1964-02-24

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I direct this question to the Prime Minister, in connection with the report in the press this morning that two Canadian priests at a Congo mission were wounded by rebels. Is the Prime Minister in a position to make a statement in this regard and, particularly, to let the country know what action is to be taken, or has been taken, to guard against such incidents and to protect the lives of Canadians?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a telegram was received by the Department of External Affairs this morning with the facts as known at the time the telegram was sent. We are told that a more complete story will be cabled later today or tomorrow. Meanwhile I can say, on the basis of the information which has been received, that three Canadian priests, Fathers Defoss, Bruneau and Dussiere, of the Sacred Heart mission were wounded in an attack on the mission. They have been evacuated and are now at the United Nations hospital in Leopoldville. Two of them are described as walking cases and the condition of the other, who was apparently hit in the arm by an arrow, is described as not serious. In addition to these three priests who were wounded, two other priests, Fathers Labonte and Veillette, who were not injured, have also been evacuated to Leopoldville. Brigadier Dextraze, the Canadian chief of staff of the United Nations force in the Congo, has been assisting in the evacuation.
That is all I can say at the moment, but as soon as further information is received I will be glad to give it to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Prime Minister received any information regarding the other Canadian representatives of various church organizations in that area, and as to whether action has been taken by the Canadian chief of staff of the U.N. force to protect these people before serious results ensue?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can add, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of protection, of course, has been
taken up and the Congolese central government have sent Congolese troops to the area of disturbance. We hope that these troops will be able to restore law and order in that area. But I will be glad to supplement this report as soon as I can.


POSSIBLE CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN PEACE KEEPING FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister concerning the plan of the secretary general of the United Nations for Cyprus. Can he bring us up to date as to whether these negotiations are under way, and the involvement of Canada; and in particular, has there been a further request from the United Nations for the use of Canadian troops in Cyprus?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not here to deal with this question. He is indisposed. I can say that the matter is still under consideration at the United Nations, and I believe discussion in the security council has been postponed pending negotiations between the secretary general of the United Nations, the government of Cyprus and other governments directly concerned.
It is hoped, as a result of these negotiations, that arrangements can be made for a peace keeping force associated with the United Nations and acceptable to the government of Cyprus itself. These negotiations have not been completed; therefore I am not in a position to say anything more about them.
There has been no additional request made of Canada for participation in any such force but, as the house knows, we have laid down certain conditions which we feel should be observed before Canada participates in a force of that kind.



ZANZIBAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I direct my question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the right hon. gentleman advise the house whether the

Inquiries of the Ministry announced recognition of Zanzibar had been withheld by the Canadian government, in the light of the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on Friday, so as to coincide with the announcement of recognition by other western nations, and whether this recognition by the Canadian government has been as a result of consultations with Great Britain, the United States and other powers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, recognition was the result of consultation. It was also the result of answers to inquiries which were made as to the criteria covering recognition; whether they were or were not apparently observed by the new government of Zanzibar. In the light of the information we received and after consultation with a number of friendly governments, we took the step taken over the week end.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, a question which was asked by my colleague and to which no answer was given. Is the security and intelligence branch of the R.C.M. Police investigating the activities of the A.L.Q., who have now been responsible for three armoury break-ins and the stealing of weapons which could be used for civil insurrection? I think this is a matter which concerns the Canadian people, and we would like something more definitive from the Minister of Justice as to what action is being taken to investigate this underground movement.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question by saying that the R.C.M. Police are lending to all other appropriate police and investigating bodies all the intelligence and other assistance required in the circumstances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to take from the minister's reply that the primary investigation is being carried on by the provincial authorities, despite the fact these are acts of sabotage against the government of Canada and against the Department of National Defence? Does the minister mean that the whole responsibility is being left to the provincial authorities, and that the R.C.M. Police are only lending such assistance as is being requested of them?


Guy Favreau: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. I have probably been misunderstood, or perhaps I did not express myself too clearly. All police authorities are working together and cooperating in the investigation, and the role of the R.C.M. Police in this area is as complete and as full as is requested in the interests of Canada.



REPORTED INVESTIGATION OP EMPLOYEES OF C.B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Monfcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell the house whether it is true, as reported in this week's newspapers, that the R.C.M.P. Police are now making a rather full investigation within the C.B.C.?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice and answer it tomorrow, because I have asked for information on the matter.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell us whether it is true that the C.B.C. high officials are making an inquiry on the political activities or opinions of the employees of the corporation and that they have been instructed to get rid of some employees showing separatist sympathies?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question has just been put to the Minister of Justice. As far as the C.B.C. is concerned I shall inquire into the matter and report to the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State mean that this is really happening in the C.B.C., at the present time?


Maurice Lamontagne: I shall ask for a report and answer the hon. member.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In

view of the action of the longshoremen of the United States in blocking the shipping of American wheat to Russia, and in view of the close relationship of the longshoremen with the S.I.U. in both the United States and Canada, is the government giving consideration to steps to guarantee that there will be no blockage of the St. Lawrence in Canada and thereby of our shipments of wheat to Russia when navigation opens?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, of course the government could be in no position to give any such guarantee. We have no reason, however, to anticipate any trouble.



MARITIME UNIONS'


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: May I take this opportunity to reply to a number of questions which the Leader of the Opposition raised last week concerning the board of trustees of the maritime transportation union with respect to a questionnaire.
Since the question was asked I have checked with the trustees, and find that no questionnaire has been sent out to the seamen. A very few seamen have been interviewed to test out what might form part of a questionnaire. This is normal procedure, I am told, before any such survey is undertaken. The trustees have indicated that it is not their intention to reveal the contents of any questionnaire in advance of the survey, since they feel this might prejudice its value both for them and for the seamen. The trustees have also informed me that no information regarding the identity of seamen has been made available to any other union.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it merely a coincidence, then, that immediately after questions were asked, one union endeavoured to get certain seamen to change their union? Was that just a coincidence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The trustees have advised me that no information with respect to lists of seamen has been made available to any other trade union.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Labour when he expects to table the report which is required under the act from the trustees of the maritime unions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I advised the Leader of the Opposition last week that it would be coming forward soon. I understand that the report is now in preparation by the trustees, and I will lay it on the table just as soon as I receive it.
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



FURTHER DISCUSSION OP PLAN BEFORE HOUSE CONSIDERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priitie ( Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister concerning the Canada pension plan. Will the plan be discussed at another federal-provincial conference, as Premier Lesage suggested in Toronto on Saturday, or will the bill proceed in this house before the conference at the end of March?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I said on Saturday, I hope the bill will be introduced and proceeded with within a week or two, and as the conference is to be held on March 31 I hope it will be before the house before the conference resumes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As one who believes in a contributory pension scheme, a comprehensive one, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would give consideration, before second reading takes place, to having the draft bill presented to the house and brought before a committee so that in a community of counsel discussions would take place and representations would be made in order that the bill be not a haphazard kind of thing but representative of the best opinion of Canadians as a whole.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can give my right hon. friend the assurance that the bill will not be a haphazard thing. The principle of the bill has already been considered more than once at meetings with the provinces. So far as the right hon. gentleman's specific suggestion as to procedure is concerned, I will be glad to take that into consideration.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marfineau (Pontiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that over the week end the minister stated that amendments to the constitution were desirable, could he tell us what he feels they should be and also if he shares Mr. Lesage's opinion that the federal government is a creature of the provinces?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisler of Justice):	tenders, Hawker-Siddeley Canada Limited
Mr. Speaker, I deny having stated over the had been successful in obtaining an order week end that admendments to the constitu- from the Canadian National for the construction were desirable, but I admit having said tion of 500 70-ton triple hopper cars which that if changes became necessary to solve will be built in the Eastern Car Company some existing problems, a study should be plant at Trenton. I can assure the hon. mem-made to that effect in order to reach the ber for Pictou that I am just as happy about proper conclusions.	this as I know he is.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to a fellow maritimer, the Minister of Transport, and I wish to congratulate him publicly on his appointment to his new position. In view of the urgent need for additional ferry service between Nova Scotia and the New England states, will the minister inform the house what progress is being made toward establishing a second ferry between Canada and the United States?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisler of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, at the last session my colleague the President of the Privy Council indicated that this matter was under study, and as a result of the most recent inquiry I made I can say that not only was it under study but that certain representations from the government of Nova Scotia were also under very active consideration. It is a matter of very great importance, and it is also very important that whatever is done should be done right.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, having acknowledged the congratulations of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, perhaps I could answer a question that was asked the other day by the hon. member for Pictou about whether I had received any report from Canadian National Railways with regard to the possibility of the Eastern Car plan at Trenton obtaining an order for railway equipment.
Shortly after I became Minister of Transport I received representations from the union which I sent on to both railways. At about the same time I received a letter from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with regard to this situation. I am very happy to be able to say that I heard from the president of the C.N.R. on Friday that, following requests for


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this the same order which was announced by the Minister of Labour on Saturday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the Minister of Labour was also just as pleased as the hon. member for Pictou, and if the Minister of Labour beat me to the gun I do not mind at all.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister given consideration to the hate literature which is now being distributed in various cities? Does the government consider that there is at the present time legislation which will prohibit this kind of literature being distributed through the mails and, if not, will the government give consideration to new legislation?


Guy Favreau: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. Unfortunately, in recent years there have been several occasions on which the distribution in Canada of anti-Semitic literature has come to the attention of the Department of Justice, although I must say that the material which the hon. member for Winnipeg North left with me last Friday is of a particularly virulent nature.
As a result of previous incidents of this kind, and representations received from the Canadian Jewish Congress, the possibility of amending the Criminal Code was referred to the criminal law section of the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada in 1962 by the then minister of justice. This body is composed or representatives of the provincial attorneys general and the Attorney General of Canada. It reported that while the objective sought to be attained was eminently desirable, no recommendation to amend the criminal law was made because no formula had been devised which would deal adequately with

the problem without simultaneously affecting the general freedom of expression of opinion in an adverse way.
Needless to say, all decent people deplore and despise such activities. The matter is still under active consideration, but I must confess that to date an acceptable and workable solution to the problem has not been devised. I want to add that I have received a communication concerning this matter from the Canadian Jewish Congress, and 1 will be meeting with representatives of that group on March 12 next.
With respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, a reply to the correspondence which I received from him is in the mail.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice. I have seen some of this anti-Semitic material, and I ask the minister whether or not an offence has been committed, the offence of sedition, in certain of these articles. I wonder if the law as it now stands is not sufficient for a prosecution to be launched against those who within the country are distributing it. I am not speaking about those who send it from abroad. I can understand the difficulty there, but since it has been distributed within Canada I suggest that the law as it now stands should be looked into in that regard.


Guy Favreau: I spoke of the feasibility of finding a broader formula which would apply in as many cases as possible. So far as the particular document to which the right hon. gentleman has just referred is concerned, I must say that the department is presently making a study as to whether or not the matter falls within the provisions of the present Criminal Code.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question supplementary to those asked concerning the hate literature, about which all of us feel very strongly. Pending a decision as to what to do about it, I wonder if I might congratulate the Post Office Department for the very happy thought that there appears on some of the literature which was sent out from Scarborough, Ontario, on February 15 an appropriate slogan. I have an envelope in which this literature came, and it bears the post office cancellation mark "Brotherhood Week-Believe it-Live it-Support it." I am sure all members of the house will be glad to know that this vicious anti-Semitic literature had, on the outside of the envelope, this suggestion that brotherhood was more important.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



REQUEST FOR COMPOSITION OF DELEGA- TION REPRESENTING CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce advise the house as to the composition of the delegation which will be representing Canada at the GATT negotiations which are opening in Geneva within the matter of a day or so, and who will be in charge of that delegation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the GATT delegation representing Canada at the meetings that are opening, I think probably today or thereabouts, is being led by Mr. Warren, the assistant deputy minister of trade and commerce, who this year is also the chairman of the contracting parties. I expect I will be receiving a report from Mr. Warren tomorrow or the next day.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice the same question I asked on Friday of the Minister of Labour, who quite rightly referred me to the Minister of Justice. Is the government contemplating any action with regard to the obvious perjury committed by the chief crown witness against Hal Banks, either at the trial or in his previous statements?


Guy Favreau: am not in a position to inform the house today on this matter. I shall take the question as notice.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by Premier Lesage that loans to university students would constitute an infringement on provincial rights, will the province of Quebec be allowed to option out of this plan and be compensated at the same time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter is presently under consideration, and will be discussed not only with the province of Quebec but with other provinces.

Inquiries of the Ministry SEARCH AND RESCUE



SEARCH FOR MISSING ARMY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Could the hon. gentleman inform the house whether the search for Captain Flewin of the Canadian army intelligence service, who went missing on a flight from Toronto to Ottawa on January 17 last, I think it was, is still continuing?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of this question. I am informed that the search was called off on January 27 after 12 days of intensive search activities. It will be resumed in the springtime as soon as there is more real hope of being able to pick up the trail. An area of
97,000	square miles was covered and a total of 840 flying hours involved in the search activities up to January 27.



