being necessary.
He, of course, is a member from the west coast, but the people on the east coast are not quite so happy. If I may I would like to

The Address-Mr. MacEwan '
refer to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of January 9, 1964, where there is an article headed "Cut-back hits N.S. hardest." It states that:
The scrapping of three Tribal class destroyer escorts and ten minesweepers may eventually mean a manpower cut of up to 10 per cent.
On the page after that there is a photograph of the minesweeper H.M.C.S. Quinte, with a caption saying that it, along with her five sister ships in the first Canadian minesweeping squadron, will be placed in reserve in Halifax.
The reason I mention this is that no alternative program was proposed in place of the general purpose frigate program, and this leaves a gap in the matter of shipbuilding facilities. In the short period of time I have been in Ottawa I have had something to do with the navy and defence production. It is common knowledge that it takes a long period of time to put a ship construction program into effect, especially a naval shipbuilding program, and in this connection I would like to refer to the New Glasgow Evening News of January 28 last, which carried a report stating:
Many officials in the industry, in government and in the navy say they fear the shipyards will lose much of their skill and experience because of the delay in launching a new naval shipbuilding program in place of the cancelled super frigates.
Of course we are looking forward to the white paper which the minister has announced he will present next month.


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


Howard Russell MacEwan: When I have finished I shall be glad to let the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) ask me questions. I shall refer to the Halifax area, but more particularly to the Pictou shipyard in my own constituency, because the smaller ships have been repaired in those yards. Destroyer escorts cannot be repaired there, but the ship I have referred to, H.M.C.S. Quinte, was repaired there last year. The effect of the government's decision means that the larger yards will now be vying for work with the smaller yards, and it also means there will be a lesser number of ships because of the cut-back. I submit this should not be carried out in a piecemeal way, but rather that it should be done in an organized manner, and an alternative program should have been presented before this cut-back was implemented.
In the broadcast to which I previously referred, shots were shown of the minister going back and forth between the ships of the Atlantic fleet. Of course those shots were taken when we had ships, last December.
They also showed him with army units. That, of course, was when the army had arms.
So that I may not pass over any of the services, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to another report which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, also in January last, though I regret I cannot give the exact date. This is a Canadian Press story under an Ottawa dateline, written by Dave McIntosh under the heading " 'Bus Driver' Role Forecast for R.C.A.F.". To be fair, the words are added-"But Anti-Sub Role Would Be Maintained". The article says:
The R.C.A.F. will be withdrawn from all its combat roles, with the possible exception of antisubmarine patrol work, within five years, authorities forecast Monday.
They predicted that the service will become an almost exclusively transport force and that its combat roles in home air defence and in nuclear bombing in Europe will be eliminated by 1969 or earlier.
Plans are already being made to expand the R.C.A.F. station at Trenton, Ontario, headquarters for transport command.
Referring to discontent in the forces, the article goes on to say:
Meanwhile, there is discontent in the armed forces about some reasons the government is giving for defence reductions.
Sources said the current economy drive in the defence department makes good sense but they feel the government shouldn't attach extraneous or irrelevant reasons to announcements concerning defence cuts. They cited these two examples from Friday's announcement of the disbandment of two Voodoo squadrons:
The announcement said planes from the disbanded squadrons at Ottawa and North Bay, Ontario would be moved to the squadrons at Chatham, N.B. and Bagotville, Quebec, "to improve operational efficiency and promote economy".
And this, I believe, is the important part:
Informed sources said there will be economy. But the decision flew in the face of established NORAD policy of dispersing interceptors as much as possible to try to avoid their total destruction on the ground with two or three long range missiles.
The announcement also said removal of the 10 Voodoos from Ottawa would reduce the density of air traffic at Uplands airport here. But the defence department had announced previously that the electronic warfare squadron at St. Hubert, Quebec, will be moved to Uplands. It has 18 CF-100 jets.
We look forward with interest to the white paper which the minister is to bring forward before too long. I know that this white paper, even though it may deal only with generalities, will receive the fullest scrutiny by members on this side of the house.
I should like to refer now to the subject of unemployment. Some people say this is no longer a national problem but a regional one. Well, they can have their own views on this, but I should like to refer to the situation in the Atlantic provinces, and particularly to unemployment in my own area. Suggestions

The Address-Mr. MacEwan have been made that the Atlantic development board, which was set up when the party to which I belong was in power, would look after things, since a fund of $100 million was to be at the disposal of that board. However, as has been pointed out by several previous speakers, including the hon. member for Cumberland and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, one single grant, namely $20 million to the Saint John river project in New Brunswick, will use up a large part of that amount. Even the present chairman of the board is not sure where additional funds will come from. Speaking at a meeting held, I think, in Ottawa in January, he said he did not know if there would be any further funds available. That is why members of this party were against assigning a specific amount of money to the board, as was done last session in amendments introduced by the then secretary of state.
Turning to my own area, I should like to refer shortly to a self help organization which has been set up there, known as the Pictou county research and development commission. This organization has now been incorporated under an act of the Nova Scotia legislature. It involves people in all walks of life, including businessmen, clergy and labour representatives, and it has been established in order to help solve the pressing problem of unemployment in the area. A pocket of unemployment has persisted there for some time.
My own intention now is to refer to measures which might assist the recovery of this area. In the course of the last budget debate the Minister of Finance stated that if the tax incentives which he had introduced did not help solve this problem, he did not know what would. That seemed to be finality as far as he was concerned. Perhaps I might be allowed to refer shortly to a speech made by Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia in the Nova Scotia legislature on February 10 of this year. Before I do so I might mention that last year, I believe, I asked the then minister of transport, as the minister in charge of the Atlantic development board, what the respective roles of the development board and the area development agency would be. He pointed out, I believe, that the Atlantic development board would deal with the larger fields, such as transportation, power, and so on, whereas the area development agency would attempt to encourage the settlement of new industries. Mr. Stanfield, speaking in the Nova Scotia legislature, was reported as follows, and I am quoting from the Chronicle-Herald of February 11, 1964:
Premier Stanfield last night criticized the federal government for failing to provide sufficient tax incentives to bring industry to Nova Scotia.

Speaking in the throne speech debate in the legislature, the premier said his government understood the difficulty the federal government had in providing industrial incentives and added that it appreciated the location of a heavy water plant in Cape Breton.
He said federal tax incentives to industries locating in areas of heavy unemployment are not going to bring industry to Nova Scotia.
"Federal tax availability of such incentives in an area of heavy unemployment in central Canada may attract an industry we could otherwise have brought to some part of Nova Scotia," he said.
The premier went on to say:
We need more positive inducement, far less timidity and far more imagination from the federal government and its agencies.
I shall not quote any further on this occasion. No reference is made in that speech to any particular industry, but I know personally of an industry which would perhaps have gone into Pictou county had the tax incentives offered been sufficient. The tax holiday, and the other benefits, might well attract an industry to another part of Canada, as the premier indicated, rather than to a designated area of Nova Scotia.
Hon. members may ask, of course, what suggestions Premier Stanfield has to make. Well, those suggestions have been made, and they are in line with recommendations I myself put forward, or attempted to put forward, in the course of last session, as outlined in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on February 12 in an editorial headed "New Policies". Part of this editorial states:
Notwithstanding the tone of finality with which Finance Minister Gordon introduced the tax incentives last June, should Ottawa be prevailed upon to grant additional tax favours on the basis of economic or political regions rather than by the sole yardstick of the present-district unemployment levels throughout Canada?
The article goes on:
Be that as it may, there may be a more practicable possibility: why not pool some of the uncommitted millions belonging to the Atlantic development board with those of such provincial development agencies as Industrial Estates Limited so that the latter can extend even more generous start-up assistance to industry?
That is one suggestion. Another question which has been asked is, of course, how flexible are the terms of reference governing the Department of Industry? Can this department, in co-operation with Industrial Estates, intercede with Ottawa for assistance in specific cases. The department has not been in existence for very long. Its directors are being paid good salaries as is necessary, I admit, if we are to have the services of good men. I hope they will not sit on their fannies here in Ottawa, but that they will get out into areas such as mine and work together with agencies such as Industrial Estates and the Pictou county research and development commission, so as to find some solution to

the unemployment problem which faces us. This is a labour surplus area and it is one that should be tackled first. I have made some inquiries since coming to Ottawa for this session and I am advised it is possible that the area development agency will have district offices, perhaps provincial and perhaps maritimewise; I do not know which. I hope the government will make this clear, and I hope the new Department of Industry will get to work on this question and will not just be another department sitting here in Ottawa. I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister the other day and asked him to direct the attention of the area development agency to my own area, and I hope this will be done.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could refer for just a moment to the question of railway cars which are manufactured by Eastern Car Company in my constituency, which is the largest employer in that area. The orders have not been sufficient in the last decade, as was pointed out the other day, to keep this plant and its labour force going sufficiently to provide full employment. Suggestions have been made through the years since I have been here, and before that undoubtedly, that orders from the C.N.R. particularly, being a crown corporation, and the C.P.R. should be placed at a time which will provide sufficient winter employment rather than summer employment. In that way it would provide work at a time when it is most urgently needed.
I know there are problems in this connection. I know, for instance, that the two chief railways of Canada are now carrying out research into new types of cars. Only a year or two ago they brought out a new type of insulated car. I have reference to Track magazine, published by Canadian National Railways for their employees, wherein is an article regarding two new types of cars with which they are now experimenting. One is the "Prairie Schooner" and the other is the "Hy-Beam". The Schooners are essentially canvas covered gondola cars used to carry such products as stainless steel and other high quality metal products. The Hy-Beam car will be used to ship packaged lumber and will have other advantages also. I realize that in order to compete with other forms of transportation our two chief railways have to carry out research as to the type of car that is needed by different manufacturers, and so on. However, I hope some system can be worked out to provide for this work being done at the right time.
While I was at home between sessions objections were made to the use of a large number of United States cars, especially to carry P.E.I. potatoes to domestic markets. At that time the C.N.R. said the United States
The Address-Mr. MacEwan cars were all right, but the ratio of their use is 20 to 1 for every Canadian car. My recommendation to the government, through the Minister of Transport, is that they should look into this matter to see if these cars are of a suitable type, and also whether more Canadian cars could be used, thereby helping out the manufacturers in Canada, not only the car companies but those who manufacture the components, whose plants are situated all over the country.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will continue giving longer term credit in regard to our exports, and perhaps they will even look into the possibility of providing railway cars, as has been suggested, to some of the underdeveloped countries in the world today.
Finally, Mr. Speaker-I believe I have almost run out of time-may I refer briefly to the amendment which has been moved by this party on the matter of the extension of family allowances to age 18. I recall asking the right hon. Prime Minister during the last session whether an extension to age 18 would be brought in during that session. At that time my question caused a little flurry because everyone was a little upset and tempers were short. The right hon. Prime Minister said that if we got on with the business they would be able to bring forward things like that. We are now through with that session and into a new one, and it still has not been done. I believe that in many areas of Canada, those in the lower income category, this matter is very important. Such an extension would provide money for older children to age 18 who are remaining in school. Education is important, and I think all members of this house should certainly back the amendment of this party on the vote this evening.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the matter of votes. I heard a certain correspondent on the C.B.C. the other morning saying that the Conservative party were of course trying to put the government out of power, and this was not right because the people of Canada did not want another election, and so on. Of course there were others who spoke before, who said there were not sufficient members on this side of the house to give the government a run for their money -and we are still wrong. My suggestion is that on the question of voting-I am referring to the matter of the sales tax and the amendment that is now before the house-this party has a perfect right to bring these things forward. We are a responsible opposition, and will continue to bring these things forward in spite of what some people say.


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

The Address-Mr. Herridge


Howard Russell MacEwan: Yes.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Inasmuch as the hon. member spoke of the need for development of industry in this area, and indeed throughout the Atlantic area in general, does he agree that the greatest incentive that could be provided for the development of such industry would be a realistic freight rate structure for goods going to and from the Atlantic area; a revision of the freight rate structure, which was so shamelessly ignored by the previous government for six years-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -so that it would be possible for that area to place its products in a competitive position in central Canada?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I think that is one matter that would certainly assist. The hon. member made a speech in this house not long ago regarding freight rates and this is about the only thing on which I agree with him, but not his remarks regarding previous governments. I think it is certainly something that would assist, and I believe the legislation which is to be brought forward as a result of the Mac-Pherson royal commission which was set up by the former government, will also assist in this connection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we should be tolerant of the hon. member who just asked a question. He just indicated to us a new method by which Liberal backbenchers have a word or two to say in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we will be asked in the near future to examine and approve the Columbia river treaty and the protocol; therefore it is most appropriate that I take this opportunity to make some observations and comments on this treaty and the protocol. When speaking on this question let it be clearly understood that I represent the views of the New Democratic party, the British Columbia federation of labour, the trade union in British Columbia and numerous trade unions in other parts of Canada, including some large automobile workers locals in Windsor, Ontario, who are most interested in this question. In addition I represent farmers' organizations, women's institutes and a good number of Liberals and Conservatives who have written to the Prime Minister. The Liberals in particular have been writing to the Prime Minister in recent weeks expressing their views on this treaty. They have been sending me copies of their letters, which I think is very kind of them.
[Mr. Began.1
So far as my own constituency is concerned,
I represent all these groups, including a good many Liberals and Conservatives, important members of these parties, some of whom will be here when the treaty goes before the external affairs committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take any notice of the chit chat from over there. Throughout the years my position on the Columbia river treaty has been repeatedly and strongly condemned by that great organ, the Nelson Daily News, which is getting smaller in size monthly and costing more every year, and the Trail Daily Times. The Nelson Daily News in a recent issue suggested that I should now remain silent or retire, or preferably both.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members opposite will want me to retire before I have finished this afternoon, as I am not going to sit silent in this house when I consider that Canada is being sold down the river because of the terms of this treaty, particularly when we sell our power for 30 years and our water forever.
On January 30, 1964 a petition was started by the mayor of Nelson, a fine young chap full of ambition who was recently elected, and the Nelson chamber of commerce which read as follows:
Petition of urgency. We, the undersigned citizens of the East and West Kootenay, province of British Columbia, hereby petition your government to place before the house as the first order of business the immediate ratification of the treaty on the Columbia river development signed by yourself and the President of the United States in Washington, D.C., on January 22, 1964, which has our wholehearted support. This petition is sponsored by Kootenay chambers of commerce.
It did not mention how many chambers. This petition, Mr. Speaker, was launched with front page fanfare on February 1 in the Nelson Daily News, which proclaimed that the objective was 10,000 signatures from the East and West Kootenays. I am glad to see the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) in the house.


Mr. Byrne:: Would the hon. member permit a question, if he is anxious to co-operate with Kootenay East? I am wondering whether the hon. member has referred to Ina Hansen, of Kimberley in the Kootenays, who won the ladies diamond-D curling championship?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am pleased to hear that, but the hon. gentleman is just using this tactic to divert the attention of the house from the painful position he is in. This activity was carried on for a few days with press announcements claiming great success,

and saying many communities in the East and West Kootenays were signing the petition. Some 1,500 to 2,000 copies of this petition were distributed in Kootenay West and Kootenay East to every businessman and other persons who would accept them. Officials of the Social Credit party in some communities campaigned from door to door for three weeks. Then the press announcements turned to editorial complaints that people were not signing the petition, and the public was openly criticized for not rallying to the cause. Finally, on the day the petition was sent to Ottawa one had to turn to the inside pages of the Nelson Daily News to discover, under a small column heading, that only 3,542 signatures were actually obtained.
The petition was wired to the Prime Minister on the opening day of parliament over the Western Union telegraph lines. I was always under the impression that you could get in touch with Ottawa by wire from Nelson through the C.P.R. telegram service, but apparently they were so ashamed of the result that they sent the wire over Western Union telegraph lines, with a grand total of 3,542 signatures to the petition.
What I want to bring to the attention of the house is this; that there are over 57,000 persons in Kootenay East and Kootenay West over 18 years of age, and also that many of 18 years of age signed this petition, including some people from the coast and other points. I am informed that at the time the petition was sent, Kimberley and Invermere were not included; but I understand that this small number of additional signatures would not have made any material difference. I hope the hon. member for Kootenay East will tell us the figures for Kimberley when they come in; I have already heard the magnificent total. Anyway, the petition was a flop.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by some members of the New Democratic party and some Liberals and Conservatives in my constituency to seize every opportunity to bring to the attention of the people of Canada how they have been misled by official statements on the Columbia treaty by the government. The basic issue with the Columbia treaty is whether the current agreement represents proper use of a great Canadian resource. There is growing evidence that control of and benefits from this national asset have been turned over to a foreign power. Almost as disturbing is evidence that government mismanagement of this resource is being concealed from Canadians by the governments of Canada and British Columbia. A number of official government statements on the Columbia are now known to be completely untrue. The magnitude of these deceits and
The Address-Mr. Herridge false promises and claims, and the fact that some of them have officially emanated from no less a source than the office of the Prime Minister, indicate development of a political deceit of prime importance.
Now I am going to give some specific examples of misrepresentation, broken promises and deceit. They are so awful, Mr. Speaker, that they stick in my throat and I must take a drink of water.
Before they came to power the Liberals often stated that this treaty was defective and must be renegotiated. Yes, we all listened to the hon. member for Kootenay East denounce the treaty. The record is replete with the criticism of hon. members opposite. The Prime Minister himself said that a Liberal government would develop a treaty which General McNaughton could support.
Second, during the election the Prime Minister promised in writing that no action would be taken by a Liberal government before consultations with the people concerned. I should like to quote from a letter he wrote to Mr. Donald C. Waterfield, chairman of the water resources committee, Nakusp chamber of commerce, Nakusp, B.C.: Dear Mr. Waterfield:
Your letter of April 12th has just arrived and I would like to assure you that I agree with you that it is imperative to renegotiate the Columbia river treaty.
May I also assure you that all B.C. interests particularly those of the water resources committee of Nakusp chamber of commerce, will be consulted by a new Liberal government before a final decision is reached.
Were they consulted? They never heard anything more from the Prime Minister; and when the Secretary of State for External Affairs flew over the Arrow lakes he made certain that the plane flew at a good elevation above that community. He did not want to see those people. Anyway, not a word was heard. The Prime Minister of Canada broke his written promise to those people and to many others in my constituency.
Third, because of their belief that the government would support General McNaugh-ton's plan the Liberal association of Kootenay West offered General McNaughton the nomination, I am told under the spurring of the hon. member for Kootenay East, or shall I say at the suggestion of the hon. member for Kootenay East. I was informed of this by West Kootenay Liberals. However, General McNaughton would not consider running; he did not want to enter into the political field at his age.
Fourth, Liberal candidates strongly criticized the treaty and the construction of the high Arrow dam. I was at five all-party meetings with the Liberal candidate in my riding in which he condemned the high