REPORTED LIMIT ON SUBVENTIONS TO DOMINION STEEL AND COAL CO.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the minister of mines. Perhaps in his absence I could direct it to the acting minister. Has the minister, or any representative of the government, directly or indirectly indicated to the Dominion Steel and Coal Company that their production of coal in Nova Scotia should be limited to the present production or to any specified tonnage, and that in the event of increased production further subventions would not be forthcoming to assist in the sale of any such increase?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Acting Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I will take this question as notice in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister indicate to the house whether any success has been derived from the reemployment interviews now being held by the office of the national employment service in Sydney?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have had no report on this matter. I would be glad to let the hon. member know any information I can get later on.



REPRESENTATION OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AT LABOUR CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Can the hon. gentleman tell the house whether an invitation has been extended to the commissioners of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to participate in the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on labour?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will check and answer the hon. member later.



PROSPECTIVE LAY-OFFS AT POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister consider a very early visit to Cape Breton in order to review at first hand the repercussions which will take place at the Point Edward naval base as a result of impending lay-offs?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how soon it can be arranged, but I should like to get down to Cape Breton in the not too distant future; and I hope my hon. friend will be able to meet me when I get down there.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question. Do I take it from the minister's answer that there has not been any directive that he and others of his colleagues in the house stay away from Cape Breton at the present time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we would be as welcome in Cape Breton as we are in all other parts of the country.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I did intend a further supplementary question. I must compliment the minister on speaking very well on behalf of what the Cape Bretoners' attitude will be, but my question was directed to him and to the attitudes of his own cabinet colleagues. I will ask him directly, is there a directive which suggests that they do not go to Cape Breton?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Most certainly not. I think on the contrary.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the new Minister of Transport. Can he tell the house about the correspondence he exchanged with the minister of highways of the province of Quebec concerning a matter of interest to my constituents, namely the Three Rivers bridge?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope to be in a position to answer this question tomorrow. I wrote some days ago to the minister of highways of Quebec. I am informed that a reply to my letter was received at my office this morning but it did not reach me before I came to the house. I am therefore not in a position to give an answer now, but I think there will be no difficulty about giving one tomorrow.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any communication from Ross Thatcher, the Liberal leader in Saskatchewan, protesting the federal government's unwillingness to participate in a medicare plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I do not recall receiving any communication of that kind at all, but I would be glad to look into it.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Ross Thatcher was here two days ago. Did he discuss this question with the Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I had an interesting chat with him from 9 to 9.15 last Friday morning.


Harold Edward Winch: In that interesting talk, was medicare discussed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am in some difficulty in recalling exactly what we talked about, but I do not think it was discussed.



FREE TELEPHONE CALLS BY MEMBERS BETWEEN OTTAWA AND MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
As house leader, could the minister tell us whether it is true that following an agreement with the Bell Telephone Company, members from ridings located on the island of Montreal will be able to make telephone calls without cost to the island? Is it true also that similar arrangements exist in regard to other cities? Could he also inform the house as to whether the provisions of the bill which was passed last year with respect to the payment of members' telephone calls by the government will soon be put into effect?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Lapointe allow me to read his question to-morrow morning, so as to check the data and give him an answer?



REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL PRECEDENCE LIST OF MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. I wonder whether the minister would issue an official list giving the precedence of the members of the cabinet, as there appears to be considerable doubt on the subject if one consults last Wednesday's French and English Hansards.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his announcement the other day as to the steps the government is going to take with regard to protecting Canadian periodicals. I should like to ask whether the government had an updated analysis of the O'Leary commission's views on the effect of Time and Reader's Digest on Canadian publications before the government made the decision to proceed with these particular steps.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am in some difficulty in understanding what my hon. friend means

Inquiries of the Ministry by an updated analysis of the O'Leary commission's views. We certainly did not consult the chairman of that commission to see if he had updated his own views, but we made our own examination, subsequent to this report being received, as to the effects.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Then I put this question. Is the Prime Minister absolutely satisfied that the steps that are going to be taken will have the remedial results that he indicated, without some kind of restriction upon Time and Reader's Digest?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can only say that we hope they will have that good effect.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister is aware of the transportation problem that exists on the prairies between Calgary and Regina. I believe this was brought to the attention of the former minister by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Pascoe), in regard to transportation on the railways. The hon. member for Moose Jaw stated prior to Christmas that it was difficult to obtain reservations on the C.P.R. In view of the fact that this line is subsidized by the federal government, would the minister assure the people in that particular area that transportation facilities will improve?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give any assurance about what the Canadian Pacific Railway will do, but I will consider the various implications of the hon. gentleman's statement and see whether there is anything I can usefully say to the house about it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister also look into the possibility of reinstating the air line service known as the prairie milk run, to see whether this would alleviate the situation for the time being?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand the air line was also operated by a private company, and it is probably not within the power of the minister to see that it is reinstated. But I will be glad to look into that question also.



PICTOU, N.S.-MAGDALEN ISLANDS    REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the telegram which

I received from the mayor of the town of Pictou and several businesses in the area, including G. J. Hamilton and Sons Limited and Maritime Packers (Canada) Limited, from whom I believe the minister has also received telegrams, would he give urgent consideration to the renewal of the contract of the Magdalen Islands Transportation Company, which operates its service between Pictou and the Magdalen islands?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the telegram does not seem to have reached me as quickly as it has reached the hon. gentleman. That is probably because it has to go through more hands before it gets to mine, but I will look into the matter and try to give an answer.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the government's undertaking to provide the people of Canada with a distinctive national flag, has consideration been given or will consideration be given to allowing the people to make their own choice through a plebiscite or referendum from among several of the most popular designs, including the red ensign?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say at the moment, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the procedure which should be followed in this matter is that parliament certainly should be put in a position to decide for or against a particular flag. As to whether it would be desirable to have a popular referendum on this matter so that the people could choose from among a number of designs, I would like to give that matter very careful consideration before agreeing to it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to place parliament in a position this session where it can pronounce its decision on this question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our commitment was to have this matter before parliament for parliamentary decision within two years of being elected, which was last April.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does not the Prime Minister fear that, if he allows a discussion in parliament on the choice of a flag, it might give rise to a situation similar to what happened when we had

to choose a symbol for the world fair, which members of parliament discussed for hours, even weeks, to get nowhere?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no fear of that kind.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would accept the following suggestion concerning the national flag; that he himself select a distinctive national flag and hoist it on the peace tower and, on our side, we will recognize this distinctive flag.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs because of certain statements made over the week end and headlines in various newspapers indicating that the Department of Veterans Affairs hopes to unload, or intends to unload, certain
D.V.A. hospitals on civilian authorities. I have had telephone calls about this; the veterans are very concerned. Will the minister assure the house that there will be every consultation with the veterans organizations on a federal, provincial and local basis before anything of this kind is undertaken?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I deplore the kind of headline that was used in the article to which I presume my hon. friend is referring. There is no question of unloading. I did indicate last week that we have had requests from various cities, provincial governments and universities for co-operation in assisting to correct a very difficult situation in the hospitals across Canada. As my hon. friend knows, we have our own particular problems in the administration of these hospitals. With that in view we are discussing these things with these people.
With regard to one discussion that was referred to in the city of Calgary last week, I can assure my hon. friend that representatives of three or four veterans organizations from the city of Calgary were present at those discussions. So we are making sure that the veterans organizations are being consulted, not only nationally but provincially
Inquiries of the Ministry and locally, when these discussions are taking place. I can also assure my hon. friend that the principles which have been restated many times, the safeguarding of the personnel and, the safeguarding of the welfare and interests of our veterans, as well as the standard of care, will be the considerations we will stick to in arriving at decisions in this matter.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF FRENCH NAME ON AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering that the Minister of Public Works and the Minister without Portfolio stated in Montreal that the words Air Canada should appear on Trans-Canada Air Lines planes and in view of the fact that the decision in this matter is one for the cabinet, when does the government intend to recommend that the words Air Canada be inscribed on the said airplanes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the views of the government on this matter are well known to the house.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the responsible ministers from the treasury benches I wonder whether the Prime Minister would answer this question. On January 20, 1964, bill HR 9667 was introduced in the United States congress, which will have the effect, if passed, of authorizing the United States government to embark upon a joint financial venture for the paving and improving of the Alaska highway.
I wonder if the Prime Minister can say whether it is the intention of his government to introduce similar legislation this session; and if not, whether it is the intention of the government to set up a committee to cooperate and negotiate with the government of the United States in their obvious desire to assist in paving and improving the Alaska highway.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I know that my hon. friend is deeply interested in this matter, as are other hon. members. I will be glad to look into it and see

Inquiries of the Ministry whether I can make a statement, or whether a colleague of mine can, in a day or two.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On th orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 do not wish at any time to cut off hon. members, but I believe the general custom is, and certainly the rules provide, that once orders of the day are called we should proceed to orders of the day. Perhaps this morning we can give a liberal interpretation to standing orders.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the drastic decrease in exports of cattle to the United States, and may I inquire what he or his department is doing to rectify the situation?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the price of cattle in Canada today is higher than any other place in the Americas, both North and South America. In Chicago this morning cattle are selling for less than they are in Toronto. The consumption of beef since June 18 increased by 18 per cent to an all-time high more than one year ago. We are now consuming in the neighbourhood of 23,000 cattle a week in Canada in reds and blues, which is an alltime high.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister not agree that the price of cattle has done nothing but decline in the last five months?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I think last April the price of cattle did increase until some time in September, when it declined again. But it is at about the same level now as a year ago.


Harold Warren Danforth: A supplementary question. Are we to infer, then, that no step is being taken to rectify this situation, and that we as cattlemen just have to sit here and absorb this continual lowering of prices?


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question in French to the Minister of Agriculture.

Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us why this year the price of ox and calf raw hides has decreased from 50 to 75 per cent compared with last year?


Harry William Hays: The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that we are eating in the neighbourhood of
6,000	head more cattle, so we have 6,000 more hides, and the population has not increased enough to absorb them in the use of leather goods.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the government during this session be giving consideration to the making of amendments to the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act, or to any other means of increasing the pensions of federal civil servants already retired?
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think questions of this kind should now be addressed to the President of the Privy Council, though I am not sure that this one should not wait until the government has made up its mind.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How long will that be?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you will realize that until these divisions of functions are sorted out we do not know whether we should ask the President of the Privy Council about matters that he will deal with when he becomes president of the treasury board. May I, therefore, put my question to the President of the Privy Council. Will the government during this session be giving consideration to the making of amendments to the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act or to any other means of increasing the pensions of federal civil servants already retired?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of fhe Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the government will be giving consideration to this problem because, as the hon. member knows, it is one of great concern to former government employees who are now superannuated. But whether any action will be taken which will involve legislation, I cannot say.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question.


An hon. Member:: Ask it tomorrow.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil) for an address to

The Address-Mr. MacRae
His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefen-baker.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that by agreement amongst the whips this morning the order of speakers should be the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Foy) for a few minutes, then the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) and then the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).


Mr. Walter F. Foy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the house. Despite the pleading of many hon. members on the opposite side of the house who wrere not here on Friday that I repeat my speech, I would merely say that I was referring on Friday to the Financial Times report concerning the implementation of the MacPherson royal commission report, with which I propose to continue. Another item which has been listed among the recommendations in the report not being implemented is as follows:
Proposals for a highway development and other suggestions relating to the trucking industry.
I am confident that the government will not follow an unfair, discriminatory policy of ignoring an industry which is serving this country well. It represents a tremendous investment by thousands of individual competitive enterprises, and about which the royal commission dealt extensively in its report; because, in fairness, I believe they could not avoid doing so.
I should like to make one more suggestion, Mr. Speaker, with relation to committees of the house. If hon. members refer to page 45 of standing orders, standing order 65 (b) says:
-on railways, canals and telegraph lines, to consist of 60 members, 20 of whom shall constitute a quorum;
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this standing order, prepared in the last century, is terribly antiquated. I believe, and I strongly recommend to all parties in this house, that this provision should be changed in order to be more abreast of the times. The present standing committee was established long before many other forms of transportation came into being. I urge all members of the government to consider changing this situation. Let us have a standing committee on transportation that embraces all forms of transportation and, most important, recognizes all forms of transportation.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from
the throne. It was a tribute to them personally, as well as to their constituencies, that they were selected for this task. We do not necessarily agree with all they said, but we still feel that they said it very well.
I congratulate also those members of the ministry who have assumed new and changed responsibilities, especially the two new ministers, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) and the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve). The Minister without Portfolio entered public life as a very young man and has been successful in his career. The people of Canada, and particularly the people of Quebec, are indebted to this minister for the vigorous, effective manner in which he exposed in the 1963 general election the fallacies which are inherent in Social Credit philosophy. The Ralliement Creditistes is now in a decided decline in Quebec, and to this minister is due much of the credit for this desirable state of affairs.
I served with the new Minister of Forestry on the special committee on defence during the last session and have a high regard for his ability. The minister is an economist, one of those who are said to possess the ability to state the obvious in terms of the incomprehensible. I hope our hon. friend is not in that category. The portfolio which he is to administer was first held by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, (Mr. Flemming) who set it up and staffed it with able and dedicated public servants. Because of the importance of the forest industry this portfolio offers great scope.
It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister, in reorganizing his cabinet, did not see fit to remove three of its members who have proven themselves incapable of filling the positions they are holding. I refer, of course, to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps no minister of finance since confederation has made such a fiasco of his job as has the present incumbent.
It is hard to imagine a more inept presentation of a proposed pension plan that that made by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare during the last session.
The Minister of Agriculture, whose continued absences from the house have become the butt of newspaper jokes, appears to know little about the workings of his department, and either does not care to answer or does not know the answers to questions put to him in the house. However, the Prime Minister has evidently decided to give these ministers another chance. Let us hope, for the benefit of the nation as a whole, that there will be at least some improvement in their performances in the months ahead.

The Address-Mr. MacRae
Let us take a look in general at the subject of this debate. There are three new proposals, and three new proposals only, in the speech from the throne. First there are loans for university students, which I intend to discuss in greater detail. Second, an attempt will be made to limit election compaign spending and, third, there will be legislation setting a retirement age for members of the Senate. The other items in the throne speech, for instance the Canada pension plan, railway modernization and streamlining based on the MacPherson royal commission report, measures to protect Canadian magazines from unfair foreign competition as suggested by the O'Leary royal commission, redistribution of parliamentary representation, and a measure to increase employment through the strengthening of industry, are all hold-overs from the last session of parliament, from those days of decision when the most usual decision was to do nothing at that time.
There are some notable omissions from the throne speech. For example, no mention is made of a national flag and a national anthem, the setting up of the Canada development corporation, the establishment of an Indian claims commission, and the putting of the unemployment insurance fund on a sound insurance basis. Canadians are wondering why no mention was made of these and many other matters of urgent national importance.
Canadians are also wondering if this government is going to continue the sales tax on building materials and construction machinery. In the last session the desk of each member of parliament was flooded with letters, telegrams and telephone calls from builders, from manufacturers and from private citizens, bitterly protesting this tax. It would be interesting to know, and I ask the minister to tell us when he is replying in this debate, how many protests he and the other members of the government received against this strangling tax. Just a few days ago the president of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association at their annual meeting in Montreal described it as "a nightmare for industry". His exact words were, and I quote them:
I consider it immoral for any government to inflict such a nightmare on industry, and particularly on one which is the very backbone of the country's economy.
He was referring, of course, to lumber and the building industry.
The confusion that surrounds the tax is as bad as the tax itself, in the variety of rulings which emanate from various district offices and the disadvantages which result in the market place for one section of this country against another.
He predicted a "drab" spring, summer and fall so far as economic activity is concerned.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the imposition of this tax was only one of the half baked policies introduced last year by the Minister of Finance, but we find in the throne speech no indication that he is prepared to remove this tax. Not only that, but it appears that he is going to follow through with the additional 7 per cent that he has threatened to impose on an already overtaxed economy.
I would like to commend the government for its proposal to implement a system of loans to university students. Now there are three ways in which a student who wishes to go to university can be helped; first of all, through a system of scholarships where a monetary award is paid to a student for outstanding scholastic achievement, without regard to financial need; second, through a system of bursaries based partly on scholarship and partly on financial need; and third, a system of loans which would be similar to bursaries except that repayment would be expected.
Every year students are finding it increasingly difficult to earn even a portion of the money needed to finance a university year. A recent survey showed that less than 50 per cent were able to earn $300 or more during the summer, and this at a time when tuition costs and living expenses are at an all-time high, running from a minimum total of $1,100 a year to more than $2,000 a year in many cases. The old tradition of working one's way through college was an honourable and commendable one, but unfortunately it is no longer a practical one.
I am thoroughly in accord with the principle that there should be scholarships available for those of superior scholastic standing, but for many years I have felt that there should also be assistance available for that middle group of students who enter universities, who are too valuable to lose but who do not qualify for scholarships.
There are tens of thousands of young people in Canada, industrious, of good character, of good family background, who are discouraged from seeking a university education because of the heavy financial burden involved. This is a loss which in this age of scientific and technical achievement we cannot afford. A recent survey indicated that there are more than 1 million Canadians between the ages of 18 and 21 years. At least 20 per cent of those are held to be intellectually capable of attaining a university education, but on the other hand only 10 per cent were registered in institutions of higher learning. In other words, the talents of at least one half of our most capable youth are not being fully utilized.

Dr. Cyril James, a former principal of McGill University, declares:
A young man from a family of moderate circumstances has less chance of getting a university education today in Canada than a youth of any other country with which I am familiar.
According to Dr. Edward F. Sheffield, who is research officer of the Canadian universities foundation, in Canada the ratio of university students to the population of college age is only half that of the United States. Canada is wasting her most precious natural asset, the abilities of her people. It is expected that the 18 to 21 age group will have increased 50 per cent by 1970. It is a proven fact that the vast majority of Canadian youth cannot attend university without some type of financial assistance. In many cases this assistance cannot be expected to come from the immediate family.
We must remember something, Mr. Speaker, and that is that under our present constitution, the British North America Act, education in Canada is the exclusive responsibility of the provinces. But I believe we have now reached the point in our national development when this must be changed. The Canada of today bears little resemblance to the Canada of 1867. If our federal government has accepted the final responsibility for the welfare of every Canadian, if it accepts the responsibility for full employment, then it must as a natural result accept more responsibility for realizing the full potential of every Canadian.
The provinces are unequal in their capacity to assist students. Yet students from all parts of Canada are presumably equally capable and have an equal right to as much education as their abilities merit. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that students from the maritimes apparently have a higher level of intelligence than those from anywhere else in Canada, as proven by the large numbers of them who are now leaders in the professions, in business and in industry in upper Canada and the west and in the United States. Dr. Norman A. M. MacKenzie, former president of the University of British Columbia, said this on this point:
The work of the universities does not end at the provincial boundaries either in its scope or significance. In each of the larger universities in Canada there are students from all the provinces. In some cases the students from other parts of Canada constitute as much as one third of the total enrolment.
Dr. MacKenzie went on to say:
Similarly, the graduates of the universities are distributed over the entire country. Anywhere from one fifth to more than one half of the graduates of particular institutions live and work in provinces other than the one in which they received their education. University graduates are one of the most mobile elements in the working
The Address-Mr. MacRae population and comprise a source of skilled and educated personnel which is available to the nation as a whole. It is well known that the university trained personnel which are needed by governments and by national businesses of all kinds are recruited from every part of the country.
Provincial rights must always be given the full consideration which they deserve. However, I cannot agree with Premier Lesage of Quebec that a student loan plan is an infringement of these provincial rights. The Massey commission had this to say on this subject:
The Canadian constitution does not forbid financial assistance to a citizen in order to permit him to carry on studies in his chosen field. No one will contend that the granting of such assistance by an individual or group constitutes an interference with the country's educational system, the independence of the educational institutions or the programs of these institutions. A similar reasoning applies to the financial aid which the federal government might provide to any citizen to enable him to pursue ordinary or specialized education.
It may be argued that a student loan may be too much of a burden for the average student to bear, too much of a millstone about his neck once he has graduated. I do not agree. The figures are very clear as to how much more a university graduate earns over a lifetime than a high school graduate, who of course in turn earns so much more than the man or woman who has little or no education.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point where the present university year of barely eight months should be lengthened to 10 or 11 months. In this way a four year course could be completed in three years and a five year course in less than four years. I am fully aware that this would entail a great upheaval in the whole system of university organization. It would mean that we would have to find perhaps 50 per cent more teachers. It would perhaps mean a drastic revision of the present summer school programs which are now so large a part of the work of many universities. But it works. It was done after the war for veteran students. It worked then and it should work now.
I cannot see any sense in a system under which tens of thousands of university students are spending more than a third of every year in enforced idleness when they could and should be productive members of our society. H. G. Wells in his "Outline of History" said:
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
Let us by all means and with all possible speed implement this item from the program of which the government has given notice in the speech from the throne.
I should like to speak very briefly about the other two new proposals, and there are only two others, in the speech from the throne.

The Address-Mr. MacRae The first is the item concerning election campaign spending. While I wish the government well in this matter, I cannot see much hope for success here as things now stand. It is possible to set a limit, for example, on the amount a candidate or a party can spend on advertising or on the hiring of buildings for public meetings and so on, but it seems to me that the only reasonable way, and perhaps one of the better ways, to limit expenditures on election campaigns is to limit the time during which those campaigns are held. Eight weeks is far too long for an election campaign. It is too long a grind for the leaders of our parties. It is too long a grind for the prime minister and the members of his government, who must perforce neglect their duties. It is too hard and too long a grind for the candidates and, above all, it is too long and too hard a grind for the voters, many of whom are sick and tired of the whole thing by the time the shouting is over.
After all, the issues should and can be presented within two or three weeks, yes, less than that in these days when practically every family in Canada owns or has access to television, radio and newspapers. I suggest that an eight week campaign is now an inexcusable waste of public time and public money. I suggest that a commission be established to work on this problem with a view to setting a sensible limit in this regard. Once this is done, campaign spending will of necessity be cut to correspond.
The only other new proposal in the throne speech was that there should be a retirement age for senators. It is generally presumed that this will be set at 75 years. This is, of course, a step on the way to Senate reform but, Mr. Speaker, it falls far short of what needs to be done. At this point I want to make it clear that what I am about to say in the next few minutes bears no personal reflection on any member of that house; not at all. But I cannot see that the Senate is fulfilling any useful purpose today. Occasionally it is given an important task to do such as the Senate committee on manpower and employment a few years ago. That was a job that, as we all know, was done exceptionally well. But the Senate is not now being given enough worthwhile work to do. It seems to me it has become a rubber stamp for the House of Commons, which was never the intention in the beginning.
I suggest that what we really need in this country is an elected senate, and in this regard we might profitably borrow from the procedures in the United States. I do not see any merit in the proposal for a retirement age because, after all, one man can be in perfect physical and mental condition at 85 while another man may be senile at 65. To

suggest that a senator is capable of fulfilling his office when he is 74 years and 364 days old and is incapable when he is 75 years and one day old seems to me nothing short of absurdity. I suggest to the government that if they want to do anything really constructive in this field they will have to go a great deal farther than simply setting an arbitrary age for retirement.
No mention was made in the throne speech of a Canadian flag. The Prime Minister and his colleagues said in the last election campaign that they would settle this entire question within two years of taking office. In fairness, Mr. Speaker, there are still 14 months to go, of course; but I feel and I think most Canadians feel that the government should be getting on with it. All of us are besieged with suggested designs for a Canadian flag. Some are attractive, some are ridiculous and all, of course, are unnecessary. I and many millions of other Canadians have not changed our minds.
We feel that the flag we were proud to fight under in two world wars, the flag which is now flown at the masthead on all our public buildings both here and abroad, the flag which is now recognized all over the world as Canada's flag, the red ensign, should once and for all be declared to be the official flag of Canada.
No mention was made in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, that an Indian claims commission would be set up. Some of us tend to adopt a holier than thou attitude about racial problems in the United States, especially in the south, and they are great problems indeed. However, we tend to forget the conditions under which so many Canadian Indians are existing. We have here a perfect example of defeatist paternalism carried to its ultimate. We have to take more enlightened action than ever before in regard to our Indians, and it is disappointing that this measure, which was very strongly advocated by the previous Conservative administration, is evidently to be disregarded.
There are a number of other items in the throne speech, as well as a number of items which have been omitted from it, with which I should like to deal. However, I shall reserve my right to speak on them until they are brought before the house as the session proceeds.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this. In the months ahead this house will have to deal with many vexing problems, both internal and external. If we are to deal with them with any measure of success it will require the wisdom and energy, the co-operation and attention, of every member of this house without regard to political party. In our system of government the