The Address-Mr. Herridge Arrow dam, as a result of which the Liberal party got the highest number of votes it has had in Kootenay West for 25 years, and this as the result of deceiving the people. That is a fact.
The attacks on the ability of General McNaughton by Mr. Williston and Dr. Keenleyside have included false statements and disparaging remarks about General McNaughton's professional judgment. I am hurrying along, Mr. Speaker, because they have committed so many crimes in connection with this treaty that it is hard to tell them all in 30 minutes. Mr. Williston stated in the British Columbia legislature that General McNaughton had had no practical experience in hydro development, and hence was not qualified to speak on the Columbia. He was given an honorary membership in the Alberta engineering institute, and in his certificate it refers to "this eminent engineer, researcher", and so on and so forth. This is a strange opinion about one of the principal architects of the St. Lawrence developments and of all other Canadian and United States water projects between 1950 and 1961, including the Columbia itself.
Now, what did Mr. Williston do? In his speech to the legislature of February 7 last year he said that a man like General McNaughton should be in substantial agreement. He said:
Both groups are attempting to squeeze every last ounce of political advantage out of a man who has made his mark, is now past his prime, never has been an acknowledged hydraulics engineer, and now stands alone abandoned to his own support of resources even against the expressed stand of those technical men who a short time ago reported to him in the course of their duties.
Then he went on to make other remarks about General McNaughton which are entirely inaccurate, and which will be put before the external affairs committee.
Now I come to Dr. Keenleyside. He has often said that no other expert in a position to understand the Columbia supports the general's views. This is a completely false statement. As evidence I mention a partial list of those who have said that the treaty is a poor deal for Canada: Mr. E. G. Cass-Beggs, Saskatchewan Power Corporation; Professor J. F. Muir, head of the civil engineering department at the University of British Columbia; Mr. R. Deane, who is senior electrical engineer of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company-I must be exact and say he is speaking for himself-Mr. L. Higgins of the Ontario hydro, who also is expressing his personal views; Mr. F. J. Bartholomew, consultant on the Columbia and the builder of a good many projects in and out of

Canada. I can think of at least a dozen others, but time will not permit me to mention them.
Sixth, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has sent to many individuals who have asked for information on the treaty a copy of a newspaper article dated January 24,	1963, from the Vancouver
Province, a paper which then supported Premier Bennett and the treaty. This article is full of half truths and out of context quotations, but northern affairs has stated that it represents a true expression of government views. This article was promoted by the present clerk of the privy council. In addition, a very nice letter from Gordon Robertson, who was at that time deputy minister, to Paddy Sherman assisted him to obtain a literary award. One might say this was obviously a mutual benefit society. Then there are letters from Mr. J. D. McLeod, chief engineer of the water resources branch, telling people that this article is objective and true and so on. Others were written by Mr. G. M. MacNabb, who said in one letter dated February 15, 1963:
It is brief but accurate in all important aspects.
Did you ever hear of a government department, Mr. Speaker, using a newspaper article to sell a bill of goods?
Seventh, comparative prices of power from the Peace and Columbia have been flagrantly manipulated by the British Columbia government according to its immediate objective. To justify starting the Peace it issued an engineering report showing that Peace power would be cheaper than Columbia power, by the simple device of ignoring flood control on the Columbia. Now, to justify the Columbia Mr. Williston has reversed his position and is saying that Columbia power is 25 per cent cheaper. If this is true, Premier Bennett is exporting the bulk of this cheap power to the United States while imposing expensive Peace power on British Columbia. I am told by competent engineers that over the next 30 years this one mill difference will cost the people of British Columbia $393 million in extra and higher hydro charges.
I get these figures from the report on the Columbia and Peace power projects published by the British Columbia energy board. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) is here this afternoon. He has been absent for some time today, but I am glad I have attracted his attention in discussing this matter in the house.
Eighth, the government has stated that downstream benefits are split 50-50. In fact Canada gets only about 40 per cent under this deal, but I am not going to deal with

the technical aspects. We will leave that to the men who come before the committee.
Ninth, the government claims that Canada gets $501 million under the treaty. This is not true. The sale price for downstream benefits is $274 million. If this were invested instead of spent on construction it would be worth $501 million in 10 years and a trillion dollars if the calculation were extended for several more decades. The $501 million statement is just as valid and just as meaningless as the statement that anyone who invested $1 at the time of our Lord would own the world today. Those are the mathematics of the people who have been boosting this treaty. No doubt if we invest the $274 million in 5 per cent bonds instead of building dams we will own the universe at the time of the millenium. This is what the Liberal party has been trying to do all along.
Tenth, the United States claims our downstream power is worth 3.75 mills. British Columbia claims that the figure is 5.3 mills. Both cannot be right, and the government calculations in the press release which purport to reconcile these figures cannot be substantiated from any documents.
Eleventh, the last clause of the protocol, which says that the treaty will not constitute a precedent, is dangerous nonsense. Any act is a precedent, regardless of whether or not it is called one, and the Columbia treaty is bound to have great influence on future water treaties. The frantic efforts of the government, particularly of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to convince the public that no precedent exists indicate that they regard it as a deal they would not wish to repeat. On the other hand, the United States is making equally strenuous efforts to establish the treaty as a change in the whole framework of Canada-United States water law. At the United States Senate Columbia hearings Richard Kearney of the United States state department had this to say, and I am about to quote from the hearings of the committee on foreign relations of the United States Senate:
-this treaty, for example, is going to be one of the major points of development for international law in this respect.
Then he went on to say:
However, I would say that the trend in international law is strongly toward the establishment of the principle that an upstream riparian state cannot deal with the waters within its borders which cross its boundary to a downstream riparian state in such a way as to seriously impair the rights or interests of the downstream riparian state.
Then he also said:
I think, senator, that this treaty will be considered as adding of that body of law.
The Address-Mr. Herridge
This is the attitude of these senators with respect to this matter. They consider that this establishes a precedent. Then we come to my twelfth point illustrating deceit and misleading information.
Twelfth, in its background to the protocol the government said:
Article XIII gives Canada the right to divert the Kootenay into the Columbia.
This is a completely false statement, and everybody knows it. The right has always been ours. They cannot give us any right. The treaty does not give us any such right but in fact takes away part of the unlimited right we have now and can legally and physically enforce if the control dams are situated in Canada.
Thirteenth, another illustration of misleading statements is the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has repeatedly assured prairie leaders that Columbia waters can be diverted to the prairies when needed. This is a highly questionable statement. One clause does say we have the right, but other clauses make it legally and economically impossible ever to exercise it.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that when I reflect on the blunders of the government, and I listen to the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and read his letters to the people whom he has completely misled on this article of the treaty, it makes me think that the emblem of the Liberal party should be an eel rampant on a rhubarb leaf.


Mr. Davis:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member for Kootenay West says that Canada now has an unlimited right to divert the Kootenay river in Canada for use in Canada. Does he agree, though, that the boundary waters treaty now in existence and signed in 1909 provides that interests in the United States that are affected have recourse to our courts and can obtain compensation therein? It is not an unlimited right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is quite correct to say that the downstream state has recourse to the courts of the upstream state. If the United States thought they were damaged in any way they could have recourse to our courts.


John (Jack) Davis: In other words we do not have an unlimited right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We have the right to divert this water, and there has never been an appeal by the U.S. to our courts.


An hon. Member:: A limited right.

The Address-Mr. Herridge


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to deal with my fourteenth illustration of misleading statements. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano, widely accepted as the chairman of the power committee of the Liberal caucus, said in the house on December 12, 1962: 1, We must not agree to conditions which tie our hands with respect to the use of water in our territory; 2, the Libby project must be postponed if not eliminated; 3, projects involving flooding in Canada should be postponed. In his plan for action on the Columbia-I have a copy but I do not have time to read it- the hon. member for Coast-Capilano said that the treaty is unworkable and must be renegotiated. The public were clearly led to believe that this was the program of the Liberal party. There were articles in the Vancouver newspapers written by the member for Coast-Capilano which mentioned that the hon. gentleman was chairman of the B.C. power policy committee of the Liberal party.
There has been no such renegotiation. Far from any significant improvements, the protocol merely reinforces some of the clauses that were most destructive of Canada's interests. I have a copy here of a speech on the Columbia river made by the hon. gentleman on December 12. I have a copy of his plan of action for the Columbia which appeared in Ottawa on February 16, 1963, and which will bear out the fact that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano was one of the greatest criticis of the former government and the terms of the treaty as it was at that time.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. gentleman permit another question? Does the hon. member not concede that in the protocol which has been negotiated in recent months there are substantial improvements, some of which certainly were recommended by General McNaughton and other gentlemen whom the hon. member claims to support?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The only improvement in this treaty from our point of view is that we have obtained a bit more cash for the power. One of the bad features of this treaty is that we have sold our cheap power from the Columbia to the United States on a firm basis for 30 years; that is one difference in this treaty.
I see that my time is going, and I overlooked mentioning the question of diversion. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has written to Premier Lloyd of Saskatchewan on this subject, and has sent telegrams. Here is a typical telegram from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Read it, and then you will wonder what it means. Premier Lloyd replied on January 27, after reading the telegram from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as follows:

X can only continue to conclude that the proposed treaty will in fact deny any possibility of the use of the water so far as the people of the prairie provinces are concerned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is the date of that telegram?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: January 27 of this year. I want to be fair in this connection, but I say without any equivocation that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has tried to mislead the people of Canada in respect of the right of diversion of the Columbia water for use on the prairies. Certainly, the treaty questions the right to divert for consumptive purposes, but the terms of a later clause prevent that. Let us be honest and frank about this and tell the people the truth.
I do not mind differing with people, but I do dislike this sleight of hand politics, and that is what we have been experiencing so far as this treaty is concerned.
I should like to give my fifteenth illustration with regard to the deception that has been practised by this government. These illustrations clearly indicate that a great deal of deception on the part of this government was deliberate, not caused by mere ignorance. Any doubt of this was finally removed on February 5, 1964 when a letter from the Prime Minister's office gave the following astonishing description of government tactics. I have a photostatic copy of a letter written by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. I want hon. members to listen to this. He is writing to a prominent engineer in British Columbia who had written the hon. member criticizing certain features of the treaty. I quote:
You mentioned a cost estimate of $175 million for the high Arrow project. This is a new figure so far as I am concerned.
This is mentioned in the protocol documents.
High figures have been purposely leaked out by Canadian and B.C. governments with a view to influencing the renegotiations with the United States. Now, a lump sum price settlement has been arrived at, and we are in a position to produce more realistic figures.
What does that mean? This means that from the Prime Minister's office there is an admission that the people and the press of' Canada have been given false information. There is no question about it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: One might also interpret this as an attempt to deceive their United States friends. When we are dealing with projects of this type, or any other matter, the first thing is integrity. In so far as this government's dealings or the Liberal party's dealings

with the Columbia are concerned, I have no hesitation in saying they have deserted the principles of integrity. They have changed face and deserted a great percentage of their own supporters.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Reference has been made by the hon. member for Kootenay West to a letter which I wrote to a prominent engineer in western Canada. This engineer was inquiring from me about the capital cost of one of the treaty projects, the high Arrow project. The government of British Columbia has spent many millions of dollars estimating the capital cost of this project, but it has never recorded a figure of more than $130 million.


An hon. Member:: What is your point of privilege?


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member makes reference to a higher figure


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could state his question of privilege so that the Chair could rule upon it.


John (Jack) Davis: The question of privilege upon which I rise is that I have been misrepresenting the capital cost figures.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the hon. member deny authorship of this letter?


John (Jack) Davis: No, I do not.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member for Kootenay West would be prepared now to table that letter for the benefit of other members in this house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have the permission of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano to quote from any correspondence he has written. I have some other gems, but I will leave those for another day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The letter to which the hon. member refers is not a public document, and for that reason 1 suggest it not be tabled. I should like also to bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that his time expired about a minute ago. I realize that he was interrupted by points of privilege, so perhaps the house will consent to allowing the hon. member a few more minutes to complete his address.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have no objection to tabling the letter, Mr. Speaker. Here it is.
I have given a few illustrations of the misrepresentation and deception that has been practised by this government in this connection. However, after this treaty is referred to the external affairs committee this sordid and squalid scroll of Canadian history will be
The Address-Mr. Harley further unrolled by the many competent witnesses who will appear before the committee. I am still hopeful that as a result of their evidence, their experience, their wisdom, the committee might recommend amendments to the treaty that will protect the rights of this and future generations of Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply at this time. I should like to make a few comments on the social security measures referred to in the speech from the throne, the ones that will be carried out in the near future, and to make a few recommendations for future social progress in connection with these measures.
In the last session of parliament we saw the old age pensions increased to $75 a month. A short while later, and in conjunction with the provinces, the blind, disabled and old age assistance pensions were increased a similar amount. In this session of parliament surely one of the first pieces of legislation to be considered must be the Canada pension plan. There is a great public interest in it, and I know hon. members have received many cards urging them to support the plan. We must implement it as soon as possible, and stop all further efforts to block or delay it. I am sure that in the very near future it will be referred to a special committee of the house.
My personal feeling is that this committee should sit every morning if necessary, to hear the many witnesses who will appear before it, so that the legislation can be returned to parliament for full consideration before the summer recess.
Another measure mentioned in the throne speech is the arrangements whereby university students who require financial assistance will be able to secure loans without payment of interest during their years of study. This is to be done in conjunction with the provinces, but I would like to point out that such aid is not new. Federal assistance has previously been given to university students. This was done after world war II when thousands of ex-servicemen and women went back to school to complete their education, under the auspices of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
With this federal assistance thousands of these people became skilled and highly-trained, and used their new education and abilities for the benefit of all Canadians. Surely the assistance that the federal government gave after the war can be provided in peacetime, so that education will depend on the ability and ambition to learn, and not on the ability to pay for it.

The Address-Mr. Harley
This loan program is the first step by which the government can help students. The next step will be the provision of scholarships, and we hope this will be introduced in the very near future. The Liberal party has advocated a scholarship plan, and the government is committed to it within the life time of a normal parliament.
In my opinion the third priority should be given to the extension of family allowances to the age 18, provided that the children remain at school. The amount of money involved per child does not seem large, yet I know it can mean the difference in many families as to whether schooling will be continued. Scholarships and bursaries at the university level are of little use if students do not finish their high school education, and this is one step the government can take to discourage high school drop-outs and encourage further education.
This brings me to a very brief statement I would like to make in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard). So that there will be no misunderstanding I want to put on the record a quotation from the policy of the Liberal party announced during the general election of 1963. Under the heading, "Opportunities for Youth," it states:
Extend lamily allowances from the age of 16 for boys and girls who remain students. This will help families to provide the best possible education for young Canadians and reduce the member of teenagers seeking unskilled jobs.
The only difference we have with the hon. member's amendment is one of timing.
This morning the hon. member for Me-gantic (Mr. Langlois) talked about government responsibility. Surely it is government responsibility to decide what the balance should be between what the needs of the Canadian people are and when the government can afford to meet them.
The next priority should be a medicare program. I am sure most people are aware that the royal commission on health services has not yet reported. I understand it will not do so before the spring, nor, indeed perhaps before summer, but, having commissioned this exhaustive and expensive study, it would be ridiculous to proceed with a medicare plan without awaiting the report and making a full study of its findings. With this basic information the government can then plan a suitable medicare plan for Canada, again in association with the provinces, to serve the needs of the Canadian people.
When he spoke the other day the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) mentioned a complete medicare program. I should like to point out very roughly what such a program would cost for one year. In