opposition has a vital role to play. It is the role of the opposition to act as a watchdog. It is the role of the opposition to offer contractive criticism. It is the role of the opposition to oppose those measures which it does not believe to be right or in the public interest. As members of the official opposition, these are the tasks to which we have set ourselves.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks. I want to pay tribute-and I hope that my colleagues will join with me in so doing-to the unfortunate Canadian Jesuits who have just been deported from Haiti.
I am well acquainted with the works of the Jesuits in Canada, having studied eight years in one of their classical colleges. Moreover- and I do not hide the fact as I am quite proud of it-I spent two years and a half as a member of their order.
I wish to pay tribute to them, more especially as the Jesuits, by the blood shed by their first martyrs, succeeded in furthering civilization in Canada; they have always advocated the practice of moral virtues and the principles of Christian charity in our country.
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we heard the Prime Minister of this country deliver a very eloquent speech. In magnificently sincere accents, he made an appeal for Canadian unity. However, I did not applaud.
About a year or a year and a half ago- I believe it was in December 1962-when the present Prime Minister was in the opposition, he had delivered a similar speech and I had applauded him vigorously for the speech, to my mind, was magnificent.
A year ago, when the present Prime Minister delivered another speech of the same type, I applauded and approved him. This year, I could not do so, as I realize that after two years those are only words, high-sounding words as always but no action. Besides, that is what I have noticed during the two years that I have been sitting in this house.
Mr. Speaker, we are all for the ideas put forward in his speeches by the present Prime Minister, but we want those speeches to be followed by action. In brief, we want those plans to be carried into effect and we do not want to be put off with speeches, year after year, like in the past. We want action which will clearly indicate his sincerity and his desire to solve the problems now facing our Canadian confederation and the two national groups forming our country.
Mr. Speaker, we must find a realistic, concrete and satisfactory solution for each and every Canadian citizen living in this country.
The Address-Mr. Gregoire And today, I should like to suggest what I think could form the basis of a discussion to find such a solution.
It is clear that our present system can no longer operate and cannot give satisfaction to the majority of the citizens in our country. Today, our system is based on compromise between English and French Canadians, and that compromise is hindering a proper development satisfactory to both those groups. Well, a country cannot be developed by basing its system of growth on compromise. Bold and daring solutions must be found, solutions based, not on compromise, but on realistic and logical principles which can give satisfaction to both those groups making up the country.
As a matter of fact, you only have to consider our present system to realize that it can no longer operate. For instance, the Prime Minister stated in his speech that the over-all picture of unemployment all across the country had improved and that there was a significant decrease. If that is what happened in other provinces, the situation has not improved very much in the province of Quebec and in eastern Canada.
I have other examples to give you. Our legislation, in Canada, is made for local groups and not for the whole Canadian population; some groups are able to take advantage thereof but the majority of the people do not. I shall even go so far as to say that such pieces of legislation are detrimental to certain regional groups.
Let us take, for instance, the field of agriculture. Last year, we were promised an eastern Department of Agriculture in view of the differences between farming problems in western Canada and in the province of Quebec. This year, we note that this government changed its mind and did not keep its promise.
When I go back to my riding, where conditions are the same as in all the other ridings in the province of Quebec, to state that the farmer's loan act is very effective in the prairie provinces in assisting the farmers in that area, but that it has not been adapted to the needs and requirements of our province, our citizens cannot help realizing that the act is made to apply to one region and not to the whole country.
Every week, every month, we inevitably have some examples in that respect. Let us take, for instance, the activity in the construction industry; lately there has been discussion about the benefits of the new acts in increasing activity in the building industry, and even the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said last Thursday:
The number of housing units started last year totalled 148,000 units as compared with some 130,000

The Address-Mr. Gregoire In 1962, and the estimated value of residential construction reached a new high of approximately $1,800 million, which was roughly more than $300 million above the previous year.
Now what do we read in he Soleil of Quebec, of February 22, page 15?
It is to be noted, however, that in 1962 the value of construction reached an unprecedented figure of $31 million, whereas in 1963, the 2,100 and odd permits amounted to $17,551,000.
Thus a decrease of nearly $14 million or 50 per cent. It says further:
One hundred and seventy one constructions were started in 1963, for a total of 963 housing units; in 1962, there had been 194 constructions for a total of 1,134 housing units.
Therefore, under the new legislation, there is some improvement throughout the country, but the situation is worse in the province of Quebec.
There is another legislation that is discriminatory to the people of the province of Quebec: the Income Tax Act with receipts for charitable donations deductible from the net income. That part of the act may be advantageous to the country as a whole, but it is bad for the province of Quebec: it forces the parish priest to be inconsistent, it sets him against his parishioners, it sets the latter, as well as the director of taxation, against the parish priest and so on. The federal Income Tax Act has given rise to contradictions between all those elements, so that it is now discriminatory to the people of the province of Quebec, who grumble about it.
There are several other fields where you find that legislation, as written in Ottawa, is suited to the nine other provinces but not to the mentality, the temperament and the characteristics of the French Canadian group which is developing in Quebec.
In most cases, as I said before, federal legislation discriminates against the citizens of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the solution is not to tear everything down, to separate the country, to divide everything, to destroy existing institutions; it is necessary to find a radical solution that will satisfy everyone.
Let no one call us extremists because we come up with a radical solution. There was talk the other day about the extremists of Quebec.
Before setting forth this drastic solution, I wish to say a few words about extremism. There are two kinds of extremism: one which consists in opposition to progress, stagnation, not moving ahead; the other, in a too rapid evolution, an unlimited one which is beyond the reach of this human world.
I feel that in this house and in the federal government, today, there are more extremists in the sense of being opposed to progress

and in favour of stagnation than there are, in the province of Quebec, extremists who stand for unlimited change.
Let us keep that in mind and try to reach a solution that is not extreme. Even if it is a radical one, such a solution could serve as a basis for discussion, and then it will be possible to come to an understanding.
I maintain that this country is made up, not of ten provinces, but of two nations. Here, it should be noted that, to our way of thinking, the word "nation" in French does not have the meaning it has in English to English Canadians. To me, the word "nation" does not mean "country"-

A nation is not a country. We could have two nations in Canada and only one country. That is what we mean by "nation". The definition in English and in French is not the same.

There are two nations in this country, and if each nation is allowed to develop according to its own characteristics, with all legislative, executive and legal powers it needs to solve its specific problems, it will be possible to agree on the other problems which concern the whole country, from coast to coast.
Let us take, for instance, the problem of education. In my opinion it must be the responsibility of each ethnic group, French Canadian and English Canadian. I feel that no English Canadian in this country will be concerned with the fact that each nation has its education system under its entire and exclusive control. I think I know English Canadians well enough today to realize that they are usually businessmen who do care much about sentimentality; however, in politics they occasionally react according to their feelings.
The fact that the province of Quebec is called upon to control exclusively and entirely her educational system, should not disturb English Canadians in our country; they must let us proceed, since they do not bother at all about the type of educational system we have in the province, and they have never bothered.
As concerns hospitalization and medical care, the case is the same; there are features which are particular to the province of Quebec, and we should look exclusively after our hospitalization system.
The same applies to our agriculture, our highway system, the development of our natural resources and a number of other fields in which the province of Quebec is willing, able and bound to develop by itself,

for it has the pride and the ability to do it. In these fields, English Canadians will not be affected nor disturbed.
In other fields, the two great nations can co-operate, for they will then both benefit, and there is no ground for contestation.
The points I have just touched upon such as education, highways, hospitalization, agriculture, the development of natural resources and others-all these various fields should be enumerated in other circumstances or during study sessions-are open to discussion; there is disagreement and strife between English speaking and French speaking Canadians in that connection at present.
Yet, there would be no wrangling if each nation or each group were left to settle its problems by itself. Then, we could agree on other points.
What are those other points? I will not give them all but there is the defence of the country-and I say "country" not "nation"-external affairs, the mail, interprovincial transportation by means of the C.N.R., T.C.A., etc.
The solution would be to abandon to the province of Quebec those fields which it is able and willing-and must-to look after by itself, and put at the head of the country as a whole a supranational parliament, that is one which would be above both nations, a truly confederal government which would handle the fields which cause no disagreement among the Canadian people.
What does that mean? It means, as a corollary, that the province of Quebec must recover its sources of revenue and taxation. That is the first point.
That is what nearly all the people from Quebec are asking at present.
The other day, I heard a member of the house say: The Creditistes do not represent the French Canadians, nor are they their spokesmen. That is true, I admit. I do not claim to be the standard-bearer of French Canadians, because they are able to speak for themselves. But when I see, for instance, that the Liberal government of the province of Quebec, to begin with, is asking that sources of income, direct taxes, be handed over to the provinces, that the opposition, the Union Nationale party, is following suit by making the same demands with as much emphasis, that students throughout the province of Quebec, as well as national organizations, farmers and labourers, by means of resolutions, are calling for the same thing, I suggest then that French Canada itself is making itself heard, not only one individual but the people, the institutions, the organizations of the province of Quebec as a whole.
One individual does not represent the voice of the people, but sometimes some leaders speak on behalf of the people. At any rate, the
The Address-Mr. Gregoire voice of Quebec is being heard now and is demanding its sources of income and taxation so that the province may be in a position to develop by itself, as it can do.
When some people suggest, for instance, that to leave Quebec on its own would result in economic disaster, I say that they are either trying to intimidate us or to scare us, but personally, I am not afraid, because I am convinced that the province of Quebec has enough engineers, scientists, skilled labourers at present, and above all enough natural resources and industries, to be in a position to develop and expand.
Mr. Speaker, two nations which would not be separatist nor divided but independent within a country extending from sea to sea, each nation having exclusively the complete control in certain fields and being in agreement on a certain number of others, that could become a reality as it has been done before. I have already mentioned a small country as an example. I do not wish to compare both countries: Puerto Rico and Canada. Evidently I cannot make any comparison about the climate; we do not have the same climate as Puerto Rico. I will not make any comparison in the commercial field because conditions are different. I will not make any comparison in the economic field, because our agriculture and our industries are different. But I wish to compare our constitutions and on that point only, I wish to give some examples. I have on hand some information which I have obtained by tearing off pages from a telephone directory in Puerto Rico: [Text]
Puerto Rico today is a self governing commonwealth of the United States-
You will see what kind of self government they have:
The commonwealth was officially proclaimed on July 25, 1952.
The constitution of the commonwealth is in complete harmony with the federal constitution, providing for a republican form of government with executive, legislative and Judicial branches.

While being a member of the American commonwealth and associated with the United States, Puerto Rico is a free state which fully controls its judicial, executive and legislative system.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the hon. member?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of your quotation, is it your contention that the province of Quebec-which you prefer to call the state of Quebec-should be a self governing section of Canada?

The Address-Mr. Gregoire


Gilles Grégoire: That is exactly what I will tell you when I have given some examples.


Harold Edward Winch: The province of Quebec should be a self governing section of the confederation of Canada?


Gilles Grégoire: Would you say that again?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question because of the quotation of the hon. member. After all this time-and we have listened to the hon. member now for 20 minutes-is the hon. member saying that Quebec, in his estimation, should be a self governing state inside the confederation of Canada?


Gilles Grégoire: Exactly; self governing.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is an admission of failure on your part.


Gilles Grégoire: I beg your pardon?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would just like to ask the speaker, Mr. Speaker, whether he does not concede that this is a tremendous admission of failure on his part, for all French speaking members of parliament both now and in our past, if we have come to this?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that and then I will try to come back to the line of argument I was pursuing. If you will permit me, I will continue in French because I can express myself better.

Every country, Mr. Speaker, goes through periods of normal evolution. When a country is passing through its primary phase of development or growth, we often see other countries coming to the assistance of the younger one. But every country, at a certain stage in its history, reaches a period of maturity where it is capable of looking after its own development and administration.
We are grateful to our English speaking fellow citizens who have enabled us to develop ourselves and to grow to the point we have reached today, so that the alliance we had in the past allowed us to become today a nation capable of administering, managing and governing itself.	.
Gentlemen, our thanks for the past. We shall not prove ungrateful in future, now that we can watch over our own destiny, alone as do all other countries of the world.
This does not mean that we want to break all ties. It does not mean that we want to end an existing co-operation, not at all. But I believe-and it has been proved by numerous instances throughout history-that a nation existing in a specific area never achieved development and progress unless it did it by itself, by its own efforts, because that nation alone may choose then to live

according to its own possibilities and characteristics. Never has a nation been able to achieve development while under the control or leadership of others.
If we really want to promote the development of the province of Quebec as a French Canadian group which would enrich this American continent, then the French Canadian nation must be allowed to grow by itself because it is the only way it will develop fully and properly.
I spoke a while ago about Puerto Rico as a government with its own executive, legislative and judicial powers. That did not upset the administration of the United States. Here is what the chief justice of the United States, Earl Warren, said about that:

In the sense that our American system is not static, in the sense that it is not an end but a means to an end-in the sense that it is an organism intended to grow and expand to meet varying conditions and times in a large country- in the sense that every governmental effort of ours is an experiment-the new institution of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico represents an experiment-the newest experiment and perhaps the most notable of American governmental experiments in our lifetimes.

The Americans did not complain about that new system set up in Puerto Rico, which remains a free country associated with the United States, as they say in their own language: estado libero associado de Puerto Rico: free state, associated with Puerto Rico. They have the same foreign affairs department, the same defence department, the same postal service, etc.
It is a new idea for a modern state. Therefore, why not look for a new idea when it is seen that a basis of compromise is not doing Canada any good, and it is interfering with its national development. If we were to put an end to such a compromise, if we could work in a climate of understanding, leaving to each group responsibility for its own development, then we could make sound progress.
Let us take for instance the field of education. The province of Quebec says: We do not want any encroachment in the field of education, and I am not the one who says that; all Liberal members know that and share the same idea. We do not want any infringement of the field of education. But the nine other provinces like nothing better than centralization, as it will help them. Who prevents that centralization in the field of education that would help the nine other provinces? Who prevents that? It is the French Canadian nation that is opposed to it. Not only do we prevent it, but we also restrain the activities of the federal government in

certain other fields. We block the development of the nine other provinces in several fields, such as highways, education and the postal service.
The nine other provinces would have much more freedom to develop without Quebec, which says no, invoking its rights under the B.N.A. Act. The nine other provinces would be able to develop more easily if we would end those compromises that prevent a greater expansion in some fields which are agreeable to the nine other provinces but not to Quebec.
On the other hand, the nine other provinces block the development of Quebec in some fields.
Why is it that our two groups disagree constantly in certain fields? Not individually- for I know persons who, individually, do not agree with me, but nevertheless we are not enemies-we still are Canadian citizens; we are always at issue about certain principles and certain ideas which are prejudicial to the development of either one group or the other. It is based on compromise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired, unless he wants to move a subamendment.


Gilles Grégoire: I want to move a subamendment, but I see that I still have ten minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to move a subamendment, he must do so now and then he may proceed with his comments.


Gilles Grégoire: In that case, I shall move my subamendment immediately and continue later.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) that the following words be added right at the end of the amendment.
Now, I wish to point out that my amendment is worded in French and in English, and in case an error should occur in translation, which happened before for the word "demand" and "demande", we request that the French version be declared the official text.
This house also regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to state that the year 1964 should be the year of and for the Canadian family, through the increased family allowances according to the factual cost of living.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may now proceed with his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was precisely suggesting that if we put an end to all that, we could understand each other.
Some people fear that we might be an impediment in the field of trade. But in that field as in many others, we would remain one great country from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The Address-Mr. Gregoire We could co-operate in many areas and contribute to the development of a great country in several spheres.
I am convinced that this is possible-that it can and should be done.
Mr. Speaker, it might perhaps be said that this is a far fetched solution. Before expressing such an opinion in the house, I had the opportunity of discussing it with some organizations, with various English speaking people and citizens from other provinces.
Frequently, there is at first a rather strong reaction. We are asked a few pointed questions and, after some discussion, people realize that it is quite possible to agree on such a matter. It is obviously impossible to express in 30 minutes every idea connected with such a project. We are asked: "What will happen when the C.N.R. runs through the province of Quebec?"
Well, in such a field, things are readily acceptable. Nothing will be changed in this respect; it will always be a large company looking after means of transportation and communication. The fact that it enters the province of Quebec does not mean any change.
Instead of erecting a frontier between two groups understanding each other, we would co-operate in finding a logical solution acceptable to all which would eliminate unnecessary conflicts and discussions.
Mr. Speaker, this year again-though we are speaking of co-operative federalism- the speech from the throne contains some measures which will result in further discussions. There are, for instance, federal loans to students. In this connection, I was reading, last Saturday, on page two of the newspaper La Presse, that those mainly concerned in the province of Quebec, those who greatly need them are objecting, and I quote:
The general association of Laval students has just objected to a federal policy of loans to university students.
Mr. Speaker, the very ones who greatly need loans are ready to make every sacrifice to try to preserve their full rights.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I think Mr. Speaker will realize that there might be some question as to whether this subamendment is relevent to the amendment. I hope Your Honour will rule on this matter of the nature of the subamendment, otherwise it gives the member who puts it forward additional time to speak when he is

The Address-Mr. Gregoire not really entitled to it. If the subamendment is out of order, then naturally his right to speak falls.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is that according to the clock the hon. member for Lapointe still has five minutes to go. I would think that a ruling should be made on the acceptability of this subamendment after the recess.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left I would like to continue the remarks I was making this morning.
We advocate in Canada a system of two independent nations within a single great country.

Two independent nations in one and only great country.
Each having its own fields of jurisdiction which allow a nation to develop fully politically, socially and economically. And to that end, each must have its own legislative, executive, judicial and fiscal powers to ensure its full development.
Once that is achieved, the two nations will be able to co-operate in perfect harmony in several areas to make of Canada not only a great country but one that will be renowned throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I shall refrain from going into further details so that this solution may be discussed and every possible avenue explored. Let us not refuse to discuss the proposed solution, because I am convinced it will remove many fears and prejudices.
Let us refrain from considering every word as an ultimatum or as a threat, because in order to agree, one must clearly state one's claims.
In addition, no discussion is possible if one does not act fairly and aboveboard. We have learned to deal realistically in politics and not to indulge in sentiment any more.
Mr. Speaker, I also submit that we should not be die-hard extremists. Let us rather be daring in seeking a solution. Let us not wait until an unacceptable solution is forced upon us. Let us find one ourselves. Let us discuss and find a solution as soon as possible before we are forced to accept one that we dislike.

Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to say that French Canadians believe in their destiny but they wish to control it themselves so as to be in a better position to give it the direction they wish. The French Canadian people have a destiny of their own, and history has proved that no one can stop a people from achieving its destiny.
We have faith in our destiny; we believe in it. We feel that we can develop tremendously by ourselves and for ourselves, and that we can at the same time co-operate with English speaking Canada to create in harmony a single and great country, from one ocean to the other, a country where everyone would mind his own business to develop not only himself but also this single and great country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Mr. Gregoire, seconded by Mr. Perron, moves:
That the following words be immediately added at the end of the amendment:
"That this house also regrets that His Excellency's advisers failed to state that the year 1964 was to be the year of and for the Canadian families, through the increase of family allowances according to the factual cost of living."

In the course of this morning's meeting there were some questions raised as to the acceptability of this proposed subamendment, and if any hon. members have comments to offer for the guidance of the Chair I would of course be very pleased to hear them at this time before a ruling is made.


Mr. Churchill:: Nobody on the government side?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: thought perhaps somebody on the government side would seek to advise Your Honour; bearing in mind, and I have very much in mind the statement of His Honour Mr. Speaker the other night in regard to a subamendment that has been dealt with by this house already. In any event, if Your Honour would refer to the words of Mr. Speaker, you will see he indicates that in future he feels subamendments must be relevant to amendments. Further I direct Your Honour's attention to the Journals of this house for March 5, 1948, when under similar circumstances in a debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne an amendment had been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I need not go into the precise words of his motion, but there was a rather long subamendment moved, dealing with an entirely different subject. I need not again go into the precise wording. If hon. members will consult the Journals for 1948, pages 220 and 221, they will see

the precise wording of the amendment and subamendment in question. I cite His Honour of the day:
It is of course clear that the amendment of Mr. Bracken is a motion of "no confidence", and is wholly confined to this subject. In my opinion it is quite clear there is nothing on the face of it to show that the proposed subamendment is intended to amend the amendment, since it deals with an entirely different subject. It is further quite clear that the proposed subamendment raises new and important issues. I quote from Beau-chesne's third edition, page 142, citation 367:
"A subamendment on the address in reply to the speech from the throne may be moved subject to the same rules as any other amendment. It must be relevant to the amendment and cannot raise a new issue."
In citation No. 368 on the same page the author cites an example of the application of this rule. Mr. Speaker Lemieux, as reported in the Journals of the House of Commons, 1929, at page 110, says as follows:
"It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment has been proposed, and this rule has invariably been insisted up by Canadian Speakers."
He points out that if this were not so, all the benefits of giving due notice of a motion and allowing the house a full opportunity of considering a question would be practically lost. A member would then be in a position to surprise the house at any moment with a motion of importance, and the necessity of giving notice would be superseded to all intents and purposes. He further points out that the latest English decisions are in accord with the Canadian Speakers.
For these reasons I must rule the proposed amendment to the amendment out of order.
The ruling was appealed but sustained by the house. We might also refer to Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 143, paragraph (2), which reads as follows:
But a subamendment... is not a new motion of no confidence; it is intended to strengthen or weaken the amendment to which it must be relevant and upon which it is dependant.
The subamendment advanced by the hon. member for Lapointe raises another very interesting ground on which the government might be attacked, but I do not want to go into the merits of that question at all or to discuss family allowances in any way. I am trying to draw attention to the difficulties that would face the house if the subamendment was accepted. On the basis of such a ruling an hon. member having put forward an amendment, some other hon. member would then have the right to put forward a subamendment not related to it in any way at all. The rules of relevancy apply not only to amendments to bills but also to amendments to any motions.
While it is true enough that from time to time there has perhaps been some latitude accorded in a debate such as we are now engaged in, I would respectfully point out that such latitude has not been great and in my opinion it would be better if we applied the rules as to relevancy. Therefore I submit
Point of Order
that this subamendment is not only questionable but in fact is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that we are in a difficult field when we try to apply the rule of relevancy to subamendments made during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. If that is not clear from the discussions which took place last Thursday and Friday and which are now taking place, it will be clear to hon. members if they will search the records, for the fact is that this rule has been applied in both ways over the years. On occasions subamendments have been ruled out of order because they did not deal with the subject matter covered by the amendment. On other occasions they have been allowed as in order.
The instance with which all members must be familiar, of course, is the one to which His Honour the Speaker referred on Friday last and which dates back 11 or 12 years. That was an instance where Mr. Drew had moved an amendment dealing with economic matters and Mr. Coldwell had moved a subamendment dealing with health insurance or medical care.
It seems to me that the rationale or basis for that kind of subamendment being in order both in the 1952 case and now, is that what is really before us in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is a motion of non-confidence in the government. The Leader of the Opposition proceeded in his amendment of last Thursday to give his main reason for non-confidence in the government, and what we in this party did was to add an additional reason for that non-confidence. In other words, our subamendment expanded the amendment by enlarging the basis for non-confidence.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very compelling parallelism between what this party did last week and what the hon. member for Lapointe is seeking to do now. He is bringing in another reason for non-confidence. We added medicare to an economic item; he would add family allowances to the same economic item. It seems to me that if ours was accepted by the house last week as being in order, and it was, then the one that is before us at the present time also has to be accepted.
I quite recognize the various citations there are about relevancy, and that relevancy must apply to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but I submit that Speakers over the years have wrestled with this problem and that many of them have come to the conclusion that because the main amendment to the address in reply is in effect a motion of non-confidence, it is in order to add a second or third reason

Point of Order
for that non-confidence. It is quite true that the subamendment now proposed is not in itself a new motion of non-confidence. There can be only one, the one that is before us, but surely it is open to the house to expand the reasons for that non-confidence.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the house to consider the position we would be in if this subamendment were ruled out of order and if in effect a subamendment such as we moved last week were in the future to be ruled out of order. This would mean that in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the first speaker for the opposition could move an amendment in very narrow terms, and in so doing deny to the house the opportunity to put any other points of view before the house for the next four days.
It seems to me that is contrary to the whole purpose and spirit of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The purpose of that debate is to permit the government to give us its program and for government supporters to tell us how wonderful that program is. The purpose is also to give other members of the house an opportunity to point out the serious omissions from the speech from the throne and to present their points of view as to what the government should be bringing forward.
There are many quotations in the Hansard record indicating that this is the clear function of opposition parties and opposition members in the House of Commons. Yet if it were ruled that because the Leader of the Opposition brought in an amendment dealing with only one question, the 11 per cent sales tax, therefore no other possible subject could be introduced as a subamendment, that would mean that for four days the opportunity of any other subject being put before the house for a vote would be ruled out. It would mean that on two particular occasions, namely 15 minutes before the end of the second day and 30 minutes before the end of the fourth day, when standing order 38 provides for votes, there could be no vote.
I suggest that we have to put these things together. We have to realize that some of the citations my hon. friend from Edmonton West was quoting go back prior to the creation of what is now standing order 38. We have to build up a jurisprudence in connection with this procedure. Indeed, since we have a standing order which provides for votes on subamendments and amendments on the second, fourth and sixth days of the debate and a vote on the main motion on the eighth day, we must not do anything that denies to members the right to put forward propositions on which votes can be taken on the second, fourth and sixth days.