1960, the cost of medical care in Canada was approximately $400 million. In the same year the cost of drugs was almost as high, amounting to approximately $350 million. During the same period of time the cost of dental care was $90 million, and if the cost of other things were included, such as glasses, physiotherapy and medical appliances, the total would approach $1 billion for a complete medicare program for one year.
In this connection I would like to remind hon. members of what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. He said that we were committed to a medical care program and that we would bring it forward when we could afford it, when the economy of the country was again satisfactory, probably in the third or fourth session of parliament. We in the Liberal party are still committed to that.
The medicare program which the Liberal party had in its platform reflected the commonly held view that certain groups and classes of people have more need of medicare assistance than other groups. With this thought in mind, the Liberal party program was that all school children be given free medicare, and also adults over age 65, and that all other adults would pay the first $25 per year of their own medical expenses and the government would pay the remainder. The next priority in that program was to be given to drugs and dental care, particularly for children.
I should like to go on record, along with one of the hon. members from Winnipeg, in saying that mental illness and tuberculosis should be included under the terms of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. In the last ten years new treatments have been developed for these illnesses, but they are not included under the hospital act. We hear a great deal of talk that people should accept mental illness in the same way as they accept any other illness. Surely, if we expect the general public to treat mental illness and tuberculosis like any other illness, then the government should be prepared to do that first. Great progress has been made in the care of mental illness and of the mentally retarded, and I congratulate the government for holding a conference on mental retardation in Ottawa early this fall.
To summarize briefly what I have said, I hope the government will give consideration to social legislation in the following priority: first, a Canada pension plan; second, a loan plan for university students; third, the extension of family allowances to the age of 18 years and, fourth, a medicare program to serve the medical needs of the people of Canada.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, not so much for what they have said, but for the manner in which they performed their task. I extend to them my sincere congratulations.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I should like to dwell on the awakening of Quebec. I know that expressions such as rebirth, evolution, awareness and even quiet revolution are now being used. But those are but a few terms to describe what is going on in Quebec, what has roused and stirred its people. Things are on the move in Quebec, in the economic as well as in the social field, in the field of education as well as in that of national aspirations.
Since the war the face of Quebec has undergone a drastic change. The shift of population to urban centres, started during the last conflict, has been maintained and even increased throughout the years. That shift has had deep repercussions on the population generally. A whole people found itself being thrown into the technological complex of this modern world and, as a result, the needs and requirements of education have become imperative.
The youth of French Canada is throwing itself headlong into the fields of science, business, finance and industry. Our universities, our schools of engineering, of science and technology are overflowing with students. Enrolments have doubled, tripled, quadrupled. On the other hand, our high schools are being rapidly brought up to date and new ones are springing up every day.
French Canadians have an obvious and legitimate desire to contribute to the economic development of their province and of the whole country. They want the French fact to get as full a recognition as possible in the other provinces and they want such recognition to be truly and generally acknowledged within all federal agencies.
Many of our politicians claim credit for that evolution and for that awakening. As far as I am concerned, I feel that this is a normal process on the part of a people which has kept its national identity even though it had to go through the worst vicissitudes on the North American continent. As a member from Quebec, I rejoice at that evolution and as a member of the parliament of Canada I feel that is the way things must work out within confederation.
Undoubtedly such an evolution could not take place without tremendous difficulties.
The Address-Mr. Balcer Let us take for instance the field of education. The budget which was brought down recently in the Quebec legislature provides for an expenditure of $415 million for education only, that is $2 or $3 million more than in Ontario. Our people are ready to make such sacrifices, but the thirst for knowledge on the part of our youth deserves to be encouraged.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be a prophet of doom and gloom. Yet, I must say that this fine upsurge is going through a rough time in Quebec because the federal government has failed to grasp its meaning.
All that renewal can of course be accomplished within confederation. To a large extent, the central government will be what we want it to be. If we French Canadians break away, if we must look on it as an enemy, if it polarizes all our frustrations, well, we can expect nothing from it. On the other hand, if we join with it, if we feel we are called upon to play our full part in that government, while standing firm on principles and accommodating on procedures, we can derive from it all the advantages which normally should come to us.
Confederation is not unchangeable. It is evident that after a century of life, alterations and adjustments must be made. What must be safeguarded is the spirit which prevailed when it was worked out. Confederation which has rendered such great service was conceived in a spirit of conciliation by the two great races of this country. Of course, that document needs streamlining. There surely must be a way to do it through good will on both sides.
It would be a tragedy to leave the initiative to extremists, and I think that this federal government, because of its irresolution and lack of energy and vision in that field, runs the risk of giving them more importance.
The future of our ethnic group can certainly not be left in the hands of extremists like the Liberal member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) who never fails to insult English speaking Canadians in what is dearest to them. It cannot be left in the hands of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), who would refuse the French language the right to exist outside Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, never have federal-provincial relations been so bad and never has there been a Quebec provincial government less understood by the Ottawa government. Yet, how we have heard that old refrain: Grits in Quebec, Grits in Ottawa. It is even the theme of all the discussions of the Quebec Liberal federation. It is even the theme of a great debate between the partisans of the Hon. Rene Levesque and those of our friends opposite.

The Address-Mr. Balcer What can come out of that discussion? It can simply cause in federal provincial relations an uneasiness which must be cleared away at any price.
The lack of understanding of the present Liberal government when confronted with the claims of the French Canadians is reflected by the measure to provide assistance to municipalities and the one relating to the pension fund. The Liberal government in Ottawa tried to impose those two anticonstitutional measures by disregarding the acknowledged priority right of the provinces in that field. But in both cases, it had to yield to the protests of public opinion in Quebec after hastily convening federal-provincial conferences, during which it had to admit the inconsistency of its centralizing trend. In spite of the high-sounding name of co-operative federalism used by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) to term those strategic retreats, he will not succeed, in my opinion, in fooling anybody.	.
In support of this allegation, allow me to quote from an article by Messrs. Richard Daigneault and Dominique Clift published in La Presse the day before yesterday and which reads as follows:
The federal project of scholarships for university students has just shown the worthlessness of the concept of co-operative federalism to Quebec officials who firmly believed in it.
Following federal-provincial conferences held in the capital in 1963, Ottawa had given to understand that in future, the federal government would no longer introduce measures coming under provincial jurisdiction without previous consultation with the provinces.
The promise was made that there would be no more walking into the neighbour's house without knocking.
Co-operative federalism was, so to speak, to introduce a certain etiquette, a certain courtesy, in the relationship between Ottawa and the provinces.
And Messrs. Daigneault and Clift concluded as follows:
In Toronto, the surprise is similar; Ottawa announces that it will immediately proceed with the Canada pension plan and that the new plan will be implemented this year.
Premier John Robarts feels that, once again, Ottawa is acting high handedly with him.
In other words, co-operative federalism seems to be a rather mysterious reality. At the moment, it has very few supporters, either in Quebec city or in Toronto.
In addition, Mr. Vincent Prince, in La Presse of Wednesday, February 28, 1964, under the title "Infringement by consent?"- such is the definition given by Mr. Prince to the highsounding formula of the Secretary of State-wrote this:
Could it be that, under the guise of co-operative federalism, Ottawa is trying to thrust on us "infringement by consent"?
This question is not as idle as it may seem at first sight. At least, when considering the action of the federal government of late.

One has only to recall last year's legislation allowing Ottawa to grant loans to municipalities. Or, better still, the federal measure now under discussion regarding financial assistance to students.
In our humble opinion, this is not federalist co-operation, but an infringement of federalism itself.
And further Mr. Prince goes on to say:
And the provinces, labouring under an unfair distribution of fiscal revenue, are agreeing to that. They have no alternative.
True, Quebec enjoys some consideration. But, by the same token our province is considered as a special case, becomes an object of suspicion. This is irritating, and odious in the long run.
Mr. Speaker, the tax agreements entered into last November are another evidence of the inertia of the present government in connection with federal-provincial relations. These fiscal agreements are merely a rehash. No proposal other than a few timid amendments to formulas already existing, was made for a new plan aimed at tackling the root of the problem.
There will undoubtedly be a new conference in March but then again, the Liberal government will have nothing new to propose. It has not altered its philosophy and will only be trying to maintain its stand and impose to the province of Quebec the status quo which is undermining the very foundation of confederation.
The present federal government, following the centralizing and unconstitutional tactics of the late Mackenzie King and his bureaucrats, who are now ministers of the crown, continues to display a systematic contempt for the federative pact, for the basic rights and needs of the provinces. Moreover, there is nothing in the speech from the throne which acknowledges the fair requests of the province of Quebec and French Canada in the constitutional, fiscal, financial, economic, industrial and educational fields. On the contrary, the Liberal government advocates the granting of student loans without previous consultation, a measure which undermines the exclusive rights of the province in that field, which increases the disagreement between the two great races of Canada and which widens the gap which separates them.
Such an autocratic policy by the present government only adds fuel to the grievances raised by the province of Quebec and French Canada. Men like the Secretary of State speak on the one hand of saving the Canadian confederation and, on the other hand, the same men continuously take steps which destroy the spirit and the letter of the confederative pact. Those are, Mr. Speaker, the actual people who are responsible to a great extent for the national misunderstanding and the present restlessness in Quebec.

In view of the crucial problems which now require a direct, frank and definite dialogue between the two great founding races of our [DOT]country and the other Canadians, the time has come to answer two main questions: what is the complaint of Quebec and of the French *Canadians, and what do they want exactly?
Mr. Speaker, we, French Canadians, admit that the Canadian confederation to which we agreed in 1867, had happy results in a number of fields. It gave us a Canadian sovereignty, enabled us to build up a domestic and foreign trade, to co-ordinate administrative .services, to develop a well-known national defence policy, to ensure monetary and banking uniformity, and to gain international prestige.
But all that cannot make us forget that true federalism was not always practised, for the sharing of sovereignty between the central .government and the provincial governments was not respected. The fact that those various governments were to remain co-ordinated and not subordinated was overlooked. Provincial rights and needs were not sufficiently respected following wars and economic crises, and so the setting up of true federalism in Canada has not succeeded.
For true federalism, as distinct from a purely superficial federalism, requires that the lines of authority and the fields of taxation be clearly defined.
The French Canadian of 1964 is impatient and does not tolerate easily the status quo, and here is why: the standard of living today of the average Quebecker is found to be 10 per cent lower than that of the average Canadian, and 28 per cent lower than the average in Ontario. We manage hardly 5 per cent of the Canadian economic activity, while our ethnical group accounts for 29 per cent of the Canadian population.
In the province of Quebec itself, our group accounts for 82.6 per cent of the population but we manage only 10 per cent of the economic activity and hold only 20 per cent of the key positions. Our unemployed make up 40 per cent of all the unemployed in Canada.
Our 1963 average per capita income amounts to $1,700 whereas it is $2,000 in Ontario and $2,600 in the United States. Although France and Belgium suffered tremendous losses during the two world wars, their average per capita income amounts to $1,750 and $1,850.
Within the federal civil service, the part played by the French Canadians remains uncertain and unsatisfactory. The standards of eligibility reflect a concept that does not tally with our own school training, with the result that in the discharge of their duties, our
* The Address-Mr. Balcer compatriots often have to give up their mother tongue. Yet, in 1867, the idea was to build a bilingual, biethnical and bicultural Canada.
Among the federal civil servants earning $5,000 and more a year, French Canadians make up only 10 per cent of the total, according to a report published by the federal Department of Finance in 1960.
Moreover, my compatriots are kept out of the economic life by Ottawa, as there are practically none of them on or in the financial, industrial and commercial boards and departments of the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I am voicing those complaints not to create misunderstanding, but rather to make the federal government realize what Quebec expects from it. It wants the federal government to assume its responsibilities.
Now, what do the French Canadians want? Well, Quebec and French Canada want more than subsidies and loans. They want the French fact and the English fact to be recognized once and for all in Canada as the two pillars on which the Canadian structure rests. We want to be full citizens in the rest of Canada as well as in Quebec.
In that respect I support the views expressed recently by Mr. Douglas How, editor in chief of the Canadian Reader's Digest. Here is part of what he said about the French Canadian nation when he spoke at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in the course of a visit to Montreal on October 16, 1963:
It is not surprising that such a people is awakening with a vengeance. The surprising fact is that it did not do so long ago. And the main thing, for the whole of Canada, is to find a solution, a way to channel this new energy and aggressivity in order to make such progress that would be fair to that people and advantageous for all.
Mr. Speaker, we want to play in Canada a dynamic role but understood and agreed on by all and to the advantage of all.
It is my firm belief that our problems will find a solution in the operation and implementation of true federalism, not a patched-up, hypocritical and deceptive federalism, such as the one devised by our hon. friends opposite. In spite of their shilly-shallying, singing the tune about a new federalism, a co-operative federalism, it is nothing else than camouflage and, in fact, accepted centralization. Those jugglers with the deficient Canadian policy, at the domestic level, invite the provinces to a meeting but insist on retaining nearly of the whole pile of money and offer only ridiculous bits under pressure and after concessions.
As long as such centralizers claim that Ottawa must assume the leadership of the whole Canadian economy and control the taxation of the various governments, the Canadian federation will be in danger.

The Address-Mr. Balcer
I should like to call the attention of the house to an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette, on Wednesday, February 26, where we read:

What, then, is to happen if Quebec (like other provinces) finds itself facing these two hard facts: (a) there is no prospect that the rate of spending in the essential provincial fields of education, health and roads can be curtailed; on the contrary, the explosion will continue: (b) bigger and bigger deficits and bigger and bigger borrowing cannot continue indefinitely, as revenues repeatedly fall short of needs.
Is it not true that federal spending, in the years after the war (when revenues were buoyant and surpluses hard to hide) became quite excessive? Is this not the time for the emphasis to be switched in favour of provincial spending, and for the relative curtailment of federal? And should this curtailment not be exercised, in particular, in regard to any new large spending projects in the federal field?
Education, health and roads-are these not national, as well as the provincial responsibilities, in the sense that the need to make way for provincial spending in these imperative fields should become a national responsibility?

Mr. Speaker, the government should weigh its words carefully and realize that education must play a major role in the Canada of 1964. The federal government must not hesitate to extend the taxation powers of the provinces to enable them to meet their obligations in certain fields which will determine the future of our country.
Mr. Speaker, we are going through difficult times. It is important that the two great founding races of our country should soon come loyally closer and that the Canadian constitution be not only repatriated but also adapted to the evolution and to the problems that have to be faced in 1964.
Personally, I would suggest that the Canadian Senate be appointed as a special committee on the Canadian constitution. It is the proper body to study, within the framework of the federal parliament, our acute difficulties.
Indeed, prior to 1867, when the advisability of creating the upper chamber was discussed, it was decided that it should be entrusted with the task of representing every class of the Canadian society and protecting the rights of the provinces and of the minorities.
Consequently, I believe that the present government would be well advised to ask the Senate to establish a committee to study the means of bringing our constitution up to date, while respecting provincial rights and also to study the development opportunities for the provinces in their own fields, particularly the education field.
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the member for Kenogami-Jonquiere-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: The member for Lapointe.


Léon Balcer: -put forth in this house the theory of two geographical nations forming a kind of federation. This theory was discussed in a very serious editorial in Le Devoir of Montreal, on February 26, under the signature of Mr. Claude Ryan.
With very strong and clear arguments, Mr. Ryan disposed of the theory of the member for Kenogami-Jonquiere-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: For Lapointe.


Léon Balcer: He disposed of the theory of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), but he also put forward his own theory which in my opinion, embodies the present concept of the French speaking Canadians in Quebec on the problems now confronting them. I quote:
Canada is made up, as we can see, of two major cultural groups. Even though many other groups have enriched our national life for a century, each of those two initial groups retains, in 1964, in addition to its historical rights, a numerical strength and an institutional identity that entitle it to special recognition within the political framework of the country.
The partisans of this school of thought insist on certain concrete objectives which appear urgent to them. They request a broad autonomy for Quebec, the recognition of French in federal institutions and in the educational systems of all the provinces, and a greater participation by French Canadians in the management of the economic life.
But for the supporters of this school of thought, the objectives mentioned above may be reached within a flexible federation. Several persons within this group distrust, so to speak, political frameworks too rigidly based on so-called national realities. They prefer broader political frameworks which take into consideration not only race and culture, but also geography, not only past history which was simpler and more homogeneous, but also living history that resists every over-simplified effort to interpret it.
Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the house to that editorial which, in my opinion, expresses the feelings of the public or at least of a great number of my fellow citizens from the province of Quebec.
I feel that by promoting unity and understanding between the two great races of our country, by helping each other and by respecting each others' rights, we will build a strong and united Canada, in other words a country where it is good to live.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like first of all to offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think they did a very good job in carrying out the task assigned to them and they presented their positions well; it is not an opportunity

which is afforded to everyone. While we who sit on the opposition benches have very many opportunities which the backbenchers on the government side do not have, these are two which are offered to those who support the treasury benches.
I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the new ministers and parliamentary secretaries on their appointments. I think they can look forward to at least a few months of very useful work and service to Canada.
Since I last spoke in this house, Mr. Speaker, there has come to my attention the passing of a great Canadian. This man, who was a senator from the Cariboo, Senator Tur-geon, was indeed in my view one of the great Canadians of his time. We were very sorry indeed to hear of his passing and we know that the efforts he put forward in his political and private life have left behind a real contribution to Canada and its people.
I should also like to take this opportunity to wish Mr. Walter Henderson, commonly known as Gus Henderson, a speedy recovery. I understand he has not been too well in the last few months. I am sure every member of the house who knew Mr. Henderson will want to join with me in expressing our best wishes to him for a speedy recovery.
The speech from the throne offers to the individual member an opportunity to brag a bit about his own constituency. In summation of the remarks I am about to make, may I say I have really got something to brag about. Cariboo constituency has the honour of being one of the most forward looking and progressive constituencies in Canada today. In fact, to a great extent the eyes of Canada are turned on it.
I should like now to refer to paragraph 11 in the speech from the throne, which is in these words:
At home there has been a heartening expansion of the economy. Employment has increased at an accelerated rate and the number of Canadians seeking work has fallen.
I should like to point out that the growth we are experiencing in Canada today is largely the result of the strong and aggressive provincial governments we have at this time. In the federal field we must see at all times that policies are adopted which will enhance their opportunities and make more readily available to the provinces opportunities for such expansion and acceleration. Strong, dynamic provincial leadership has led western Canada into a very important role in the economic life of the nation.
As a matter of fact, while I do not like quoting figures, it has been brought to my attention that British Columbia bought no less than $600 million worth of goods from
The Address-Mr. Leboe the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Last year this must be a very important development as far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned. In other words, we are interdependent as provinces but the important thing in our provincial set-up is that we should have the opportunity to meet the demands that are put upon us with the result that we will not have all our eggs in one basket.
We have 10 provinces and if the provincial governments are given the opportunity to expand and to put dynamic policies into operation this will bring about a situation where we will not have to worry so much about the economic problems facing us in Canada today. The fact that British Columbia is planning to make application for a part interest in a bank, probably to be known as the bank of British Columbia, indicates the forward thinking and forward steps being taken today in order to facilitate the expansion and growth of Canada.
The constituency of Cariboo is a highly diversified area. We have gold mines at Wells. We have great quantities of mercury at Pin-chy lake in the Fort St. James area. In the Quesnel area we have what are known as diatomaceous earth mines. Prince George is known as the white spruce capital of the world. It has been said that we ship enough lumber out of Prince George every year to build a city the size of Edmonton. A trainload of 120 to 140 cars of lumber, not the 35 or so cars of a few years ago, leaves Prince George 365 days a week-a year. That is a good long week. You would think I was from Texas.
So far as agriculture is concerned, we have the great agricultural area of the Peace river country which has had wheat kings on a number of occasions. There is also diversified mixed farming in the area around Prince George. In the southern part of the constituency we have the great fringes of the cattle industry. So far as the tourist industry is concerned, Cariboo constituency offers anything a person could wish in the way of tourist travel. There are good paved highways and more are to come. In this connection I would remind the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) to see that the road between the town of Jasper and the western boundary of the park will be ready when the highway is completed between Prince George and McBride and also between the Jasper boundary and Kamloops. The minister had better see that his engineers get to work because when Mr. Gaglardi starts calling his signals-in fact he already has- there will be some dirt flying along that highway.
We have some new industries in Cariboo constituency which I should like to mention.