Therefore, looking at this in the light of the more recent jurisprudence, looking at it in the light of some of the decisions that have been made, such as the decision that was made in 1952 by Mr. Speaker Macdonald, the decision that was made on Thursday and Friday of last week by His Honour the Speaker of this house, I believe this amendment should be allowed.
It would seem to be unfair to allow our medicare amendment last week and not allow this family allowances amendment today. I say that to disallow this subamendment would be to rob us of some of the rights and privileges that are supposed to be associated with the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It may be that this whole subject is one of the things with which we must deal in our committee on procedure. Perhaps we must sort it out. Perhaps there was latitude accorded on Thursday and Friday of last week. Surely, however, there should not be latitude accorded to us when we move our amendment on medicare and no latitude accorded to my hon. friend when he moves his amendment with regard to family allowances. In the light of the whole situation, I think you should allow this subamendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am very much interested, Mr. Speaker, in the line of argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He rests his case on the fact that the amendment of the New Democratic party was accepted the other night, and that that having been done, then everything else that transpires should be in accord with that decision. Hansard for Thursday and Friday of last week gives a clear indication that the Speaker had grave doubts as to the relevancy of the subamendment put forward by the New Democratic party. In fact we thought on Thursday afternoon that he was going to rule it out of order, but on Thursday night he accepted it without having heard from some hon. members, as we protested.
As has been stated, a survey of the judgments made in the past indicates that there has been a difference of opinion expressed by various Speakers, certainly over the last 20 years. I am not sure that makes allowance for the decisions now. Perhaps in this parliament the Speaker should determine that subamendments should be relevant to the amendments, as the rule lays down, and carry on from that point. If there should be a change, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, perhaps the committee on rules and procedure should make it and put some of the other parties in this house in a somewhat different position with regard to amendments. This might well be done this

session, if hon. members so desire. However, I do not believe that is a reason, on this occasion, for setting aside the rule of relevancy which has been so seriously abrogated under the present circumstances.
In view of what was said on Friday, February 21, as recorded on page 79 of Hansard, I quote the words of the Speaker:
-I endeavoured to suggest to the house that in future subamendments should be relevant in spite of considerable latitude given in the past.
Considerable latitude was given last Thursday and Friday, and so far as that time is concerned this is now the future, so I feel the rule of relevancy should be applied.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would, first of all, thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having advanced every argument needed to convince the majority of the hon. members of the validity of our subamendment.
Yet, I would like to add something. In order to find a basis for declaring our subamendment inacceptable, a volume by Beauchesne was mentioned. For my part, I cannot refer to it as boldly as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), because I am unable to grasp the whole portent of its terms and implications, as my legal studies were made in French and not in English. I cannot consider a legal text as official in this house unless it is drafted in both languages. So I refer to the only official text, written in both languages, which is placed at our disposal, namely the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, in which only one chapter deals with the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that is chapter 4, page 25 in the English version.
A reading of all these rules shows that no mention is made of the scope of amendments to amendments. One rule says:
Any amendment or amendments-
That is very general. Nothing restricts the scope of amendments to amendments.
As the address in reply to the speech from the throne gives the members freedom to deal with any question they wish to, and as the Standing Orders of the House of Commons put no limit whatsoever upon subamendments, the subamendments moved by hon. members must not be subject to greater restrictions than the speeches on the address. It is possible that Beauchesne puts certain limits to subamendments but, personally, I am not bound by Beauchesne. I am bound, as the Speaker and all hon. members, by the only official text of the standing orders which is published in both languages and which is handed over to us when we arrive in Ottawa.
Point of Order
I do not see why we should be bound to move subamendments limited by Beauchesne while the official standing orders set no restriction.
On the other hand, reading the text of the Conservative amendment proposed by the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), I realize this amendment bears especially on some regret:
We respectfully regret-
The point in question is regret. Now, Mr. Speaker, we also regret: therefore, we remain in identical limits of regret. If they regret and if we regret, we remain on the same subject, that of regrets. They regret one thing, we regret another; we, therefore, regret together, we are placed within the same limits, we both regret omissions. I do not see why we are told we are breaking the rules. On the contrary, we start exactly the same way.
We respectfully regret-

But we respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose-

In French, we say:
This house also regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to state-
I do not see why the member for Edmonton West and the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) claim that our subamendment is not along the same line as theirs.
We maintain that the rules of the house allow us to move admendments to an amendment during the debate on the address, since there is no ruling specifying that the amendments are restricted. On the other hand, we claim that our amendment concurs with the main amendment since they both regret the proposals of this government.


Mr. G. N. Baldwin (Peace River):: Perhaps
I	may make a brief comment which arises particularly because of the concluding words of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I think the two cases are completely distinguishable. If the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition had been to the effect: "We regret that His Excellency's advisers have lost the confidence of the house-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: But that is not the gravamen of the amendment. The amendment says:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the repeal of the
II	per cent sales tax."
That is what might be called a rifle shot approach referable to a single statute. It is

Point of Order
an expression of regret that the government has failed to propose an amendment to that particular statute. It might still be, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested, that if this had been the usual motion of non-confidence-and the government last year took the position that it could be the judge of whether an amendment or a subamendment contained the gravamen of a non-confidence motion-hon. members to my left could have added additional reasons. But this is not the case. My submission is- and I think this has been well pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West- that this subamendment refers specifically to a statute and to the failure of the government to propose the repeal of certain aspects of that statute. Surely there can be no connection at all between such an amendment and one dealing with a failure to increase family allowances.


Harold Edward Winch: May I suggest to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that what he, in his explanation, calls a rifle shot approach is better known in parliamentary procedure as "weaseling".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to thank hon. members who have participated in this discussion for their very helpful and enlightening comments. The question before the house at the present time is the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, which reads as follows:
That the following be added to the address: But we respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the repeal of the 11 per cent sales tax imposed as a result of action by the present government in 1963, on certain building materials and certain machinery and apparatus to be used in manufacture or production which is, and will continue to be, detrimental to various segments of the Canadian economy.
The question which must be decided, as has been pointed out by hon. members, is whether the subamendment is relevant to the amendment. The amendment regrets that the government has failed to propose the repeal of the 11 per cent sales tax. On the other hand, the subamendment regrets that the government has failed to state that 1964 should be the year of and for Canadian families through the increase of family allowances.
At first glance it appears to the Chair that the subamendment introduces a new question, one which is not relevant to the amendment before the house. All the authorities state that it is a fundamental rule of procedure that a subamendment must be relevant to the question it proposes to amend. The citations referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton West strongly support this position.

Perhaps I should refer to a few other citations in this regard. I might refer hon. members particularly to page 321 of Bourinot's fourth edition, where it is stated:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment has been proposed, and this rule has been invariably insisted upon by Canadian Speakers.
Citation 203 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads in part as follows:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
The same authority, Beauchesne, in paragraph (3) of citation 202 goes on to say:
Since the purpose of a subamendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment: if it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
This in some measure answers the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It seems to me this is the type of proposition which could be considered when the amendment is disposed of after the vote has been taken on Tuesday night, and which might very well be in order at that time.
Reference has been made by several hon. members to the subamendment proposed on Thursday night by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, which was similar in nature to the one now proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe. The house will also recall that Mr. Speaker pointed out at the time that the rule of relevancy applies with regard to subamendments. Although he allowed the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to stand, Mr. Speaker went on to say, as reported at page 79 of Friday's Hansard:
Last night, when no one rose to object I decided to accept the subamendment, even though I had doubts about its relevancy. In accepting this subamendment I endeavoured to suggest to the house that in future subamendments should be relevant in spite of considerable latitude given in the past.
In other words, I suggest that Mr. Speaker cautioned the house with regard to the need for subsequently observing the acceptable and necessary rules of relevancy dealing with subamendments in this debate. Therefore, in view of the admonition expressed by Mr. Speaker on Thursday and Friday last, and bearing in mind the explicit terms of the

authorities quoted earlier in my comments,
I	am confronted with the obligation to inform the hon. member for Lapointe that his proposed subamendment is contrary to the rule of relevancy, and as such it cannot be submitted to the house at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal against Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair, which the hon. member for Lapointe has appealed. Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is the following:
To the motion for an address in reply to His Excellency, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) proposed an amendment, as follows:
"That the following be added to the address:
But we respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the repeal of the
II	per cent sales tax imposed as a result of action by the present government in 1963, on certain building materials and certain machinery and apparatus to be used in manufacture or production which is, and will continue to be, detrimental to various segments of the Canadian economy".
In amendment to the amendment the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) proposed the following:
"That the following words be added to the amendment, immediately at the end thereof:
'This house also regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to state that the year 1964 should be the year of and for the Canadian families through the increase of family allowances according to the factual cost of living.'"
The Chair, having stated that in its opinion the subamendment purported to introduce a question that was foreign to the terms of the amendment now before the house, ruled the subamendment out of order in that it was not relevant to the amendment.
Whereupon the hon. member for Lapointe appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Brown:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish to join with the speakers who have preceded me in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply.
My purpose in taking part in this debate at this stage is to review briefly the current employment situation and the immediate prospects ahead, to report to the house on the operation of a number of programs that have been undertaken to combat winter unemployment and, finally, to indicate the attitude of the government on a number of important matters with respect to the field of industrial relations and employment policy.
Hon. members will welcome, as I have welcomed, the steady and basic improvement in unemployment and employment conditions in Canada since early last year. The rate of unemployment throughout the country, which was 5.9 per cent last June on a seasonally adjusted basis, has dropped a full percentage point to 4.9 per cent in the last two months. The seasonal increase in unemployment this winter has been smaller than usual, and at the same time the year to year gain in employment this January has been higher than for a great many years.
In January, 1964 an estimated 6,231,000 persons were employed in Canada. This figure was 275,000 higher than a year ago, and unemployment in January of this year totalled 466,000, a decrease of 75,000 from a year ago.
The labour force has been growing rapidly over recent months, but employment expansion has been more than enough to absorb all the new entrants to the labour force and also to reduce unemployment levels substantially. There can be little doubt that the impact of the government's new winter employment programs, together with the wheat sales, have contributed to these favourable developments.

Much of the strength in the economy in recent months has been in the manufacturing, forestry and residential construction industries, with the result that there has been a marked improvement in employment opportunities for male workers. Employment of women at the same time has continued at a high level. The picture, of course, varies a great deal from one part of the country to another, with unemployment rates continuing highest in the Atlantic provinces and lowest in Ontario and the prairie regions.
Looking ahead, employment prospects are encouraging. The peak of unemployment this winter is expected to be the lowest we have experienced in Canada since 1957. With the approach of spring, unemployment should decline throughout the country, and there may in fact occur problems of labour shortages in some parts of Canada during this coming summer greater than we have experienced for a number of years.
Despite this generally favourable outlook we continue to have serious problems of area and seasonal unemployment, and to these we must give serious attention. In many cases these problems are closely tied in with low levels of education and skill and the real difficulties of shifting from one occupation or industry to another, particularly when this involves moving to a new location. There has been a growing awareness over recent years by Canadians of the important relationship between education and training and security of employment.
I know all hon. members of the house will join with me in expressing satisfaction with the remarkable progress we are making in the development of our manpower resources. This progress has been reflected in increased enrolment in schools and in training programs, and in a decline in the number of school drop-outs and a downward swing in unemployment.
Last June I mentioned three measures we proposed to take to strengthen our technical and vocational education program. These have now all been taken. The first is an amendment to the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act calling for the continuation of the 75 per cent federal contribution toward the construction of new facilities up to an amount which would match the highest per capita contribution reached by any province. A second amendment has increased the contribution to the provinces toward the cost of provincial training allowances to unemployed persons from 75 per cent to 90 per cent. Finally there is the amendment to stimulate training in industry through increasing the federal government's contribution to this program.

I also indicated last June that a significant part of the manpower program of the government is to assist labour and management to meet jointly the employment problems caused by automation and technological change, and that to this end a manpower consultative service would be established in the Department of Labour. Plans for this new manpower consultative service have progressed steadily and we expect it will be operational shortly. The Department of Labour, in co-operation with the civil service commission, I am pleased to say, has been able to obtain some well experienced persons to man the service. The staff will not be large, but it is essential that they work closely with senior people in industry and in other federal and provincial government agencies.
Mr. Speaker, may I now say a word about the older worker employment and training incentive program. This program is a new and experimental approach to assisting unemployed older workers 45 years and over. The response from employers since the program began on November 1 has been steadily increasing. A simplification of some of the conditions under which the incentive of up to $75 a month is made available has helped in this respect. To be eligible, older workers do not now need to have exhausted their regular unemployment insurance benefits, and the training on the job requirements have been reduced.
During the first three months of the program some 1,000 applications have been made by employers. Over 70 per cent of these have met the requirements and have now been approved. In all, by the end of January, nearly 500 positions had been filled with older workers who qualified, and placements are continuing. Many national employment service local offices are reporting increased interest in the program, especially on the part of both older workers and employers. The program, as I stated last June, represents a new and experimental approach to a serious and continuing problem. We are watching it carefully to see what lessons we can learn from it and what further modifications may be needed as we gain more experience.
The winter house building incentive program, which is another new program, has proved highly successful. Although unfamiliar to builders and consumers when it was introduced last summer, it has quickly gained acceptance. The program has made a substantial contribution to the reduction of winter employment which, of course, was its principal objective. A total of close to 30,000 applications have been accepted for the $500 incentive available to purchasers of winter built houses. These represent over 34,000 individual
The Address-Mr. MacEachen dwelling units which are being constructed under the program. The total value of these dwellings, Mr. Speaker, is over $493 million, and if they all qualify by March 31 the total incentive payment will amount to more than $17 million. It is estimated that more than
100,000	workers are employed directly on site this winter on housing units, with an even larger number engaged in the manufacture, sale and transportation of building materials. Almost 1,000 final inspection certificates have already been received covering houses that have been completed and have satisfied the provisions of the program. Payments are now in the course of being made to those whose houses have qualified.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to continue this program next year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have not given consideration to this, but in the light of its success I would judge it ought to be looked upon favourably as a further measure.
The government in the announcement last June carried out certain changes in the municipal winter works incentive program with the object of making the program more effective. Perhaps the most important change was restoring the program to its original six month period and making it a truly winter employment program. In addition, the ceiling on the federal incentive payment for buildings and major renovations was raised from $50,000 to $100,000, and the incentive payment was raised from 50 per cent to 60 per cent of direct payroll costs for municipalities in areas of high winter unemployment and designated development areas.
So far this winter some 100 more municipalities are participating in the program, 22,000 more workers are expected to be hired on site, and 700,000 more man days of work are expected. In sum, the program has concentrated much more work in the winter period, when it is most needed, rather than stretching out less work over a longer period than is required to combat seasonal unemployment.
Members of the house will recall the supplementary federal government winter construction program. This program was designed to create greater employment opportunities in designated development areas and in areas of high winter unemployment. The total costs of the projects brought forward under this program to March 31, 1964, are estimated to be something over $8 million, financed in part from regular estimates and in part from a special appropriation of $7 million. It is estimated that these construction projects will provide 2,270,553 man hours of