The Address-Mr. Leboe We have a new molybdenum mine in the Vanderhoof area. We have an 800 ton pulp and paper mill being constructed at Prince George by Canadian Forest Products, which will be the largest on the North American continent. Another pulp mill is also being promoted by B.C. Forest Products on the Parsnip river, some 100 miles from Prince George. At Fort Nelson we have a filtering plant being constructed which will head up a 30 inch gas line running some 200 miles to Chetwynd and connecting there with the pipe line running down to the southern part of the province and into the United States. I believe that the transporting of gas as far as California is now being contemplated.
Then there are other developments. The Pacific Great Eastern railway is being extended in the Summit lake region a distance of approximately 100 miles to Fort St. James. This will open up a lot of new country. This area is just being tapped and the people of the area are looking forward to a great expansion.
We also have the Peace river development project, one of the largest earth filled dams in the world. It rises some 600 feet above the bed of the river and will be about 1J miles long when completed. It has been said that there will be enough earth in the dam to build a wall from Halifax to Vancouver nine feet wide and 12 feet high. It is a large project. This is only a part of the hydro development in the province of British Columbia. We heard a discourse this afternoon on the Columbia river by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). The hon. member regrets very much the proposals that are made to improve the Columbia river development, but the days of screaming without effective reasoning are gone. I am sure that when the chips are down we will not have any problem in getting ratification of the treaty in this House of Commons.
There was a cry about the diversion of the Columbia river. This matter is taken care of in the treaty. If the people of the prairies need a little extra water, and if we can get it over the mountains from British Columbia, we can send it along to them.
When I was in Saskatchewan I made a review of the Saskatchewan river dam. I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Tim Cooper who was very kind and considerate during that trip, and invited me to have a look at this particular development in Saskatchewan. I was interested in noting that while this was supposed to be an irrigation dam, hardly anyone said a word about irrigation. They were talking about the power that would result from this development, and I think they are right. I feel that irrigation is a

wonderful thing but I do believe that the power resulting from dam development is a very important part of the reasoning behind its construction.
I am not going to bother the house by outlining a lot of the problems I have in the Cariboo constituency. I can deal with them with the various ministers. However, there are a few things I should like to mention that are urgent. While I believe we are making progress, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity by drawing to the attention of the house one or two things that could be done. First of all, we are looking forward to the construction of new airport terminals, particularly at Quesnel. The last time I was passing through Quesnel, when I got off the plane they trotted out the baggage buggy. A man was making out tickets using the baggage buggy as a desk. There are no facilities there and they are badly needed.
A few minutes ago I referred to the Jasper park road. I should like to see the government give consideration to the right of way through these national parks. I am told by trucking firms that it is more difficult to go through a national park with a truckload of goods than it is to go into the United States and come back. This situation should not exist. This is all Canada. We have a park straddling the only road that passes through the mountains in the vicinity of Jasper or Banff, and we expect the truckers to act as though they were entering into a new country when they enter these national parks. This is foolishness. I should like to see the government take steps to make arrangements with the provinces to have a right of way established through these parks so we can travel from point A to point B without being disturbed.
There is another thing I should like to mention which affects the whole of Canada but I shall refer to the Cariboo constituency in my remarks. I am thinking of private and municipal airports. In the Cariboo constituency we have some 40 private and municipal airports. These things grow like Topsy. A man will decide he wants a little plane, so he carves out an airstrip some 2,500 feet long. After he has it in good working condition, he finds that there are other people coming in and out of there almost every week. He puts gasoline there for himself. Sometimes he finds a note on the barrel saying, I am sorry; here is my name and address, but I had to borrow some of your gasoline. He has a plane, but he has no gasoline. These things happen.
What we need is a clear, forward looking policy in connection with municipal and private airports throughout Canada. When I am

speaking of airports I am including those float plane bases to which small aircraft can come on floats.
I am going to turn for a moment to the question of redistribution as it affects the Cariboo constituency. I believe most hon. members understand that an electoral district the size of Cariboo is too large for one man to service adequately. The Cariboo constituency has an area of about 121,000 square miles. It is over one third of the area of British Columbia and it is over one third of the area of the province of Ontario. In 1961 there were 20 constituencies in the province of Ontario with populations under 50,000. In 1961 there were about 20 constituencies in the province of Quebec under 50,000 population. In 1961 the Cariboo constituency had a population of about 84,000. Constituencies in British Columbia are generally larger in population than any group of constituencies in the whole of the Dominion of Canada. I should like to emphasize that we need redistribution based on three factors which are important: population, geography and topography.
It has been said that urban constituencies should get a large representation under special arrangement. I want to say that urban ridings do not have one tenth the problems of rural ridings so far as a member is concerned. You cannot find me an urban constituency which has a problem in connection with cleaning out rivers for fish or a post office because post offices have been established there for some time. There are no problems in connection with water diversion or highways because highways are municipal affairs so far as the urban member is concerned. I hope that when we consider the matter I will be on the committee on privileges and elections to do battle for the rural constituencies, to see that they get "a fair shake", if I may use that term.
Now, I cannot conclude my remarks without mentioning sugar. I have received a good many letters in respect of this matter of sugar prices. I am only going to take the time at this moment to mention the fact that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) dealt with this for our group on Monday night. I think he did a very good job indeed of putting forth the position of our group in connection with this sugar problem. I believe that the price rise we had-I am not talking about the highest price-has been helpful to the Canadian sugar industry. There is no doubt of it. However, there is need for an over-all federal policy so far as sugar is concerned.
I should like to make a few remarks about this business of a national flag. We really get into deep water when we start talking about a national flag, I realize that. I think the solution lies in having a committee set
The Address-Mr. Leboe up that will choose perhaps four or five designs out of the some 2,500 or 2,900 designs that have been submitted, and put these on a ballot. They should include the red ensign, and should be put to a referendum of the people, with a transferable vote, so that each individual would choose the first, second, third, fourth and fifth in the order he preferred and, by the process of elimination, we will then have over 50 per cent of the people voting in favour of a particular flag. That will take all of us off the hook and put the responsibility where it belongs, on the shoulders of the people.
If it has been important enough to have waited 100 years to have the flag question settled, then let us take a little time to hold a plebiscite, and allow the people of Canada to settle it.
With regard to the workings of parliament itself, I believe that the question period is the most abused time in the house. There will have to be some self-discipline by the house, with a clearcut understanding of what questions should be. This would give the Speaker something to work with and cut down on a lot of the repetitious questions and the prodding which follows and has no real purpose. I think we had a serious situation in the matter of the stealing of armaments but in the last few days has this not been carried far beyond the realm of reason in the taking up of the time of the house? I would like to see a certain period of time set aside for questions. If we assemble at 2.30 o'clock, there should be a specific time at which the question period is cut off. At present we have got completely away from the intention of the question period.
I would also like to see some limitation of debate set out in the rules of the House of Commons, so that a debate can be ended by the Speaker by virtue of that rule. Further, I do not think we should have these resolutions, that precede money bills. They are a waste of time. Certainly they give us a little broader scope, but we do not need that because the second reading stage gives us all the latitude we need to deal with the matters in question.
I would also like to see the committees of the house set up for the lifetime of a parliament, without having to be reconstituted every session. Already we have the procedure whereby a motion can be made in the house removing an hon. member or an hon. lady from a committee and substituting the name of someone else. This is done all the time, and I cannot see any sense in the present method of appointing committees on a sessional basis.
Another matter which concerns me very much is the want of confidence motions. The

The Address-Mr. Tremblay manner in which they are handled at present is pretty unsatisfactory, and the people of the country are going to get so fed up that they will demand a set election date, a set time for the calling of an election. They will not stand for this sort of nonsense forever.
At present we have supporters of phony want of confidence motions saying, for example, that if you vote against a motion on family allowances, then you are voting against family allowances. What could be further from the truth? It is a want of confidence in the government, and that is all. If we have one want of confidence motion in the course of the debate on the speech from the throne it is enough. So far as I am concerned this is purely nonsense, and I would like to see all confidence motions confined to the debate on the throne speech, the budget, and one supply motion. As I say, if we do not do something about this the people will demand that we set a specified election date.


An hon. Member:: Dictatorship.


Bert Raymond Leboe: If we dictate to ourselves it would be a blamed good thing so far as I am concerned. We are all here trying to do a job and we should get away from fooling around with the business.
I notice my time is just about up, so I will close my remarks by asking that the government give consideration to the points I have mentioned. I think they are reasonable and I believe they are points with which the people of Canada will agree. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if we were to take a cross section vote of the people I think they would say we are not accomplishing the things they feel we ought to accomplish.
Further, Mr. Speaker, there is a responsibility so far as the press is concerned. Because it makes good copy, they have gone out of their way to emphasize beyond reason the shortcomings of this house. Just the same, let us turn the mirror on ourselves and see if we can improve our procedures in order to get on with the business and do a lot more work.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, like those who preceded me, I would like to follow tradition by tendering my most sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cote, Lon-gueuil) and seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. That tradition, which I respect, as do all my fellow members, enables me to mention that one of them was French speaking and the other English speaking.
There is a tradition of long standing in this parliament, that the Speaker's function in the House of Commons and in the other place

is entrusted in turn to representatives of the two most important ethnic groups in this country.
According to another tradition, the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne are chosen among the representatives of the two most important racial groups in Canada.
We see, therefore, the Liberal party, which has been for a long time entrusted with the administration of this country, did always in its basic policy, wish to respect the fundamental rights of both the groups which founded this country.
The mover and seconder of the address have carried out their task most brilliantly, and I would like to commend them for it, following the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
Mr. Speaker, the tradition I just mentioned, which was even observed by the Conservatives, when they formed the government, is so fundamentally ingrained in this country that I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) state that it was something new on the part of the Liberal party to want to continue something already achieved and now called by the new name of co-operative federalism.
Mr. Speaker, that co-operative federalism is nothing new to the Liberal mind. It simply takes on a new shape in keeping with the problems now prevailing in this country.
I was also surprised to hear the hon. member for Three Rivers state that the Liberal government is a centralizing government, which is not in the least interested in provincial prerogatives. Yet, the as yet very brief history of this government, has been a constant co-operation with the provinces, in order to facilitate discussion not only of common issues but also of the problems which it very legitimately considered to exist with regard to the prerogatives and rights of the central government.
Conferences and meetings have taken place on taxation, and others will follow.
Almost every department had a conference, or will have one soon, with the provinces to discuss common problems. This is an indication of a firm will, on the part of this government, to associate the provinces and the municipalities in the gigantic task which confronts the governments, at all levels, as they try to bring back prosperity to our country.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member for Three Rivers, as a former member of the Conservative government, had to draw a picture, a balance sheet of his party's administration. I realize that he had also to undertake to point out to us, Liberals, what

we should do to bring back to the country its unity and prosperity, which had been lost for too long.
In this house, I am the member for Mata-pedia-Matane, a constituency located in an area which, as everybody knows, has not been spoiled. It is a so-called "designated area", precisely because its numerous population until now was engaged mainly in farming and lumbering. Neither of these pursuits is actually very profitable, and there is a constant flow of emigration outside the area. The inhabitants of that constituency, as those of the whole Gaspe peninsula, wonder with anguish about their future.
Mr. Speaker, before the last election, I worked for the provincial administration. I decided to take an active part in politics and to come and give all possible assistance to the leader of the Liberal party, the present Prime Minister, and his colleagues.
I could have been a candidate in a Quebec City riding, where I live, but I preferred to go to an underdeveloped region in order to give new hope to the people and help them solve their problems.
What are those problems? They are similar to those in other underdeveloped sections of Canada. We have resources but they are untapped. Our people are hard working and courageous but there are not enough opportunities to earn a decent living. In short, we need special help from the federal or provincial government in order to give new impetus to our economy and to enable those people, who want to share the prosperity of the other sections of the country to improve their lot.
For my riding, as for the region as a whole, ARDA or rural development is the solution of the future.
I pay tribute to the Conservative ministers who, thanks to six years of work in the field of agriculture developed ARDA. The Liberal government was very happy to assume the task of completing and extending that program and making it more efficient.
I was designated as minister responsible for rural development and ARDA. I was glad to accept a new task when the Prime Minister asked me to look after citizenship, immigration and Indian affairs. I was also very happy to see the wise choice made by the Prime Minister when he appointed the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), the member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, a riding situated in my area, to be responsible for this important task which is called the rural development of a country.
Research and surveys which were essential to efficient and sensible work in the field of rural development pretty soon will 20220-21
The Address-Mr. Tremblay have to give way to important and new achievements for these people who, unfortunately, cannot wait indefinitely for radical solutions to their problems. In many cases, they are already reduced to despair and despondency, wondering whether their voice, weakened after so many years of destitution, will be heard in parliament. Such programs will have to be implemented soon and I trust that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Made-leine will take the urgent measures which are essential in order to improve the standard of living of these people who are counting a lot on rural development.
Before dealing with the problems which are my special responsibilities as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I want to say a few words about the Matane railroad which concerns my own area, the Gaspe peninsula. That question was widely discussed and I feel that explanations are in order, so that the people may know exactly what this is all about.
It is common knowledge that the former Conservative government introduced a bill in the house for the construction of a railroad about 57 miles long, from Ste. Anne des Monts, which would be the continuation of the line between Mont Joli and Matane.
Our opponents used that project as a political football during a few election campaigns, but no one in our district ever felt that it would truly improve local economic conditions. The only thing the people were interested in was the $16 million that was to be spent on the railroad. Everyone was quite willing to let the federal government spend these millions in the district, but nobody could see any use for this railway stretching over a distance of 57 miles, while the terminal point, Matane, is an extremely important town and the real problems in Ste. Anne des Monts and Cap Chat are totally foreign to railroad transportation.
When it came to power, the Liberal government did not divert the funds that had been appropriated for that purpose-because it is very important to note that although the legislation had been passed by both houses, except for a small amount of approximately $50,000, I think, the estimates submitted by the Conservative government never provided any amount for the construction of the proposed railway. This government has preferred to put it aside for the time being, possibly to undertake it later, for who can predict if, in 25 or 30 years, our district will not need a railway. But, for the time being, there are more urgent needs and that is the reason why this government has decided to earmark that amount for useful projects in the area, especially in the transportation and com-

The Address-Mr. Tremblay munication fields, as lor instance, ports, airports, highways, in short projects which come under federal jurisdiction and which will contribute to the prosperity of the area served by this railway.
I was very much surprised when the hon. member for Three Rivers mentioned federal intrusion into the field of education and took exception to the fact that, in the speech from the throne, mention is made of the government's intention, following consultation with the provinces, to introduce a bill concerning student loans. I was also surprised to see that the hon. member who blamed us for applying federal funds to education belonged to the same party as the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) who has just introduced an amendment to the main motion, asking precisely that federal funds, that is family allowances, be used so that children 16 or 17 years old will remain in school.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Your comparison does not make sense.


Mr. Vincent:: That is not serious.


René Tremblay: The members of the opposition, their leader and his assistant surely need better communication to set up a common policy.
During the few moments I have left, I should like to discuss briefly the department over which I have the honour to preside.
It is well known that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration deals with three main fields:	immigration, citizenship and
Indian affairs, since the head of this department is also the general superintendent of Indian affairs.
I do not wish to refer here to specific measures, as I will have the opportunity to do so either when the estimates of my department are under consideration or when I introduce two bills to be brought before the house, one to amend the citizenship act and the other concerning Indian affairs, more precisely the establishment of a board for Indian grievances.
I shall then have an opportunity to deal with particular policies. But, today, I should like to point out to the house the spirit in which I approach my task in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
I have a tremendous task, of course, since I follow after my colleague, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), who effected sweeping changes within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration by introducing principles of liberalism which had been missing for so many years. He had to renew the tradition established by a former

minister who had founded that department and had endowed it with a spirit that is still prevailing, but that I am trying to intensify;
I refer to the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).
What is meant by liberalism in immigration and Indian affairs?
In accordance with the tradition of the Liberal party, that obviously means active sympathy towards the new Canadians who have left their homeland to contribute with the founding groups to the value, to the culture and to the future of our country.
The opening of Canada to immigration means first of all that our new citizens will find an open and friendly welcome upon their arrival here and that they will be treated fairly and charitably. That is what we needed to revitalize our country, as I hope it will be. It means also the active promotion of immigration. In other words, we must not wait for people to come to us; we must go to them by publicizing our country and spreading a true image of Canada abroad.
If we carry out such a liberal immigration policy, there will be much more immigration to help our country prosper. I am not at all worried about the impact that the arrival of thousands of immigrants could have on our country. If, on the one hand, those people come here with a true picture of what our country is like and if, on the other hand, we make a judicious choice of the people we let in, our immigrant population will not feel lost because, while our labour market might not always be in a position to absorb unskilled workers, it can undoubtedly use thousands of trained people.
To be liberal in matters of immigration, that means also to pay particular attention to the new Canadian families who have established themselves and would like to bring their kin over to rebuild, in this country, a family group that may have been broken through years of separation.
It is therefore necessary to make serious propaganda efforts abroad in favour of our country, in view of recruiting the new workers we so greatly need at this time, while protecting the areas where there is a manpower surplus. It also means first to listen sympathetically to the representations of families who want to be reunited, and then to take appropriate measures, legislative measures, if necessary, to enable these families to be reunited and give these Canadians a greater measure of happiness on this land of ours.
I think that Canada's accomplishments as regards the Indian affairs' field are not very impressive. The people from abroad who come

to visit our Indian reserves are disappointed and grieved when they find out the living conditions of many of our Indians in this modern age when educational and cultural facilities are everywhere at a high level but are often non-existent in Indian communities.
Hence, one might say that it is essential -and this is the government's responsibility, that of the Liberal party-to devise as soon as possible a double purpose policy, the first purpose being the encouragement to be given the Indians, that is help them feel more and more proud of belonging to a race as good as any other, by promoting their cultural development in the Indian community itself through schools and the setting up of social groups, which will prompt them to become conscious of the importance of their group and help them maintain their self respect as Indians.
On the other hand, those Indians wish to share the well-being experienced in Canada. They want to work and have their children educated like other Canadians.
Therefore, the federal government must- and that is our responsibility, in co-operation with the provinces, and we shall have a conference in May precisely for that purpose- facilitate, for all the Indians in this country, access to greater social and economic welfare, so that when the centennial of confederation comes, at the time we celebrate the success of our country, the Indians can be proud, not only because they have remained Indians, but because they have succeeded in sharing the same advantages as all other Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I should like to refer to some particular problems concerning Indian affairs, but I should like to do so in English, precisely in order to show that, in this country, the two official languages must spread as much as possible so that, seeing such comprehension between the founding groups in this country, the new groups which I represent in this house as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will realize that if there are two official languages and two fundamental cultures in the country, we shall always be glad to give a special place in our community to new Canadians and to Indians who were the first citizens of this country.

When I assumed my new duties I was amazed by the amount and variety of work carried on in Indian affairs and by the importance of the contribution being made to Canada as a whole in this field. There has been an increasing effort on the part of the government to bring the Indians more fully into the economic and social life of our country, and we now see many of our first
20220-21J
The Address-Mr. Tremblay citizens numbered among our best citizens. When I say this, I refer particularly to the Indian leaders I have met in the last few days. I think of Chief Shot Both Sides and some of his councillors from the Blood band, of William Wuttunee, president of the national Indian council of Canada. I have been greatly impressed by the quality and evidence of responsible Indian leadership. I would like to assure you that I have the interest of these people close to my heart and that I shall spare no effort to bring about full equality for them. In order that I may help, as far as I can, to achieve this end, I am determined to learn as much as possible concerning our Canadian Indians, their problems and their aspirations. I shall do this by diligent study and by as many visits to Indian reserves and communities as time permits.
As you know, we are at present seeking the views of the Indians with respect to the provisions of the proposed Indian claims legislation which was introduced last December. We have sent the bill to the band councils^ Indian organizations, Indian friendship centres and many non-Indian organizations as well as the provinces. We have asked for their comments and suggestions. When all the suggestions have been received they will be considered, and it is expected to have the bill, with such changes as may be considered desirable, introduced at a later stage this session. It is hoped that as a result of such legislation, Indian claims which have so long been a source of grievance to Indians can be dealt with in a fair and just manner.
I should now like to turn for a moment to another matter which is assuming increasing importance, and that is the growing efforts that are being made to extend the range of standard provincial services to Indian communities. I believe that we all recognize the need to cut through the wall which has tended to keep Indians separate from the rest of the population. In this regard all levels of government have a vital role to play. I am glad to say that positive steps have been taken in this field. As reported last session by my predecessor in office, the present Minister of Justice, Indian affairs was discussed at the federal-provincial conference in November for the first time. The fact that Indian affairs was on the agenda at all reflects the growing concern about the place of Indians in our country by the federal as well as by all provincial governments. The decision to discuss the matter was in line with the unanimous recommendation of the last joint committee on Indian affairs which examined Indian administration for three years.

The Address-Mr. Tremblay Progress is being made. There is now general agreement that desirable long term objectives for Indian people can best be achieved through the concerted efforts of the federal and provincial governments. It was recognized during the conference that the subject was a most complex one and that it would have to be developed further at later meetings. In fact, I think we can assume that all present at the conference realized that a continuing process of consultation between the federal and provincial authorities and the leaders of the Indian people would be essential to the achievement of the long term objectives. In any event, the conference agreed that discussions on the general subject should be pursued at a further federal-provincial ministerial conference. We are in the process of consulting with the provincial governments concerning the planning of the next conference. We cannot at this time forecast the nature of the discussions that will take place nor the results that will be achieved. However, it is my hope that in the light of the objectives agreed upon in November it will be possible for the next conference to establish basic guide lines for co-ordinating federal and provincial services in policy and program areas. We would hope too that the conference might go even further and establish priority of program areas, such as welfare services, and thus enable federal and provincial officials to work out and develop plans for co-ordinating and implementing these policies and programs.
As I mentioned, the subject of Indian affairs is a most complex one and it is not expected that any single conference or meeting can resolve all the problems that are inherent in improving the welfare of the Indian people. A start must be made at some point, if only on a trial basis, and we hope that the conference will be able to reach agreement in this respect. One of the most difficult tasks confronting us is the development of an effective method of consulting the Indians on the changing pattern in their affairs. We firmly believe they must be consulted and that their co-operation and support are essential to achieving beneficial long range results.
We recognize, however, that it will rarely be possible to achieve complete agreement. As my predecessor stated when the estimates of this department were before the house last December, we must be ready to accommodate ourselves to the legitimate demands of the Indians, and to recognize and respect the different values and aspirations inherent in their culture. We must go much further and create bonds of confidence and mutual respect.


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


René Tremblay: Thank you; I will only take a minute. While the final responsibility and decision will rest with parliament we believe we should be ready to adjust and accommodate our policies and programs to meet the needs and aspirations of the Indian people.

Mr. Speaker, by taking part in the debate at the beginning of the session, I simply wanted to indicate the spirit in which I intend to tackle the difficult and complex task which will be mine. I wanted to define exactly the manner in which I intend to carry out this twofold task of allowing our country to better the lot of our first citizens in order that they be placed on an equal footing with the other ethnic groups and of opening our doors wider to welcome in greater numbers people from other countries who want to join us in making a success of this tremendous Canadian undertaking which will never end.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I first add my words of congratulation to those already extended to the hon. member for Longueuil and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard on moving and seconding the address in reply to His Excellency's speech.
This afternoon I want to take a critical look at the state of the Canada pension plan, said by the Prime Minister in his initial speech to be the most important of all items of legislation which the government will submit this session. In taking a critical look I do not intend to be deterred by the efforts of the Prime Minister, which have seemed to me to be rather clumsy, to make it appear that our party is opposed to a system of contributory pensions in Canada. Following the words of the Prime Minister, as found on page 55 of Hansard of February 20, 1964, to which I have just alluded, the Prime Minister referred to the contributory pension scheme "to which my right hon. friend and his friends are opposed". The Prime Minister knew perfectly well that the words he spoke were wrong. He hopes to silence well deserved criticism of this mess of a plan and to imply thereby that we are opposed to it.
First, all across the country people are wondering about the reason for the rather desperate attitude of the government in trying to jam this piece of legislation through without proper consideration and without proper

consultation and agreement with the provinces. I think the answers are very obvious. All other propositions that the government brought in were washed out in one way or another and they cannot admit that there are errors in this one. Second, they think it necessary that they ride it through before the people know what the plan really is, and this afternoon I hope to point out some of the very serious shortcomings. Third, their hope is that critical analysis will make it appear that we are opposed, which is not the case at all.
To find out what is wrong with the plan we have to find out who is going to lose out if the plan as now proposed is carried into effect. I am going to list six groups of Canadians, constituting 80 per cent or more of our population, who will get no benefit whatever out of the Canada pension plan as it is now proposed. In the first place, the people of Quebec, 5,259,000 according to the 1961 census, will not be included. I will make some remarks about that later.
In the second place, all those Canadians over 65 who are now retired or who will retire before the plan comes into effect will receive nothing out of the Canada pension plan. I think this is something they do not realize but it is a fact that if they are over 65 and have retired there is nothing in the Canada pension plan for them. How many, Mr. Speaker, are eagerly awaiting the implementation of the Canada pension plan in the hope they are going to get something out of it? According to the 1961 census there are 1,084,000 people in Canada outside of Quebec who are over 65. Many of these may still be working and for a fair figure perhaps we should take the number over 70 as a guide, which is 714,674. This group will receive nothing from the Canada pension plan.
In the third place, wives and children of breadwinners need not wait anxiously for the implementation of the Canada pension plan. There is nothing in it for them. There are no survivorship or dependency benefits in the Canada pension plan. It is rather startling to realize that a man could pay into the Canada pension plan all his working years, perhaps for 40 years, and if he died at the age of 64 neither he, nor his widow nor his children would receive one cent from the Canada pension plan. This is a startling provision that I think will cause many to stop and think.
Furthermore, if a person is foolish enough to discontinue a private pension plan with the company for whom he works or even the present civil service pension plans and go into the Canada pension plan, he will find he has gone to a plan which has no survivor benefits from a plan which has. In the event
The Address-Mr. Aiken of his death his widow will discover to her sorrow that only to the extent that the private plan of the former employer provided some benefits, is she going to get anything. This is even worse, Mr. Speaker, when you realize that many people will not understand that there are no survivorship benefits and if they are forced by the method by which the plan is put into effect to discontinue a private plan and come under the Canada pension plan they will be giving up survivorship benefits. I think this should be fully explained because the government cannot give survivorship or dependency benefits without a constitutional amendment, and it was made perfectly clear that they are not going to seek one.
The fourth group who are going to get nothing out of the Canada pension plan are the sick and disabled, the unemployed, the single woman at home, the self employed with very small income and the casual labourer. All need not look for anything out of the Canada pension plan because they will receive nothing. In fact, it is estimated in the government's own literature on this subject that 20 per cent of the male population between 18 and 64 and 70 per cent of the female population in the same age group will not come under the plan. If we look at the figures, according to the 1961 census this means approximately 697,900 males and 2,369,000 females outside the province of Quebec who will not benefit.
In the fifth place, of course, there is a group of 5,888,000 Canadians under 18 years outside the province of Quebec who will benefit very little from the plan. In fact, they will be paying for it all in the next few years. They are the big losers under the Canada pension plan as now set up. The big winners will be the few people who comprise less than 19 per cent of the population of Canada. Young people under 18 will be the losers under this plan because 10, 15 and 20 years from now they will be paying the inflated premiums on the basis of which money will shortly be paid out.
Finally, there are those who have part time employment or seasonal employment or who work for very small wages. They will get very little, if anything, from the plan. All they will get is a pension based on the amount of their wages as reported by their employer or by themselves. I understand it is the intention to make the calculations from income tax returns so, unless there is some other provision, a person who does not file income tax returns will have no way, if he is self employed, of coming under the Canada pension plan. This group will get very little

The Address-Mr. Aiken because they will have accumulated no pension benefits during their working years. I believe this group is the one that most urgently needs assistance under a pension plan.
These are the six identifiable groups of Canadians. I have totalled them up from the figures supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics. There are 14,929,000 Canadians who will not benefit from the Canadian pension plan as it is presently constituted. This amounts to 81.66 per cent of the entire population. There is nothing in it for that group. These are not phony figures. They are taken from the literature that has been supplied by the government and figures obtained through the dominion bureau of statistics census returns that all of us have in our offices, population statistics in Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to those groups I suggest that Canada as a whole will suffer if there is to be one plan for the province of Quebec and one plan for the rest of Canada. This will tend to increase that division that is presently indicated in connection with the problems that we meet here from day to day. Will there not be a very clearly defined line between the province of Quebec and the other provinces if a resident of Quebec benefits in a different manner from the residents of the other provinces? Quebec is striving to evolve a plan of its own. I hope it will be a much better one than this, and probably it will be because Quebec has the constitutional ability to give survivorship benefits which the federal government does not have. Here, you have a distinct division with Quebec separated from the rest of Canada. This does not have to be the case. Arrangements could be worked out so that the two plans will be similar. This is not being done. It is for this reason I say we have to take a more serious look at this whole plan.
I have defined the people who will not benefit under this plan, and I should like now to look at what is wrong with the plan itself, as I see it. First, it encourages inflation by encouraging less saving and more spending. You may ask the reason, and this is it. Those who pay into the Canada pension plan will naturally feel that they are saving for their old age and for their families. Those who pay into the fund will feel that the 1 per cent of their earnings which they pay plus the 1 per cent which is paid by their employers will look after their future. It is well known that in order to be actuarially sound a pension fund requires a payment of at least 5 per cent of the total earnings. This will provide a proper retirement income. Most of the private plans are on this basis. I say that the people having paid this 1 per cent into the fund will
[Mr. Aiken.l

think they have done very well by themselves and their families.
Well, we know that they have done nothing for their families because their families are not included. Furthermore, they should at least be saving the amount of 5 per cent that would be required to give them a retirement income. They will spend what remains of their income after this contribution because that would be the natural inclination. While this may be a good thing in the short run, it is going to drain the savings of the Canadian people and we need this money for investment income. I am going to mention in a few minutes the reason the normal sources of investment income are going to dry up as a result of this plan.
The second real objection to the plan as it is now constituted is that it drains off investment capital from the hands of the public. It will, as I should like to express it, create a stagnant pool of investment funds in the hands of the federal treasury. As first planned, this was to be a "pay as you go" pension plan. In other words, no great sums of money would be built up. But it has now been revised to the point where instead of a $300 million working reserve at the end of ten years we are going to have something like $2.5 billion or $3 billion of working capital at the end of ten years. This is a very large sum of money to be taken out of the hands of private investors and private investment companies. If it were in private hands, it could be used for investment in industrial, commercial or homebuilding enterprises. In the hands of the federal government, it will be dead money, just a debit entry on the books or used by the government in meeting its deficits by the simple expedient of purchasing federal government bonds. I think we can be fairly sure that is what will happen. The amount that has been paid in, then, will be nothing more than a debt of the people of Canada; it will not even exist as live funds. It is for this reason I think the present plan is bad. This money is badly needed in private savings banks for investment and for lending by the banks and by trust companies or insurance companies, but it will be lying dead in the hands of the federal treasury.
I think the provinces have a good case for asking that the bulk of these funds be returned to or used by the provinces from which they came for expansion within the province. It is being suggested now that only 50 per cent be returned to the province. The province of Ontario says we should have 90 per cent of it returned to the province from which the funds came for investment within the province, until such time as the money is needed

for payments to pensions. This sounds reasonable, but it has not been met. I feel that this is another matter that has to be ironed out between the federal government and the provinces.
Surely, the financing of this plan is on the chain letter principle. The principle of the chain letter, as hon. members are aware, is that one letter builds into two, $1 builds into $2, and so forth. Eventually, most chain letter systems break down and someone is a big loser. I am suggesting that the people who are going to be paying into this plan ten or 15 years from now are going to be the big losers. I can see that during the first few years of this plan the money paid in by the working force will be used to pay economic benefits to those who have contributed very little. For example, Mr. Speaker, a person who retires in the first few years of this plan will receive $10 out of the fund for every dollar he has put into it. This sounds rather attractive, especially if you can say you are getting it from the government. However, you are not getting it from the government because the government has not contributed anything.
Where does this money come from? It is going to take ten years, the first ten years, for this plan to build up to even a reasonable equity and another ten years to build the fund to a point where it is going to be run on a proper accounting basis. The money that is going to be paid out in the first ten years will have to come from the future contributors, as I say, the young people and the middle aged people, who will shortly come under the plan. They will be the big losers. They are the ones who are going to have to make up this other $9 that is presently being paid out, and not out of federal funds at all. In spite of the tremendous $2.5 billion or $3 billion reserves that the federal plan will have built up in ten years, it will still be desperately short of money to make the payments as they come due and to carry out the obligations of the plan.
I think there is only one answer. The rate of contributions will have to go up. The government has proposed a palatable plan for the next one, two or three years. It is palatable to those who will go on first, but if the plan is going to pay out $10 for every $1 it receives then something is going to give in future. This is why I call it a chain letter plan, and it will be built up and go flat in the same way as chain letters do.
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.
The Address-Mr. Aiken
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible to tie in any private pension plans with the Canada pension plan. This is one of the things the provinces have been trying to ferret out from the government. How is it going to tie in their private plans, the big plans, the large corporation plans, the civil service plans of both the provinces and the federal government? These plans already in effect are stable, but the Canada pension plan will not be stable.
The amount you get out of the Canada pension plan depends on two or three things. First, it depends on the wages you, as an individual, will get during your working life. How are you going to know, when you start out, how much you are going to be earning 30 or 40 years hence? You cannot be sure, but nevertheless your payments are decided on that basis.
The second thing is the general increase in wages. If you were to go back 20 or 30 years and compare wages then with wages now, and if you had set up a plan on that basis and paid on that basis, it would not have been a very sensible proposal. But this is what is to be done under the Canada pension plan and it is impossible unless there is some criteria, some basis, for saying, "All right, you have got your private plan; you have paid a lot of money into it. You can take that plan and add what you are going to get out of the Canada pension plan and then you will know on what you are going to retire." It will be impossible for the average worker to figure out whether he should drop his private plan with some company or whether he should continue it. This is one thing which has not been settled, and no indication has been given that it will be settled.
Someone may say I am here today fronting for the insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, I do not know any insurance people except the ones to whom I pay my premiums, but we have to look at the figures covering the amount of money held for retirement private plans in Canada, and they are also in the 1961 dominion bureau of statistic's figures.
Trustees-and these are trust plans including private trust funds such as Bell Telephone, the C.N.R., and even public service plans which are all non-profit trust plans held for the employees-totalled 67 per cent, amounting to $4,074,000,000. Some 67 per cent are held in private trusts not connected with insurance companies. Second, the insurance companies hold $1,397,000,000 of trust funds, which is only 23 per cent of the money held in trust for retirement benefits. Canadian government annuities, which amount to $610 million, account for 10 per cent of private

The Address-Mr. Aiken funds. Therefore I am not here to say that private insurance companies are going to lose out, or that their figures should be accepted.
The figures I am giving of 4 per cent to 6 per cent are the average income requirements to make a proper plan, and how the government is going to do it on 2 per cent is absolutely beyond me.
The fifth objection is that the plan creates insurmountable difficulties in the welfare field and uneven distribution of welfare benefits. Those who go on the plan after, say, 10 or 12 years of paying premiums, are going to get an equal amount or even less than those who go on first. This is on an actuarial basis. I do not know why this is done, but this is a fact.
Further, the plan is going to allow the collection of old age security at age 65 on a basis of $51 a month for life. This is an option that is going to be given, according to what we are told. So, who is going to wait until he is 70? Not many people, especially if they can get it without any means test and draw it for life, and in that case lots of people are going to draw it at age 65. But then what happens when they see their neighbour, who retires a year or two later when the plan is in full effect, and he is drawing a maximum of $150 a month? The people who exercised their option at age 65 will say they want more assistance. Where can they get it? They can get it from the old age assistance, and as soon as they start on old age assistance they become an expense to the provinces, including the province of Quebec, because the provinces pay half of old age assistance. This is where they are going to get the extra they need, or else they are going to look to the pension fund, as they now regard the unemployment insurance fund. They are going to say, "There is a nice large fund of $2 billion or $2J billion built up. Why cannot I get some of it?"
It is going to create a lot of dissatisfaction and uneven benefits. One man with small payments will get $150 a month while his next door neighbour draws only $51 a month. The man next door may have been foolish, but there will be no good in telling him that because he will think the government made that offer and that it was practical.
These provisions also create a situation where it is equally or even more beneficial to retire at age 65 than at 70. It is an anomaly in the plan because the rates were revised downwards for those who retire at 70.
My time is about up, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to summarize what I have said and what my feelings are in connection with the plan. First of all, the idea of a retirement plan did not originate with the present government. I think I speak for all in our party 

when I say we are in favour of an equitable retirement pension plan on a scale that the country can afford.
The proposed plan is deficient in that it does not provide survivor benefits; it does not provide equitable coverage; it does not provide an arrangement for the survival of private plans and private capital; and it provides pensions for those who do not really need them while, at the same time, it does not provide the pensions for those who need them most. In fact it subsidizes those who need them least, those in the middle and high income brackets.
Many of the deficiencies can be corrected by consultation, by amendment and by detailed study, but I submit that the effort of the government to jam this thing through, even by putting it to a committee of the house and asking us to sort it out, can never bring about a proper settlement, because the provinces are as fully equal partners in this plan as we are in this house.