The Address-Mr. MacEachen work this winter. So this also has made a contribution to reducing the amount of seasonal unemployment in Canada.
I should now like to bring to the attention of members of the house a federal-provincial labour conference which has been called for March 9 and 10 at Ottawa. This conference, which follows a number of other federal-provincial conferences over recent months, will be the first conference of labour ministers held since 1946. I am pleased to report that all provincial ministers of labour have accepted this invitation. The agenda calls for informal discussion of a number of subjects as varied as apprenticeship training, labour standards, labour-management co-operation, ratification of international labour organization conventions, and programs to deal with the manpower problems of technological change.
Consultation with the provinces on labour matters is continuous, and the Canadian association of administrators of labour legislation, which meets annually, has long provided a useful body for the exchange of experience between departments of labour. The conference will give me and the officials of my department a new opportunity to consult with the provinces on matters of mutual interest. Many labour problems do not recognize provincial boundaries, and a joint federal-provincial approach is required. Out of this conference, I expect, should come suggestions and ideas that should help us in solving problems of mutual interest.
I mentioned a few moments ago that we would be discussing I.L.O. conventions at the forthcoming federal-provincial labour conference. I am happy now to be able to announce that the government intends to proceed with the ratification of an important I.L.O. convention in the field of human rights. This is a convention adopted by the international labour conference in 1958 on discrimination in employment and occupation. The convention seeks to promote efforts throughout the world to remove discrimination in employment and occupation based on grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, and to promote equality of opportunity.
The government has inquired of the provinces, and each of them has indicated that it is following a policy fully consistent with the objectives of this convention. They have all, moreover, expressed their full support and approval of the proposed action to ratify this basic international instrument. Some members of the house have inquired in the past whether the government could not ratify more I.L.O. conventions. The fact is that where conventions fall partly within provincial jurisdiction it is essential that full


agreement be reached in advance with provincial authorities. The ratification of the discrimination convention with which we shall be proceeding is a gratifying example of federal-provincial co-operation. It constitutes a landmark in arrangements for dealing with I.L.O. matters, and I hope it will lead to similar co-operative action in the future.
Another item we shall be discussing at the federal-provincial labour conference is labour-management co-operation. The most important task in developing good labour-management relations is the dissemination of the philosophy of joint consultation and cooperation. It is a never ending search to find the most effective ways to reach this objective.
We can look back with a good deal of satisfaction at the progress made in recent years in arriving at settlements in industrial disputes without work stoppages. While the non-agricultural paid worker part of the total labour force has grown considerably, the time loss due to strikes and lockouts, as a proportion of estimated total working time, has decreased. With few exceptions each month of 1963 had a lower time loss than corresponding months of the previous year, and over the last five years the reduction has been close to 50 per cent.
Increased emphasis is being placed on labour-management co-operation as a positive aspect of the work of the industrial relations branch of the department. Labour-management conferences on an area basis are continuing, with the next series being planned for Alberta in April and May.
The government has indicated its intention, Mr. Speaker, of moving forward with additional legislation in the labour standards field. This proposal is a logical step begun with the enactment of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act in 1953, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act in 1956, the Annual Vacations Act in 1958. The absence of other federal labour standards legislation leaves a grey area where there are no minimum standards. This area today represents about 11 per cent of the non-agricultural labour force, of whom a significant number are not now and may not ever be protected by collective bargaining.
Reference has been made in the house to the board of trustees for the maritime transportation unions. I should like to remind members that on October 11 last the maritime transportation unions trustees bill was adopted with almost unanimous approval. About 12 days later, on October 23, the members of the board of trustees provided for in the act were appointed and immediately assumed their responsibilities under the legislation. At that time, members of the house will recall that a work stoppage had occurred in shipping

on the great lakes. Within three days it was possible to have the seamen return to their ships, and shipping continued from then until the waterways closed early in December.
I think we can all view with satisfaction the tremendous job of moving the grain from our prairie provinces to both eastern and western ports for reshipment. There was a good deal of speculation that our commitments would not be fulfilled. We can now look back and see that the job was accomplished.
In due course I shall have a report from the board of trustees on their administration of the five labour organizations under trusteeship. This report, of course, will be tabled in the house at once. As hon. members are aware, the act provides that a report shall be transmitted to the minister within three months after the termination of each year. There are some who have indicated impatience with the decisions and actions of the trustees. It must be remembered that they are dealing with a most complex and difficult situation. Employer-worker problems can be serious enough, but when to those are added inter-union problems coupled with inter-employer problems, the situation is much more serious.
It is to be regretted that to date the efforts of the trustees to bring shipowners together in some form of association for the purpose of improving employer-worker relations apparently has not succeeded. I am hopeful it will be possible to do this on a voluntary basis. It is a most important step toward achieving long range goals in this industry. Members of the house will have been encouraged, as I have been, by recent expressions of support of the trustees by responsible union and business leaders. I am confident they are giving serious and conscientious attention to their task. It is essential that this house put its confidence in them. We must express patience, too, and not expect a most difficult situation to be resolved in a short period of time, especially when we reflect upon the origin and development of the situation that led to the appointment of the trustees.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question? If it is not possible to get a voluntary association of shipowners, does the minister intend to follow the suggestion we made at the last session and bring the shipping companies under the trusteeship, as has been done with the unions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope, as I said in my statement, the shipowners will come together voluntarily, because I think this is a very important matter. I would not want, at this 20220-11
The Address-Mr. MacEachen point, to indicate what the policy of the government would be at a later stage on that score.
In the statement I made in the house last June, and to which I have already referred, I indicated that a number of measures would be taken to promote employment and manpower development. One of these, I said, would be to strengthen the personnel resources of the agencies responsible for the administration of manpower programs. Recognizing the key importance of the national employment service as the principal operational agency in helping the labour market to function effectively, some 362 additional positions in this service have been approved and are presently being filled.
Various aspects of the Department of Labour's work, particularly in technical and vocational training, rehabilitation and research, have also been strengthened. At this time I should like to announce that the government has decided to implement the recommendation of the Gill committee of inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Act that the administration of the national employment service be transferred from the unemployment insurance commission to the Department of Labour. In making this recommendation the Gill committee stated:
-that the national employment service be transferred to the Department of Labour as a necessary move to co-ordinate efforts relating to manpower policy and employment programs-
The primary reason for this transfer is to develop an integrated approach to implementing manpower policy and programs in Canada, and to correct the negative image from which the employment service suffers in the public mind from its close association with the payment of benefits to the unemployed. In making this decision I want to say that there is no criticism of the present administration of the national employment service. The unemployment insurance commission has applied its best efforts within the existing administrative organization and in the light of the limitations that have existed in respect of staff and facilities. The decision has been made rather in order to co-ordinate in the Department of Labour, as the Gill committee recommended, those services which are concerned with the development of manpower policy as well as those concerned with the organization of labour market.
I am sure that we all agree that a strong employment service can have an important impact on the national economy. Positive solutions to the problems of unemployment must be developed, and these in turn can well remove some of the pressing problems facing the unemployment insurance administration.

The Address-Mr. MacEachen In this connection, I might add, the Gill committee recommended a strengthening of the unemployment insurance branch as well as of the national employment service. The committee recognized the complexity of unemployment insurance operations, and the commission had been hampered by lack of a staff establishment adequate in terms of both numbers and level of training and skill.
The Department of Labour and the national employment service have historically had a common interest and responsibility for the development and implementation of manpower and labour market programs. The employment service co-ordination act of 1919 was, in fact, administered by the Department of Labour until the unemployment insurance commission began operation in 1941. Since then an active working relationship has been maintained in such areas as labour mobility, manpower utilization and adjustment, training, vocational rehabilitation, winter employment and other employment programs.
The merging of the national employment service with the Department of Labour will result in a stronger and more positive approach being made to the solution of manpower problems in Canada. Since the statement made in the house last June, I have continued to stress the importance of undertaking co-ordinated and well-balanced programs in the field of manpower rather than a series of disconnected and separate efforts. The development and administration of manpower policy through a single agency which the transfer of the national employment service will make possible is essential to the meeting of this objective. A close link will, of course, continue to be maintained with the administration of unemployment insurance benefits to ensure that referrals to suitable employment are made to benefit recipients.
I might add that the national employment committee which has served in an advisory capacity to the unemployment insurance commission has unanimously recommended the implementation of this particular recommendation of the Gill committee. Employer, union and other national associations in Canada have also endorsed the desirability of the transfer.
To effect the transfer, the government has established a committee composed of the head of the bureau of government organization, George Davidson; the deputy minister of labour, George Haythome, and the chief commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission, Laval Fortier. In making this transfer steps will be taken to protect the position of those who will be remaining on the staff of the unemployment insurance

commission, those who will transfer with the national employment service and those now on the staff of the Department of Labour. Individual staff members can be assured that every effort will be made to deal with their situations as fairly as possible, taking into consideration the needs of each respective agency and local circumstances.
Speaking, I know, on behalf of the President of the Privy Council as well as myself, I can assure the house that an effort will be made to effect the transfer expeditiously. The legal and other necessary steps to effect this change are now under study and will be taken as soon as possible. I would also like to state that the transfer will be made in such a way as to create no interruption of service to the public, either with respect to the work of the employment service or with respect to the work of the unemployment insurance commission.
In conclusion I should like to thank hon. members of the house for allowing me to give them this review of some of the activities and changed policies of the Department of Labour.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate, we shall be called upon to settle a matter of the utmost gravity, one which raises the question of confidence in the government. In other words, what the hon. members shall have to decide by their votes is whether the government has really faced up to its responsibilities, and if it is to be allowed to survive and control the destinies of this country.
True, the amendment put forth is quite specific and concerns but one measure, since it deals with the tax on building materials. But beyond that specific question there are all those having to do with the life of the government.
Hon. members must ask themselves whether the government has kept its promises, whether it has carried out or is carrying out its program, whether its objectives are in accordance with the people's aspirations; hon. members must also say whether the government is able to carry out its objectives and finally whether its outlook is similar to that of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to say that the government must be given a certain time in order to carry out its program. As you make your bed so you must lie on it. It was the government which came up with that famous program-to which I shall refer in a few minutes-that 60 days program; it set itself a deadline for its implementation.