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford).
On February 18 we heard the speech from the throne which was read by His Excellency the Governor General. We heard nothing new, for the Liberal party outlined neither its policy with respect to the economy of the country nor the stand the government will take to stem unemployment. In short, they beat around the bush without proposing the required solutions.
Mr. Speaker, If I had to choose the two most important things for our country, I would say that we must first of all find out if we can ensure the country's unity, make it a reality and, if we succeed, to ensure the economic growth which will make of Canada a prosperous country, a happy nation, which will enable it to play a capital role in our rapidly changing world.
Biculturalism and bilingualism, the revision of the constitution, are questions which do not leave us cold. The royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism will, I hope, bring tangible results which will make it possible to amend the constitution so that the two ethnic groups which make up Canada can live in perfect harmony.
I do hope that we shall accept the principle of a complete and perfect understanding between the two great races which built this country. We must never forget that the best agreements were never reached in a lawyer's office or by means of contracts or covenants,

because, fundamentally, any life shared in common is always full of plain, ordinary little things.
I was saying a moment ago that another great problem which interests and concerns us is Canada's economic growth. Whether we like it or not, the present day government is becoming more and more involved in business operations and, through irresponsible actions, may plunge Canada into an economic slump. As a matter of fact, the 11 per cent tax on building materials imposed last summer by the government has had serious repercussions in the field of construction, whatever the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) might think.
If industry increases its production in a general way, it will become important for the government to find a system of fair distribution. It is up to the government to find the means to stimulate this country's economic development. That object will only be attained if the government is able to guarantee a better distribution of manufactured goods. But how can this be achieved? By giving the consumer more buying power. That buying power may be created by reducing taxes or increasing family allowances, or yet by a national dividend.
Those measures would result in an economic upsurge which would create new employment possibilities, to meet the problem of the young people arriving on the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, there is another problem which slows down the rate of economic development, and that is unemployment. A machine which lies idle can deteriorate and its lack of activity means a decrease in production. But the man without a job is deprived of his share in the nation's production and without some needed assistance, he will not be able to feed himself. In our society, nothing is more humiliating and more terrible than forced inaction.
In November 1963, there were 303,000 jobless people registered at the unemployment insurance office. But the most alarming aspect is that forced unemployment mostly strikes at the other end of the social ladder.
Unemployment, that might be called the cancer of Canadian economy, is still too high and has been so for too many years. The government should tackle the problem by resorting not just to half measures, but to spectacular action. The government tried to solve the problem of unemployment by rather conservative legislation, like the winter works program, limited public works, housing aid, etc. Those measures have given some results, but did not have the expected success. It is 20220-22
The Address-Mr. Beaule therefore up to the government to work out complete and permanent measures, even if they entail some risk.
What is needed to make unemployment regress in Canada is, first of all, lower taxes, a vast public works program, municipal loans without interest, as well as the financing of industrial and commercial development, everything being guaranteed by the Bank of Canada.
Through these measures, we would see at one fell swoop unemployment decrease markedly and the rate of economic growth increase more rapidly. The time for action has come and I hope the government will act so as to ensure to millions of Canadians a better economy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to state before the house the position of the employees of the Valcartier arsenal, near Quebec city, hundreds of whom live in my constituency.
In November last I asked the following question of the Minister of Industry:
Can the minister inform the house whether he is aware of the situation of the employees of the Valcartier arsenal, and also that materials have been used for purposes other than those of national defence?
The minister answered he was not aware of the situation and would make an inquiry. Two days later he answered the situation was normal. It was at that time I wrote to the Minister of Industry explaining the complaints and the grievances voiced by the employees.
As a result, the minister sent my letter to the president of the arsenals, Mr. J. R. Brisson, and here is the reply I received from the latter:
After conducting an inquiry, I may assure you there are no undue pressures being exerted on our workers at Valcartier. Mr. Simard, as manager of production, is responsible for the efficiency of the department as well as for the delivery of finished products, according to a well-established schedule. As such, he must exercise the controls necessary to achieve this goal. Quotas and cost standards for the production division are established by another department employing industrial engineering methods generally recognized and used in industry.
Those methods take into consideration the employees effort and, far from overloading them, those methods, during the last years, resulted in a great number of changes in our production lines and in a noticeable improvement of working conditions in our plant. Generally, our employees now make a smaller physical effort while attaining higher efficiency.
And here is the inconsistency, Mr. Speaker:
We admit that the employees may be under continuous nervous tension due to job insecurity.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. Brisson, earlier in his letter, gave the reasons for such working conditions existing in Valcartier

The Address-Mr. Beaule arsenal, but, on the other hand, he realized that the employees were under nervous tension.
I continue:
The considerable decrease in work, personnel reduction and the decision taken during the year to close three plants of the company, contributed to that state of mind.
And as I was not satisfied with the reply, I wrote Mr. Brisson the following letter:
In reply to your letter of December 10, re employees of Valcartier.
The result of your inquiry into the situation of the Valcartier employees does not agree with my own inquiry in this area.
I can assure you that undue pressures are brought to bear on the employees, so much so that they do not know any longer what to do. I also heard that the manager, Mr. Alphonse Simard, uses abusive language with the employees. I learned also that materials were taken outside the arsenal's walls for purposes other than national defence.
I believe that this situation must be remedied immediately and I ask an inquiry by the R.C.M.P. into that state of affairs.
I believe, dear Mr. Brisson, that you will give your close attention to this letter because your answer does not satisfy me.
Mr. Brisson answered as follows on February 5:
In a recent telephone call, I advised you about the steps we had taken following your letter of December 17, 1963.
I can now confirm that following your request, steps have been taken so that the R.C.M.P. may launch an inquiry into the Arsenal Federal de Quebec.
I do not know whether results were obtained, for he merely confirmed that steps were taken. But last Saturday I read like everybody else in the newspapers that the government, through Canadian Arsenals Limited intended to sell the Valcartier workshop to private interests. This proves, Mr. Speaker, that I was right in asking an inquiry in this area.
Today, no doubt because that would hurt someone, rather than making an inquiry, it is merely decided to sell that industry in order to remove every suspicion. Selling the industry will not remove doubts and an inquiry must be made in that area. It was requested many times by the employees. I fully recall that the employees met the present Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) in the 1958 and 1962 election campaigns, when he was candidate in the Quebec East riding, to ask him to intervene with the government to the end that justice be done. But he did not follow up the employees' request. Today, he is in the best position to deal with the government and support the request I make on the employees' behalf.
Therefore, I ask the minister what is the administration costs of the Valcartier arsenals and of the employee classification division, what is the number of foremen and deputy

foremen who do not know what to do but who give orders to the employees, how these orders are passed on to the employees, what is the quantity of materials that was used for purposes other than national defence, a question about which nobody talked because of the blackmailing resorted to by some section heads?
On December 27, the committee which is supposed to represent the employees sent a letter of protest to the minister, asking him not to grant my request and the minister quickly congratulated them. Do you know that that letter was dictated by the section heads and that not a single employee was consulted when the committee took action?
I myself notified the chairman of Canadian Arsenals Limited that the letter, addressed to the minister, did not follow a resolution voted by the employees. On the contrary, that letter was addressed to the minister without the consent of the employees and the chairman of the arsenal was supposed to advise the committee concerned, but nothing was done along that line.
At present, everything is being done to have the employees agree to work 30 minutes more per day, that is two hours and 30 minutes more per week, at a time when in industry, the general trend is to reduce the number of work hours for the employees. In Valcartier, they try to extend working hours, to make the employees work two hours and 30 minutes more per week. People go from one section to the other in the workshop to talk the employees into accepting that compromise, otherwise the workshop will be sold.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that this blackmail system cannot be tolerated any longer and that steps must be taken immediately to set things straight. In the face of such a situation, nothing is said and today, rather than put things in order in that crown corporation, and to guarantee their jobs to all the employees, they prefer to sell the workshop to private interests who, I am sure, will operate with profit.
This all goes to show that there was leakage, patronage and mismanagement. We have every reason to believe that this crown corporation in Valcartier is managed by a group of friends. Rather than accept an investigation which, I am certain, would disclose numerous irregularities, they would rather sell out the workshop.
Mr. Speaker, employees of crown corporations surely deserve to be treated better than that, and the government should do everything possible to guarantee every employee a minimum security through a good and sound administration. Consequently, I ask the minister to do the necessary clean up

so employees can regain confidence and be more efficient. Thus, that crown corporation will be in better shape.
In closing, I ask the minister to step in so that this corporation remains under the ownership of the crown and that arrangements can be made to prevent the sale of Canadian Arsenals Limited in Valcartier.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I express my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They undertook, and they discharged, their respective roles in accord with the traditions of this house, and their observations on our national affairs will prove to be valuable contributions to the work of this twenty sixth parliament. Mr. Speaker, in speaking in this throne speech debate I propose to have regard to the amendment which is before the house. I shall prove that the government, which is beginning its second session, has already demonstrated its ability to bring Canada to a high degree of stability in its social and economic affairs.
I propose to question the observations of those who sit on the benches opposite. I believe it can be fully and clearly demonstrated that much that has been said is contrary to fact, a great deal is fiction, and indeed much has been misleading to the Canadian public who desire, that when criticism is made, at least it be constructive criticism of government measures which are proposed in this house from time to time. The members of the opposition, particularly those of the official opposition, challenge the claims of the government. This was demonstrated fully last night by the leader of the official opposition in the program "The Nation's Business". He went on to say that people make mistakes and he referred to a sporting event, with regard to which he suggested that when the odds are 7 to 1 against you, you might still win; in other words, the feats of Cassius might be duplicated. I hope that Canada never has inflicted upon her, in her political affairs at least, the kind of performance demonstrated by the gentleman who won the fight the other night.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, during my remarks prior to the adjournment at six o'clock I made the observation that the government, under the direction of the right hon. Prime Minister
20220-22i
The Address-Mr. Lloyd at the beginning of this second session-and, indeed, in the last session-has demonstrated its ability to bring Canada to the degree of stability in its social and economic affairs that all Canadians want to see this government accomplish. I went on to say that in some quarters of the house, on the opposition benches, they attempted to draw attention away from this by criticizing the timing of certain items of legislation which were a commitment of the Liberal party during the last election campaign. As one of those candidates, a successful one in the Halifax riding, I would like to read, as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) did today, this statement into the record:
The Liberal program (in 1963) is the same as we put forward last year. It deals with the same problems which face our country. It is a program for a four year term of government. We do not pretend that everything can be done at once. The program will be carried out according to priorities.
Any businesslike administration in Canada, any informative administration in Canada, any efficient organization of this parliament, would certainly require that a political party that was successful and became the government of the day would follow a system of priorities. Nobody would expect otherwise. Certainly in 1963-


Mr. Winkler:: What did you do?


John Edward Lloyd: I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman opposite who comments at the moment belongs to that party that looks at the Minister of Trade and Commerce and accuses him of smiling and sneering when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking-


Eric Alfred Winkler: No, I was looking at you.


John Edward Lloyd: -as though such a profound observation had anything to do with the work and procedures of this House of Commons. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to continue to point out that the program of priorities established by the Liberal government is one that all Canadians approve and applaud. One of the most outstanding priorities is to be certain that when you propose plans and measures involving great expenditures of money, you at least attempt to relate them to the ability of Canadians to meet the costs, through taxation, of such programs and measures. This is the first step that you undertake.
I am convinced, as is the government which I support, that as soon as resources permit- and they will permit it under the program which is now in progress-the matter which is at issue tonight in the amendment before the house, namely that of family allowances, will be met, and met much more rapidly by proceeding efficiently with our work than will be the case by dilly-dallying along the road
328	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lloyd with time consuming and time wasting efforts to create a critical situation that is not in the best interests of Canadians at this time.
Let us examine the evidence. One hon. member asked what we had done. Let me point out to the hon. gentleman, in the first place, that if he had paid attention on Thursday, February 20, to one of the most outstanding addresses on the state of a nation, given by the Prime Minister, he would have the answers that he seeks tonight. May I remind the hon. gentleman that reference was made to the speech from the throne in that very excellent address of the right hon. Prime Minister. In his address he endeavoured to outline, and did so with great ability, the reasons for the proposals contained in the speech from the throne being put forward during this session. He mentioned the contributory pension plan, on which a great deal of time and effort has been spent by many people. I do not see how it is possible to put forward any relevant debate, any comprehensive criticism, except in broad principle, in regard to a contributory pension plan unless you have the precise legislation in front of you.
There is no doubt that the government has faithfully and properly undertaken its responsibility to consult the provinces. While these consultations continue, and while there is the jockeying that goes on for position which is inevitable in such consultations, we must be patient and see what is distilled from the great debate. When we receive the legislation in our hands, I am sure constructive criticism can then be made from the opposite side of the chamber on this very important matter of great benefit, as it will be, to Canadians who at the present time are not covered by private pension plans. Furthermore, it has been indicated that we are keeping faith in our program by reason of the proposal to establish a system of interest free loans to students at our universities.
The question of scholarships and bursaries for qualifying students is now under study by the Canadian universities foundation. Minimum labour standards will be extended. The proposed measure has been explained by the Minister of Labour and it will be put before this house. There is the very important question of the redistribution of seats, which I think all hon. members would prefer to have done in an orderly fashion, although there is another way it can be done, of course, and it is in the hands of the house to do that tonight if they wish. However, it seems to me that Canadians would much prefer to have an election after a redistribution bill has been passed by the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Are you worried?


John Edward Lloyd: I am not concerned about it. I do not see why anybody coming from the constituency of Halifax should be worried, as one hon. gentleman has observed. I have in my hands The Mail-Star, a Halifax newspaper, of Tuesday, February 25 this year. The headline reads:
Waterfront boom tops record of past 20 years. Twenty five ocean-going ships alongside Halifax docks.
The article reads in part:
The hectic pace of the last few weeks along Halifax waterfront reached a new climax this morning with 28 ocean-going freighters in port.
Further on the article says:
A national harbours board spokesman says: "This sustained volume of trade through Halifax this winter beats anything since the mid 1940's.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Lloyd: The article then says:
We were 50,000 tons up in general cargo through the port in January-
This kind of reporting on the economic condition of Canada is in my opinion far better and far more meaningful than the writhings and contortions of hon. members who indulge in twisting statistics in order to make a political point out of nothing. Mr. Speaker, may I also assure you that this is the kind of activity that we want to see in our ports in the winter. We want to see this activity continued, and we believe we will find ways to continue it through the agency of the Atlantic development board which is at present undertaking economic research which is so essential, rather than the idle, superficial mutterings of those who do no research work at all.


Eric Alfred Winkler: When was the board formed?


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne mentions that we should do something about the Senate, and I do not think anybody disagrees with that. We have also expressed our concern about bringing in effective measures to deal with the matter of the periodical press of Canada and by way of amendments to the Income Tax Act and the tariff regulations we hope to accomplish something in line with the recommendations of the O'Leary commission. The subject of cable television programming will be given consideration.
We have a new Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) and this is an appropriate time to congratulate the new minister who holds this particular post in the government. I might say that this reminds me of the fact that the new Minister of Forestry was chairman of the all-party defence committee. He did an excellent job. He demonstrated his capacity

to understand the practical economics involved in defence expenditures, and I am certain he will go on to perform his work in a manner that will arouse the admiration of all in this house.
Those legislative measures to which I have referred as being the subject of comment in the speech from the throne should be related to the progress in the first session of this parliament. I have already mentioned the Atlantic development board and the $100 million. I have not mentioned so far, but I think it is worth while mentioning, the excellent work of the Minister of Labour in connection with the trusteeship legislation introduced to solve the problems we were having on the great lakes. I am sure that nobody will take exception to any evidence of progress, good thinking and efficiency on the part of government as evidenced by the establishment of the Department of Industry and its area agencies and the provision of tax incentives.
Finally, I should like to refer to the economic council. I have sat on this side of the house since entering the House of Commons last May and on many occasions I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition remind the house of his past accomplishments. He refers to the things he has done and, of course, according to him anything we do had its beginning in legislation introduced during his term of office. Let me read to you very briefly from a copy of a speech made by me in Montreal in 1944, 20 years ago. What does it say about a bill of rights?
Based on a bill of rights to achieve universal understanding of our national objectives, political reform to inspire confidence that the job will be faithfully done, a ministry of economic research to unfetter true private enterprise and with which to sanely plan the road ahead for John Canuck-
I am glad that 20 years later I am a member of this house supporting a government that subscribes to these principles and objectives. In those days I was described as an idealist like the Leader of the Opposition. However, that is not so today.
I should like to point out that in my opinion the economic council under the present chairman combined with the royal commission on taxation and the royal commission on banking will bring to members of the house the kind of information and guidance that is absolutely essential to bring about that degree of stability which all Canadians want us to accomplish. It is on our doorstep, and it seems to me that we should proceed with the measures before us as expeditiously as possible and attempt so to arrange our affairs that we can reach a position where we can proceed with other proposals in the Liberal program according
The Address-Mr. Lloyd to their priority at a much earlier date than we will reach them under the amendment before us tonight.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let us know what those proposals are.


John Edward Lloyd: There is no point wasting too much time on the amendment before us this evening. Its purpose is abundantly clear. Its purpose is simply to bring about a situation, if possible-


Eric Alfred Winkler: To throw the government out.


John Edward Lloyd: -that will result in a change of government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is right.


John Edward Lloyd: But then we would get into the turmoil of an election again, and all Canadians, of course, want this. They just love this idea.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You will not be back.


John Edward Lloyd: I am not worrying. As I mentioned earlier, all I have to do is read this very comforting headline.


Mr. Pugh:: What about 1867?


John Edward Lloyd: No matter where we may sit in this house, surely common sense dictates that before we go back to the electorate of Canada we must put ourselves in the position of being able to go back with some accomplishments and with a record of constructive criticism on the part of the opposition. Surely to goodness we must at least proceed in that fashion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Have you read the record?


John Edward Lloyd: Opposition members dislike the record I have just read to them.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The Liberal record.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Canadian people will remember the events prior to the dissolution of parliament in February of 1963.


Eric Alfred Winkler: They will remember the last budget.


John Edward Lloyd: They will remember every one of those events and they will remember the chief actors on the stage on that occasion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Tell us about the budget.


An hon. Member:: Tell them about Diefen-bungling.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Tell us about the budget. Let us hear it.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, learned gentlemen opposite might read the report of the 1963 Canadian tax foundation conference. They

The Address-Mr. Monteith might read this work by J. Peter Williamson on "Taxation of U.S. Private Investment in Canada". When they have done their homework I think they will then at least merit the observation that they are ready to engage in constructive criticism.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Tell us about the 15 per cent withholding tax. Tell us about "Troubled Canada."


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness-


David Vaughan Pugh: For a change.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. In all seriousness I will say for the record-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Tell us again.


John Edward Lloyd: -and I will address my remarks to those who will listen-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Few though they may be.


John Edward Lloyd: -that the Canadian people expect of every member of the house constructive measures, constructive criticism and the earliest possible achievement of the reconstruction of stability in Canadian economic and social affairs, which was certainly not the case in April, 1963, when the present government took office.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure first of all to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In my opinion they did a very commendable job of attempting to build something momentous out of an address that was nothing but a very poor cupboard of already used goods.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) who has just taken his seat spoke about priorities. I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that a number of priorities which were set at the first part of the 1963 session have since fallen by the wayside, have never reached fruition. They were simply dropped.
The hon. member had some words to say, too, about the pension plan. He was attempting, I think, to criticize the excellent analysis of that particular piece of legislation made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). For the benefit of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) who is a brother chartered accountant, I should like to add that we are accustomed to writing reports in conjunction with balance sheets which set out facts. We do not waver off into an area of fiction as the hon. member has been doing. I trust that in the future he will stick to those facts which the profession understands.
I should like to say a word or two about the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Megantic. In my opinion, it is frivolous and irresponsible. I feel that the adop-


tion of the subamendment would defeat the purpose of our own amendment and, as a consequence, we cannot accept it. The amendment which was moved by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, and seconded by me, reads as follows:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the extension of family allowances to children between the ages of 16 and 18 years who are attending school.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that no hon. member will allow himself to be deluded into regarding this amendment as a frivolous or meaningless one as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) would have us believe. If this house did nothing more important this session than put into effect the proposition contained in this amendment it would, by that action, confer immense social and economic benefits upon this country. That this amendment is important is shown by the fact that the principle embodied therein has been adopted by every party in this house, and by at least one provincial government of the same political stripe as my hon. friends opposite. It formed a very major part of the Liberal party platform during the last election and was urged on the hustings by many Liberal speakers who are sitting opposite me tonight.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members again to page 116 of Hansard for this session. On that page and the subsequent page there is listed some three dozen promises made by the Liberal party during the last election campaign which have not been kept. These were outlined very succinctly by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I point out that this particular promise is seventeenth on the list. There are some 16 promises before it and another 17 or 18 after it. This is the seventeenth promise listed which was made during that election campaign and which has not been kept. I leave it to the conscience of hon. members opposite whether this principle which was put forward so urgently during the election campaign has now become a matter of indifference. Why has a measure such as this not been included in the program for this session? It was not included in the program for last session. It did not have priority then, and I guess it still does not have priority according to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd).
In the light of the circumstances, it is inconceivable that any member of this house, in good conscience, could do other than vote in support of this amendment. The argument is so self-evident.


Mr. O'Keefe:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Who is asking the question?


Murdo William Martin: I wonder if the former minister of national health and welfare will explain why this proposal was not put forward during his term of office?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I simply point out to the hon. member for Timmins that during my term of office as minister of national health and welfare the previous government, in that six-year period, put more social welfare legislation on the books of this country than was put on in any similar period.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: May I ask this short question? Would the hon. member agree that if the statements made by the hon. member for Yukon are as accurate or otherwise as the one he made which is reported on page 117 of Hansard-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Now, just a minute, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid 1 cannot go into this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Perth has the floor.


An hon. Member:: He is afraid.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not afraid of anybody. However, the hon. member should make a speech and not try to ask a question of that kind.
I should like to point out that the extension of family allowances to those in their sixteenth and seventeenth year could well mean, as many hon. members have reason to know, the difference between leaving or remaining at school. The previous government carried on, with considerable success, a campaign to induce young people to remain in school. The basis of that policy was, first, that by remaining in school they improved their capacity later to absorb the skills required for employment in this age of automation. Second, at the same time, they delayed their entry upon the labour market until such time as they were prepared to make a contribution. I am sure that this principle will be selfevident to all members, and that in this year of 1964 it will not be necessary to undertake a campaign to instruct anyone about the value of our young people remaining in school, thereby improving the national educational standards and the opportunities for employment.
The principle contained in this amendment is directed precisely to the age group in which the likelihood of school abandonment is most critical and most disastrous in so far as future years are concerned. Some 300,000 young people in the age group referred to are attending school. A further 300,000 will not continue their education or will start and then drop out unless, through this measure, assistance may be given to enable them to further
The Address-Mr. Winch their education. The passage of this measure would have the effect of assisting a considerable percentage of these young people, some of them among our brightest students, and giving them an opportunity to go on to higher education. I am sure that no hon. member takes lightly the case of the individual student who, having the required capacity, intelligence and desire to learn, is compelled to abandon the opportunity of education on account of lack of funds.
A few minutes ago an hon. member spoke about my experience as minister. I would point out that the most discouraging replies I had to write were concerned with this group of young people, some of them children of widows, who could no longer attend school without some extra compensation. I have had it pointed out to me on more than one occasion that if family allowances were continued, the children could continue in school for a longer period of time, and we all know the resultant advantage of that. I am sure the present minister has had a similar experience, and I am sure all hon. members of the house know of such cases.
Regrettably all too often it is the more deserving students who are affected. Poverty is no respecter of ability. This is a measure, which, if adopted, will have the effect of bringing about that equality of opportunity which is so desirable and which is one of the main objectives of the Conservative party.
When we speak of equality of opportunity, we refer to the application of that principle everywhere in Canada, regardless of race, creed or other discriminating factors. The provision of assistance to young people in school is one important way in which this principle can be applied across Canada without discrimination.
There will be those who, because of political expediency, will be looking for an excuse to oppose this amendment. I repeat what I said about the amendment at the beginning of my remarks; it is a reasoned and reasonable amendment, placed before the house in complete sincerity.
The Prime Minister has said it is time to put partisan considerations aside. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is the opportunity for every member in the house, regardless of party and expediency, to show how this parliament stands on a measure of principle, of benefit to our young people. It is an opportunity for the house to express its opinion on the failure of the government to treat seriously in office what they put forward so loudly and so often when in opposition.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate because there are a

The Address-Mr. Winch number of problems which I desire to raise at this time, in the hope that something will be done about them before the end of the session. But, before going into those matters which I have in mind, may I in all kindness tell the previous speaker, who was a former minister of national health and welfare, that it is sheer hypocrisy to damn the government for what they, the Conservatives, did not do in the six years they were in office.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The Liberals promised it.


Mr. Dupuis:: And we will deliver it.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of their neglect we all realize, or should realize, that the time is long since passed when there should have been an increase in the age of eligibility and in the rate of family allowances. It is because of the basic recognition of that undeniable fact that the members of this party are going to support both amendments when they are voted on.
Before going into the major section of my remarks, I would like to take the opportunity to make a few brief statements regarding the position of the New Democratic party on certain aspects of government policy. I feel it is absolutely necessary that that should be done, because there is a surprising number of people in Canada who do not recognize that under the procedure of parliament a report of a select, standing committee or a special committee is a majority report. They do not recognize that there is no provision whatever whereby anyone can bring in a minority report to express that he may not agree with some of the aspects of the majority report. As a matter of fact, I would not be very surprised to find that there have been a number of members of the House of Commons who did not recognize that fact.
In order to make the situation clear on certain matters, on behalf of this group I would like to reiterate that the New Democratic party was, is, and will be consistently and continuously unalterably opposed to Canada in any way becoming a "nuclear power, and that we are unalterably opposed to nuclear weapons in Canada and in the hands of our torees anywhere. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, fEaT~our party supports very strongly all Canadian armed forces for peacekeeping purposes coming under the aegis, and only the aegis of the United Nations.
The New Democratic party also opposes any of our R.C.A.F. squadrons remaining in France under the de Gaulle policy of what is basically military and economic isolation and, because of that country's non-conformity with the nuclear test ban. Also, sir, the New Democratic party opposes what I term the government's stupidity in maintaining army

brigades in Europe on an equipment basis of Honest John rockets which cannot be used in the event of conventional war, unless Canada wants to accept the responsibility of escalating the conventional war into a nuclear war or, in the event of a nuclear attack, having our NATO forces concentrated around Honest John rockets when nuclear strategy is admitted everywhere as calling for dispersal, not concentration.
Whichever way you look at it, government policy as regards our brigades can only be called stupid. It would definitely appear that for some reason or another-unwittingly, if I want to be kind-the policy of the government is that Canadians overseas are expendable. That, we maintain, is an untenable position which can no longer be tolerated and should be corrected as expeditiously as possible.
I shall not deal at greater length now with defence matters, as I understand that in the foreseeable future the government is going to re-appoint the special committee on defence. We also understand that a white paper will be brought down some time in March, so that there will be an opportunity on those two occasions for a full debate on defence matters.
I now want to deal with a subject with which I am very seriously concerned, and it is a most important matter. It is a most serious matter. I refer to homicidally inclined criminals and sex psychopaths who, having been convicted in Canada in the past few years, have returned to acts of violence, to murder and to rape. In order to illustrate the seriousness of the situation which is developing, may I just give a few examples? Take the case of Douglas Brown, committed in the fall of 1961 to Alberta's Ponoka mental hospital because of uncontrollable temper tantrums. He was released in April, 1962. In December, 1962, he moved to Vancouver where he developed a fixation against organized religion, especially against Catholicism. In April, 1963, he took a revolver, went a few blocks down the street and gunned down Father Cuthbert Seward at a Catholic church in my constituency. Thus died one of the finest men I have been privileged to meet and work with-gunned down by a psychopath who had been released as harmless and cured.
Take the case of George Booth who had spent six months in the Essondale mental institution in British Columbia. He was released as harmless and cured. Yet, a matter of days after gaining his freedom he shot to death three R.C.M.P. officers in Kamloops.
Do I need to remind hon. members of the case of Dion, in Quebec, a man who spent most of his life in institutions ranging from

tuberculosis hospitals to orphanages and jails? He was sentenced to life imprisonment and the lash in 1940 for rape. He was released on parole as harmless in 1956 but not long afterwards he was back in prison for committing a homosexual act with a young boy. He was paroled in 18 months as harmless, not dangerous to anybody. Yet, as hon. members know, he confessed to the murder of four young boys.
One more case. In British Columbia we have another sad story. I quote from an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Province of January 29:
Charles Heathman is a man who has admitted to 54 convictions. He is a man who was twice convicted by separate juries of murdering a ten year old boy and this was quashed by the B.C. court of appeal.
Charles Heathman is a man who was subsequently committed to a mental hospital after he had confessed to a newspaper for $500 that he had killed the Vernon lad.
Now may I quote from an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of January 28:
Charles Heathman has never been put in safekeeping under terms of the habitual criminal law... As a result of a news story the man was examined by a psychiatrist, declared to be a danger to himself and to others, and committed to Essondale mental hospital.
What happened? This man Heathman spent 20 months in a mental institution. He was then released. He was found to be dangerous by psychiatrists-I emphasize this-only 20 months ago. But on the order of two doctors, neither of whom was a psychiatrist, he was released on the 11th of this month to a sponsor in accordance with the law in Vancouver under strict probationary regulations. Eight days later he disappeared. So, today, this self confessed murderer, admittedly insane 20 months ago, is the subject of a national and international search.
In recent months I have been looking into the situation in the United States and I find a similar problem exists there, only on a far greater scale. I have discussed the situation with constitutional experts and with senior officials of the Department of Justice here in Ottawa and I am told there is no way whatsoever under the Criminal Code by which provision can be made to prevent the release of persons such as I have described in circumstances which would afford greater protection than those outlined in the examples I have given.
I believe it is of the utmost importance that we should do everything possible to protect the rights and privileges of individuals. I say, also, that we have the responsibility of protecting the rights and lives of
The Address-Mr. Winch members of society. Since there is no constitutional power either here in Ottawa or under provincial laws to look after this situation, I should like to recommend to the Minister of Justice and to the government that action be taken at the earliest opportunity to arrange a conference between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general of the provinces for the purpose of reexamining the provisions of the Criminal Code in conjunction with the provisions of the provincial acts respecting mental hospitals in an endeavour to arrive at a mutual understanding which would prevent the release from mental hospitals of potential killers and rabid sexual psychopaths. Further, I think such a conference should consider the principle that no such persons ought to be released under the authority of general practitioners but only under the authority of psychiatrists, and, possibly, that release not be permitted until there has been further acceptance of the release policy by another psychiatric board.
This is the only solution I can suggest as the best method of handling of this situation. In view of the increasing seriousness of the danger to which citizens are being exposed and in view of the increasing number of occasions upon which prisoners of this type are being released into society, despite their past records of murder and violence, it is my contention that something definite must be done about it at this session of parliament.
I should like to deal, now, with certain problems which arise in the province of British Columbia and, in particular, in the city of Vancouver. It has been my privilege to live in that province and in that city for some 54 years, now, and to have had the honour of being an elected member in that province for 30 of those 54 years. I think, therefore, that I have not only a keen interest in the city and in the province but that I also have a knowledge of its problems and potentialities.
Undoubtedly, Vancouver has one of the finest harbours in the world. It is the third largest city in Canada. It is a major Canadian port and a major port of the north American continent. Yet for some peculiar reason or other it seems to have been completely neglected, as far as development is concerned, not only by this government but by the former government and by the Liberal government before it. And before any action is taken we have to wait until we are faced with situations such as arose a few weeks ago when more than 20 ships were waiting at anchor in the harbour because the port lacked deep sea berths at which they could be loaded and unloaded. Despite the fact that

The Address-Mr. Winch we hear on all sides statements that Vancouver is going to expand rapidly, that its eastern trade is going to expand rapidly, and that the logical port to deal with this increasing trade is Vancouver, we hear of no action being taken to develop the present facilities, and as a representative of Vancouver I say it is high time that this neglect ceased. It is time to stop passing the buck and to state clearly who is responsible. We hear the harbour board saying that development is the responsibility of free enterprise. We hear free enterprise say it is the responsibility of the harbour board or of the government. We cannot pin down who is responsible. I suggest it is time this government found out who has the responsibility and let us know what is going to take place.
If the responsibility to initiate development is on the shoulders of the government, then for heaven's sake let them get down and do something and let the country know what they are going to do. If it is the responsibility of the harbours board, then for heaven's sake the government should tell the harbours board to get moving in Vancouver. They cannot say that they have no money, because I was told only yesterday that the harbours board of Canada has $60 million invested in government funds, and I believe the harbour board of Vancouver has between $12 million to $14 million of that $60 million. That money is there to be used for the development of our harbours, not to get the government out of the sack by investing it in bonds. If the responsibility is upon free enterprise, then let the government tell free enterprise to get off its backside and do something.
In particular, sir, I suggest that the government tell our national railways to do something. At the foot of Main street in Vancouver there is a site owned by the Canadian National Railways in great need of expansion. Why do we not expand it? Are we going to wait for another 20 ships to come into Vancouver harbour? I should certainly like to see the government get after the C.P.R., that Canadian octopus. Let us remember that at the bottom of Granville street in Vancouver we have what is perhaps the finest water site for deep sea shipping in the port of Vancouver. We used to have a deep sea pier there but it burned down in 1938, and the C.P.R. has never rebuilt it. There has been a deep water area there for 35 years but the pier has not been replaced by this company, a company which at times squeals that it does not get enough return from its railway operations. But let it not be forgotten that they received billions out of Canada from land, minerals and other things which were given to them for nothing by Canada.


When we come to British Columbia let us not forget the building of 72 miles of railway on Vancouver island. The Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway owned that 72 miles of railway which was later bought out by the C.P.R., and with it they got two million acres of the finest land on Vancouver Island. In addition, by virtue of chapter 6 of the 1884 statutes of the United Kingdom they not only got those two million acres of land but included with it was coal, coal oil, ores, stones, clay, marble, slate, mines, minerals and substances whatsoever in or under the lands, and also all the foreshore rights in respect of all such lands.
I think, sir, that we have the right to ask this company to do something in the city of Vancouver, to replace that pier which was burned down 35 years ago, and to assist in the development of the major city of British Columbia. They have made hundreds of millions of dollars out of the resources of the people of that province, which were given to them in 1884. I think that is a reasonable request.
Now, sir, there is one other phase which I think is of the utmost importance affecting Vancouver both as a city and as a port, and the province of British Columbia. Canada is a maritime nation. We have thousands and thousands of miles of shore line along the Pacific coast, the maritime coast, Hudson bay and the great lakes. We are a maritime nation, yet the Canada Shipping Act has not had a major revision since 1934. The Canada Shipping Act of 30 years ago is not keeping up with the times. Canadian sailors and Canadian commerce operating around our coastal waters are suffering because of this past neglect. In 1930 and prior years the Canada Shipping Act was, in the majority of cases, concerned with large deep sea vessels or large coastal vessels, but was not concerned with towboats, fishboats and other small commercial-type vessels.
That situation cannot be allowed to continue, because we must recognize that Canada has one of the most treacherous and dangerous coastlines in the world. The coastal waters of Canada are capable of developing some of the most vicious storms known to man. Accompanying the storms are fog, snow, ice, rain, icebergs and rocky coastline. Yet, sir, the Canada Shipping Act is 30 years out of date. Moreover, with modern technology the shipping companies which were previously controlled by both the Canada Shipping Act and the steamship inspection service are now evading the existing laws; because only ships over a certain gross tonnage are governed by the Canadian Shipping Act, which controls where a ship can go, into what waters it can go, how large a crew it has to carry, what

loads it can carry, and the safety measures it should have. In order to escape that control shipowners today-that is, the bad ones, and we have some of them-are building their new ships just a little under the required tonnage and then putting in high-powered engines, so that these smaller ships can more than compete with the bigger, but are not covered by the steamship inspection service or the Canada Shipping Act. As a result there is no control over how many scows or booms they can tow, what loads can be put on the tug itself, how many crew should be carried, or the safety measures which are required. These shipowners escape all this and it is not right.
From talking to those in the know, both sailors and shipowners, I am certain that it is for the sake of the God Almighty dollar, the extra cent, that is the cause, which has resulted, in part at least, in the fact that last year in the Pacific area there were 561 marine distress cases, 29 fishing vessels and towboats sunk, and 25 lives lost. I am pleading with the government to recognize the need for an overhaul of the Canada Shipping Act so as to bring it into line with the needs of today, and to recognize that proper safety requirements and decent working conditions should prevail.
When one speaks of the Canada Shipping Act I think one should also speak of our coastguard service. Canada now has a coastguard and credit should be given to the government for expanding this service. However, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is serving in a negative capacity in that its main function, at least as far as the Pacific coast is concerned, is to be available in case an emergency arises. It is our belief, sir, that it can be given a positive role, apart from just being available when an emergency arises, by functioning as an inspection team to go out into the waterways of the Pacific, of the Atlantic and of the great lakes, and under an up to date Canada Shipping Act inspect the vessels on the waterways to see that they meet all the requirements of safety and proper working conditions. Not only would that make for a better coastguard service, but also, if properly handled, it would, I am convinced, save a considerable amount of money for the taxpayers of Canada. We now have this peculiar situation: the Canadian coastguard is comprised of ships and boats of the Canadian steamship inspection department, the Department of Fisheries, the marine biological department, the hydrographic surveys department, weatherships, lighthouse tenders, Department of National Defence vessels, and so forth, each of which is operating on its own. Not only that, sir, but when a civil servant
The Address-Mr. Matheson of one department has to go to a certain area he cannot get on any boat except the boat of his department, even if the boat of another department is going there, it is the most stupid thing I ever heard. Surely a co-ordination of these services would enable them to do this specific, detailed work of the department to which they are connected or the particular type of work on which they have been instructed. Under a co-ordinated plan of a coastguard service, whereby all the officers and men of these ships know the regulations, the safety rules and the steamship inspection services, they could do a better job in our coastal waters to bring about greater safety and thereby greater efficiency.
I do hope that the government will take this matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker, and will take action this session with regard to some of the problems which I have had the privilege of drawing to your attention. May I, in conclusion, say that we are here as elected members with a responsible job, and as far as the New Democratic party is concerned we will look at all measures on the basis of need, constructiveness and principle and will then judge our position accordingly.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I was born in Quebec, raised and educated in Quebec, worked in Quebec until the exigencies of war service took me abroad. For 23 years my father served as a minister of one of the old historic congregations of Quebec city. In speaking on the subject of Quebec and its place in the unity of Canada I speak of my home-my native land, my special country- I will not use the word state. Quebec is part of the true north strong and free which in the words of O'Canada I have for so long pledged myself to defend.

Mr. Speaker, may I say boldly and unequivocally that there are many millions of Canadians who stand prepared to defend this land, this land that runs from sea to sea, against any enemy that may threaten from without or from within. Our feet were set in a large room and what affects the Columbia watershed, or Bell island or Rouyn, Quebec, or any Canadian person anywhere affects me too; and as the member for Leeds where begins the noblest river that runs to ocean, I intend to say my piece.

Because it was my fortune to be bred a Quebecker I speak on this subject of national unity not out of anger but out of love.

The Address-Mr. Matheson

In the language of Shakespeare, Canada is going through the winter of our discontent. It has been said that Quebec is now undergoing an almost convulsive effort in the fields of education, industrial development and selfawareness. When we look to biblical authority, the gospel of St. Mark gives us this advice:
And if a kingdom be divided against itself-
This applies to the kingdom of Canada:
-that kingdom cannot stand.

And a house divided against itself falleth. [Text]
Many hundreds of years ago a sermon was preached by a man in St. Paul's cathedral in the days when William Shakespeare was acting on the stage. The preacher was John Donne, and he said:
No man is an Hand, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Yet when I look at our newspaper at home, The Recorder and Times of Brockville of February 1, 1964, I read:
"That's the ultimatum", said party leader Real Caouette at a press conference following the rally.
"If we don't get that, it's definite. Bang, it's all over, we get out of confederation".
What does he ask for? He asks for absolute control over the creation of credit for Quebec, control over its imports and exports, absolute control over immigration, the return to the provinces of direct and indirect fiscal resources.
In my upbringing as a boy I remember, je me souviens, the first motto I was taught, and of course what each of us remembers of our heritage is different.

And I remember the terrible day in 1940 when France fell. It was a day of shock and horror and utter sadness. I have the most vivid recollection of separating myself from my fellow soldiers in order that I might weep alone. And the fortunes of western civilization might well have been destroyed had England been unable to withstand the fierce onslaught which followed-the turning point in history which we now refer to as the Battle of Britain. This too is part of our memory. Our own Leonard Brockington refers to our Canadian casualties in these words:
[Mr. Matbeson.l

He said:
Upon these pages are inscribed the names of those gallant Canadian airmen who fighting in the stricken skies of Britain died to defend and save a sanctuary of our ancestral freedom. Their motherland remembering her young sons rejoices that such men once lived and will forever grieve that they died so young.
Bom of the sun they travelled a short while toward the sun and left the vivid air signed with their honour.
My friends, among those who left the air signed with their honour was Canada's fighter pilot Camille Robespierre Bon Seigneur of 257 squadron, R.A.F., shot down on September 3, 1940, and Pilot Officer Alex Albert Gray Trueman of 253 squadron, who was shot down in flames the following day. What would these two think of a divided Canada?
I remember vividly the costly and abortive raid on Dieppe which occurred on August 19, 1942. The lessons learned in this Canadian blood bath paved the way for the successes of D-Day more than two years later. I was at first divisional headquarters at that time, receiving the earliest intelligence communications and listening to those dreadful reports as they came in. I will never forget that day. Let me tell the house of just one little incident.
I learned these facts from a devoted friend of mine, Reverend Dr. Waldo Smith, M.C., of Queen's theological college, who is something of a military historian. Among the prisoners taken by the Germans at Dieppe were elements of Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal. German intelligence officers were clever enough, and knew enough about Canada and about the difficulties we were experiencing with our different ethnic backgrounds in this country that they tried to play up one group of prisoners against another. I am told that prisoner of war parcels were distributed and the Germans gave generous chocolate rations to Les Fusiliers. These men, were hungry and utterly weary, and ready to devour it like hungry wolves until they noticed that no chocolate was available to their English speaking comrades. The chocolate was returned and no more was accepted by Les Fusiliers until there was equity among all our men. What would those veterans who loved one another more than themselves think of fracturing and separating Canada? I must say I like my friend, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), but I don't like what I read in the Brockville Recorder and Times of February 1, 1964, when he said:
-Canada's economic regime "will be reformed in an orderly fashion, or there are some people who will destroy it in disorder and blood". Wartime conscription was carried out "in the name of liberty, in the name of Christianity", he said.

"We've got to steal your children from you-that's what was done during the war, ladies and gentlemen. And now people blame our youths."
The news story was headed: "They Stole Arms; Gov't Stole Sons for Butchery in War, Says Caouette".
A few days ago I was in Washington and I saw that moving play by John Hersey, "The Wall", which is a story of what happened in the Warsaw ghetto under our modern Christendom just a very short while ago, a story of how in one city alone 500,000 Jews were killed in the most brutal fashion possible. One of the lines in this play runs this way:
I used to think what was important was just to live; then I learned that what really mattered was how and with whom.
I want to tell my friends, even those who take a very different view from mine on the matter of separatism, that we feel very strongly about unity and the business of actually living with them. For my part I cannot conceive of this country in any other form or structure than a Canada consisting also of the French people.

One of the crowning satisfactions of my life has been that I had the honour to serve for many months as a forward observation officer to the celebrated Royal 22nd Regiment in Sicily and Italy. Indeed throughout the Mediterranean campaign. I wore their hat badge alongside my own gunner badge.
Let me tell you about this regiment, because among the first division men, this regiment was legendary and incredible. Always before battle we knelt for prayer-and the padre prayed in this wise:
Make us brave God and resolute to do our duty. And may we so conduct ourselves this day that we will give solemn pride to all Canadians."

Over 20 years have passed but I cannot forget these impressions. I cannot think of Quebec in any other way than with that gallant French Canadian padre on his knees bringing us together before battle. It was a pretty hard thing, I want to tell you, to try to march with the Royal 22nd Regiment because it was always a question of whether you could master your fear enough to meet the standards of that brave company. Happily some of their great ones are alive today, our Vanier, our Bernatchez, our Triquet, our Turcot.

But there are silent ones who cannot speak. What would they say about some of the shameful speeches made this and last month in the St. Denis and Laurier by-elections about Canada dragging young men out of cellars to serve their country.
The Address-Mr. Matheson
Let me just give you the names of a few of my dead comrades whose deeds are more eloquent than words. These men came from the cities and the remote places. I have seen many of their plain white crosses.

Incidentally that same padre friend of mine, Waldo Smith told me a few days ago that he has done some research on the battlefields of Sicily and Italy and he tells me that the number of French Canadian names that we had in our regiments in the Mediterranean that had nothing to do with the French Canadian regiments far exceeded in numbers those that were in the four historic French Canadian regiments. They served in the artillery, the service corps, the provost corps. Everywhere we had these French comrades.

Listen to these names: Corporal Villeneuve, Lieutenant Chicoine, Private Arsenault, Sergeant Bouillon, Private Levesque, Private Pelletier, Corporal Santerre, Private Tarte, Private Desrosiers, Private Godin, Sergeant Legare, Corporal Gagnon.
Let these 12 stand as a guard of honour for those who cannot speak.
These French Canadians, my brothers, who have given everything they had, everything they hoped they could have been, must have a say in this business too. How would they feel about a divided Canada?
My father died not many months ago and before he died he told me something I was glad to hear and I was glad he told me what he did. He said that during the war years it was a moving experience for him to arise early in the morning and to watch the commandant of M.D. 5 passing the manse at 67 Ste. Ursule with his lady on his way to early morning service in the winter, and I might tell you that walking through the snowdrifts in Quebec city on a wooden leg was not easy and would not be easy even for a young hockey player. This great gentleman, Vanier, was walking there to church in spite of his disability that resulted from his service in the first world war.
Eugene Forsey has put it this way:
. Canada is both two nations and one, two nations in the ethnic, cultural, sociological sense-
Thank God that is so in a world like ours. We certainly need the wider vision that we could not possibly have with one narrow strain.
-but one nation in the political, legal, constitutional sense.
And presiding as the Queen's representative over this one nation is this gallant and godly gentleman who is beloved by all Canada.

The Address-Mr. Matheson
Terror is not a new weapon. Not long before his death the late President Kennedy remarked that throughout history it has been used by those who could not prevail either by persuasion or example. He went on to say that inevitably they fail, either because men are not afraid to die for a life worth living or because the terrorists themselves come to realize that free men cannot be frightened by threats and that aggression will meet its own response.
A few days ago I was in Quebec city and I went to see the Wolfe monument. We have all read about what happened there and I am sure everybody has mixed feelings on the matter. I remember years ago hearing rather insulting comments passed between different ethnic groups in the British army. If you were Scottish you told the story one way. If you were Irish you told the story another way. The story goes that you send in the Scots in the first assault, then you send in the Irish to kill the wounded and then you send in the English to rob the dead. Of course, if you were English you told the story with a different sequence. But surely there is nothing less worthy than this business of pulling down a monument at night, a monument to a man who died for his country over 200 years ago in following what he felt was his path of duty. Surely we as parliamentarians, without pointing scorn or contempt at anybody, have got to uplift our national ideals and standards to the point that this will be made clear. I want to say that I would be shocked and hurt to think that there would be any English speaking Canadian who would dare do anything to dishonour, for instance, the monuments to Dollard des Ormeaux or the Marquis de Montcalm or the great missionaries like Jean de Brebeuf and Gabriel Lalemant. Do French Canadians think they own these men? They are a part of Canada and surely even James Wolfe is a part of Canada too.
I notice that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) is looking my way. Having said what I have about monuments I also say that maybe it is time the historic section of the minister's department started to take a close look at the inscriptions because some of these inscriptions are far less than gracious and appropriate to this present day. I should like to give an example. I see the distinguished Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his seat. He and a number of others in this house belong to the national trust of Scotland. I know that a good number of them contributed to a monument at Culloden. My ancestors were defeated at Culloden. They were Scottish Presbyterian Jacobites who were fighting for

a French prince and were proud of him. They looked upon him as their sovereign.
They believed that Charles was their sovereign. That defeat is the reason they reluctantly left that country. It is the reason they became, if you like, royalists over here. In any event, there was no shame about that event at Culloden. There was great pride in having risked all. The battle of the plains of Abraham affected the history of our country. These are things that are common property. They are precious and very important to all of us.

Let us start anew, reminding both sides that politeness is not a sign of weakness.

Politeness means communication. A few days ago when I was in Montreal I heard a story about the Ontario miner who felt that English was the only language we needed. After all, was it not the language used by Jesus in the sermon on the mount? This is what he thought. Then, there is the little story about the meaning of the term "bilingual". You say a person is bilingual if he can speak English and French. If he is trilingual, he can speak one other language in addition to English and French. However, if he is unilingual, he is "maudite Anglais". Senator Pouliot has said he suspects the farmers of Ste. Modeste are not going to learn to speak English, nor does he believe there is much hope the farmers of the Okanagan valley are going to learn to speak French. I am inclined to agree with him. I believe this is true of many other of our people.
However, what a wonderful objective it would be for the country if many of us with Anglo-Saxon backgrounds were to urge our sons and their sons to take some of their education in Quebec or, if you like, even in France. We have three young, vigorous members of the cabinet who are French, one of whom was educated at Cambridge, one at Oxford and one of whom graduated with his doctoral degree from the University of London.
Senator Power has said that perhaps what we need is more honest fist-fights. I recall that I always got licked by a French boy every day on the way to school and I got licked by an Irish boy on the way home from school. During recess there was always a battle between the English and the Scotch.
Then, too, I recall that one of the delightful and memorable events of my youth was a Sunday School picnic to the sugar bush. It was the season for that event, and we had about 15 or 18 boys. Having had enough maple sugar, we felt it was a good time to

take on the French boys and we did. We damaged each other as much as possible for about two hours, then came home and got our lickings from our parents. I still look upon those events as very fine lessons in race relations. If I may use the language of Arthur Miller I would say, "Silence is not going to solve it any more". We have had too much silence.
According to the language of the Psalmist He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the rivers unto the ends of the earth. Surely, it follows that where the King of Kings has dominion, in this country, all men are brothers.

These times for Canada are climacteric and difficult but I do not believe that any of us, French or English, would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.

I like the words of that great play, Henry the Fifth. Eric Christmas gave me these lines where Shakespeare is speaking about the romance between Harry of England and Princess Catherine of France, "God, the best maker of all marriages, combine your hearts in one, your realms in one". Let us emphasize the importance in this country of learning, after a great many experiences which were bitter and difficult, that we have a rich ethnic heritage which can now mean so much. Today we talk about a tunnel between England and France, and we talk about the north Atlantic community comprising North America and Europe. I marvel at the wonderful position we enjoy if we will only take advantage of this rich heritage of English and French, of common and civil law, of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, all moving together in the direction of bringing this troubled world into some kind of order.
If I may end with the language of Laurier, he said this and his words sum it up better than anything I could hope to say:
Faith is greater than doubt and love is stronger than hate.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Slenson:: Mr. Speaker, will you call it ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 28, 1964