I say that today, after about ten months in office, this minority government should be in a position to give us an answer once and for all.
But, in order to judge objectively, let us study the government's record.
There are the promises. There is no doubt that they were made. Last week the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) gave us a very detailed list of the promises made by the representatives of the Canadian people who now sit on the treasury benches. This picture is neither very edifying nor of a nature to give confidence.
Let us consider the economic, social and cultural fields, the field of relations between the two groups which make up our country, and we shall see that, generally speaking, the government did not apply the principles they advocated on hustings throughout the country just a few months ago. In a specific and particular way, they practically took no action to make their promises come true.
Mr. Speaker, if, on the other hand, we look at the 60 days of action and decision, all non-partisan observers, newspapermen and all the others, are of the opinion that they were not a period of action and decision, but of trial and error, panic, failure and bitterness. The net result was a fiasco and complete confusion.
But, has the government recovered itself since then and is it proceeding towards the achievement of the objectives decided upon and for which it is, after all, responsible to the people?
Let us look at the economic development. For the hon. members opposite, this was an objective of primary importance. Well, what progress has been made in that sector? We had the budget of course, the famous budget. But is there a person sound in mind, even among most of the partisans of the hon. members opposite, who can say that this budget and the measures forecasted in it were a success? Unfortunately, the people of Canada are well aware that it was disastrous.
What remains of that much publicized budget? Next to nothing. In fact, a few taxes remain. There remains the tax which is the subject of this amendment, the tax on building materials.
Well, Mr. Speaker, are the persons engaged personally in this field in favour of this tax? It is a well established fact that it entails an accelerated disorganization and bewilderment of the business world and the building enterprises. Those who complain bemoan the confusion created by this tax which is unworkable, impossible to administer, that is 20220-Hi
The Address-Mr. Martineau the persons responsible for the administration of this tax do not know exactly how to go about it.
What confusion there is in the building field. Accumulations, inventories, precipitation. We do not know whether this tax will last, whether it will double or will reach the much talked about 11 per cent.
And this, Mr. Speaker, is nevertheless one of the measures which were supposed to stimulate economic progress and put an end to unemployment. Is it not obvious that such a tax has never been an incentive to progress? On the contrary, it is of such a nature as to shatter the very objectives that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) had set forth in his budget speech.
Why would the house vote for this tax? Is there a single member of this house who conscientiously would vote for such an iniquitous measure?
Mr. Speaker, apart from the taxes included in the budget, what measure has been put before us to further economic progress? There was the creation of the economic council. We have but the enigmatic smile of the former president of the privy council, now secretary of state for cultural affairs (Mr. Lamontagne), to tell us about the achievements of this council.
We are a long way, Mr. Speaker, from that indicative planning the minister talked about when he brought his legislation before the house with much fanfare. We do not even have an inkling of indicative planning or anything. It is true that numerous promises were made over and over again during the election campaign on the matter of full employment and that those gentlemen had pledged they would be the ones to give work to the unemployed and that all able-bodied men would find remunerative work.
Well, we have had almost ten months of this administration and unemployment is always at a dangerous high level with Quebec, unfortunately, still in the forefront.
In spite of what the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) just said concerning the half-measures he had announced there are still almost 500,000 unemployed in this country. If the government members are satisfied with those figures which are a little lower than a year ago, I must say that they are satisfied with very little and that they are far from carrying out the promise of full employment which was one of the main planks in their platform.
In the field of social security, there is also a lack of progress. Let us look at the question of pensions. The plan is not greeted favourably neither by the officials of the major provinces nor by the experts in the field, in
160	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Martineau brief it does not meet the aspirations of the Canadian people who want a plan providing true security.
This plan is expensive and the benefits are not as extensive as those which had been promised. Why was it not proceeded with somewhat logically? Why has the government not taken the trouble of consulting the provinces beforehand? It might have avoided the mess which has resulted.
We are in favour of the principle of contributory pension. We always have been. We had the question of social security, including the pension fund, studied by experts.
Mr. Speaker, we introduced before the house a measure providing for a constitutional amendment, which is the means for the government to take in this field if it wants to show due regard to the other partners of confederation, the provinces.
This method has been scoffed at. Mr. Speaker, what are the other social security measures which have been passed since April 21?
Has the government shown any interest in underdeveloped areas? Has it tackled the nucleus of poverty, endemic pauperism?
The government was also to restore Canada's prestige abroad. In that respect, it did very little. There were, of course, the recent peregrinations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to Washington and Paris. I leave it to you to appraise the results.
When will the Secretary of State for External Affairs of this country clearly state Canada's attitude with regard to the Organization of American States, or to any other matter?
Mr. Speaker, there has been no protest in the field of external affairs.
Of course, there has been the matter of defence-and I am pleased to see the minister here in the house. He was to formulate a defence policy, but put the axe to everything in the defence field. What is left to us? Is he ready to introduce compulsory military service in this country? I know a fellow member of his party advocated such a measure which is now on the order paper.
On this side of the house we would like a clear definition of Canada's defence policy and the future part this country will play within the alliance.
How can the minister see to Canada's defence, when he is not even able to insure the defence of our armouries, and I am asking this question in all sincerity.
Last week many people were dismayed when the minister announced that munitions stored in armouries were to be taken away in


order to protect those buildings. In my opinion, the minister was thereby confessing that he could no longer ensure the defence of those places. And yet it is that same minister who boasts of changing everything in the field of national defence, who wants to give it a new role, establish a new policy which he refuses to put before us and provide for the Canadian people the security they have a right to expect from the government. That was an altogether astonishing admission on the part of a responsible minister, one which will surely make history in the political annals of Canada.
And now what about national unity? We applaud the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he makes a rousing appeal for national unity such as he did last week.
Words are not enough, action must follow. Is the formula of co-operative federalism not just a gimmick to deceive gullible people, a smokescreen behind which is plotted a return to centralization, to intensification of joint programs and, therefore, to federal government infringement upon provincial jurisdiction?
Have we not seen also the substitution of the federal-provincial conferences for the letter of the constitution? I am in favour of consultations and federal-provincial conferences, but they must not be used to change the terms or the letter of the constitution, to replace them with some agreement, because this would be breaking with the true spirit of confederation.
Mr. Speaker, we can see that there is very little ground for confidence in this government, and the speech from the throne is but a lean sketch. Where can you find in this shapeless program, made up of warmed over measures and the same old stories that grate on the ear, anything to stimulate the strong or encourage the weak, to paraphrase some of the expressions the Prime Minister likes so much?
If the government is counting on that meager dish to treat its supporters or starve its opponents, I am afraid that it is deceiving itself and that it will be unable to win confidence that obviously it no longer deserves.
Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that an impartial jury could not but reach a verdict of guilty about the government. It must be concluded that this government must be beheaded.
You might tell me: The government is a government made up of weak people. That is obvious, but is there an acceptable alternative to the present government? I submit that there is an alternative and that our party can supply it, because it is based on the very principles of progressive conservatism which rest on fiscal responsibility, economic growth and respect of the confederative pact.

In the field of fiscal responsibilities, we must end this orgy of government spending. The Canadian citizen, the Canadian taxpayer is alarmed, and rightly so, at this gigantic bureaucracy which knows no bounds and which does not make sense. The taxpayer is alarmed at the increasing cost of this government machine, and with this increase, there is the increase in taxes, followed by its inseparable companion, galloping inflation. Do we ever think how much the service of the national debt costs every year?
Mr. Speaker, some may contend that people do not care about such things. I know that these gentlemen who sit on the government benches do not care; but people do care. They have lots of common sense and know that this runaway inflation can only result in the worst of economic disasters.
And yet, the United States is giving us the example by reducing taxes. Indeed, a tax reduction of $11,500,000,000 was announced last week, which is likely to give a shot in the arm to the American economy. I submit that what was done in the United States can and should be done in Canada; otherwise, a continuous shrinking and decline of our economy will take place.
And what about our economic development? That is the key to real prosperity.
Barren discussions on the best way to distribute funds which are already insufficient do not increase the wealth of the people. Only a united effort to speed up our production and productivity will actually increase our national inheritance.
In order to achieve this end we must strive to increase our population, we must keep on increasing it at a growing rate.
We also need measures to stimulate secondary industry. Moreover, we need planning- here is conservatism once more-but planning that would be consistent with the principles of a free economy, which we have always promoted, planning that would be adequate so as to reach our economic purposes.
We must strive to ensure profit-sharing between employers and employees, so that everyone will be able to benefit by his labour and, as productivity increases, so will prosperity and then our people will become home owners at all social levels.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to reach the objectives mentioned above, we must establish the appropriate organizations and invest them with real authority, not only a semblance as is the case of the present national economic council.
And lastly, our program should be based on respect of the confederative pact. And I say confederative pact purposely, because if the
The Address-Mr. Martineau letter and the various documents which form the basis of our constitution are liable to amendment, the spirit of the constitution is not.
It is this spirit or, if you prefer, this attitude which has made possible such a confederative union. This generous attitude forecast the union of the two races, both enjoying perfect equality and together contributing to build a new country which would extend from one ocean to the other and would become one of the most powerful in the world.
Confederation was born out of such a dream and of such an ideal which inspired the founders of our nation. Unfortunately, we have lost that spirit. The present government, like the previous Liberal administration, has undertaken bureaucratic centralization. The Conservative party has always been wary of the expansion of bureaucracy.
The legislation that we passed during our tenure of office was in the historic tradition of our party and stressed in a practical way the association of two equal partners under the constitution, which is the very basis of confederation.
During our annual convention we made an important gesture by appointing the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) as the Quebec leader and chief assistant to the national leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Today we advocate a true federalism which as such would be of a co-operative nature- with the Liberals, co-operation is only an empty word-and to achieve that objective, I recommend a program of action which would include the repatriation of the Canadian constitution and its revision in accordance with our new needs. In that connection, it is interesting to go over the few words the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) had to say this morning when I asked him if he thought that amendments to the constitution were desirable. This is what he replied:
Mr. Speaker, I deny having stated over the week end that amendments to the constitution were desirable, but I admit having said that if changes became necessary to solve some existing problems, a study should be made to that effect in order to reach the proper conclusions.
That is what is called exciting the daring and putting fresh heart into the weak.
If that is an example of the federal cooperation or co-operative federalism hon. gentlemen opposite can offer us, I feel it will be a long time before we get out of the present do-nothing policy.
Mr. Speaker, this program also includes the recognition, in theory and in practice, of two racial groups and, therefore, of the free association of both groups, through the incorporation of the equality aspirations in the

The Address-Mr. Martineau constitutional process itself, which is the object of the union. This would be the opposite of the system of demands and concessions, or if you prefer, of the system of repression existing at present.
I also suggest creation of a secretariat for federal-provincial affairs, not as an annex to the privy council, as proposed the other day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), but an actual department, under a responsible minister, whose main duty would be to study the consequences on the federation of any measure likely to affect the relationship between the provinces and the constituent parts.
I also recommend the establishment of a constitutional court, the members of which would be recruited equally in provinces where common law prevails and in those where civil law prevails. Such a court would be the final resort to solve federal-provincial disputes.
The members on this side of the house are in favour of unity in Canada and against a ghetto policy. We do not consider our country as another Puerto Rico, as the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) stated without batting an eyelash this morning. I enquired about the situation in Puerto Rico and 1 realize that Puerto Ricans have no elected representative in the U.S. congress; they have nothing to say about the international policy of the United States and are practically colonials. I do not think that Canada should now be following such a course.
Our forefathers embarked upon the conquest of a new world, a physical world. Today's world is more complex, more subtle, but our culture must be strong enough to penetrate it, to spread and share responsibility. Quebec is now regaining its strength.
We, in the Conservative party, firmly believe that a renovated Quebec, a Quebec renovated in all its elements, will fully participate in the work of Canada and will do so with the pride and generosity of its French heart. It will extend its hand to all its Canadian brothers in the common deeds which are of concern to us all.
We are an American people and it is from coast to coast on this vast continent that we will forge the future and await the fate which is held in store for us by Providence.
That is, Mr. Speaker, the message that we want to convey to you. We believe that we, on this side of the house, have the means necessary to implement this program.
Moreover, in the light of all the arguments which I have just discussed, I submit that the government does no longer deserve the confidence of this house and that the amendment should be favourably accepted.


Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and also to congratulate the leaders of all parties for their excellent contributions to the debate last week.
Every thoughtful person in Canada today is aware of a crisis in education that presents serious problems to all levels of government. In spite of this one looks in vain for any recognition of this truth in the speech from the throne. The brief reference to student loans is merely a duplication of provisions already made by most provincial governments. This pitiful gesture reveals a complete failure to appreciate the gravity of the situation facing administrators of higher education across this nation. The major problem, additional aid to universities, is ignored completely.
The challenge to this generation has been caused by the high birth rate after the second world war and the steady increase in the proportion of students who remain in school beyond the legal school leaving age. Another factor causing enlarged enrolment in our schools has been the steady flow of immigrants to this country in recent years. To these considerations must be added the growing conviction that to survive in a technological age, democracy must develop the talents of all its members to the highest possible degree. It is now generally accepted that the industrial strength of the nation depends not alone upon the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the few but upon the abilities and skills of the many in our society.
Equality of opportunity has always been held up as one of the great ideals of democracy, but in Canada so far as education is concerned this ideal has been far from realized. The inequalities of educational opportunities between province and province and between urban and rural communities are conspicuous. Children are growing up in some parts of Canada with only a fraction of the educational advantages enjoyed in other parts, and the differences are caused by mere accidents of geography. It is, indeed, a sad commentary to say that the quality of education available to Canadian boys and girls depends on where they live in this vast country. Time was when most people spent their entire lives in the community of their birth, but today the movement of families from one part of Canada to another is commonplace. Labour has become extremely mobile. Everyone knows dozens of westerners who are working in Ontario, and Nova

Scotians who are settled in the prairie provinces or have jobs in British Columbia. Inequalities of education thus have a great effect on competitive adult life.
One central indication of the quality of an educational program is the amount of money spent yearly for each pupil. In 1961 the amounts spent in various provinces ranged from $378 in Alberta and $373 in British Columbia to $141 in Newfoundland and $162 in Prince Edward Island, with the average for the ten provinces being $286. Thus in dollars one province spent almost three times as much per pupil as another.
Per pupil expenditure correlates highly with another factor, teacher qualifications. Few would deny that the teacher is the most important single influence during a child's formal education, yet the proportion of teachers with university degrees varies from 37.4 per cent in one province to only 7.7 per cent in another. Thus five times as many teachers in one province hold degrees as in another.
There are many other indicators of the uneven quality of educational programs across Canada. They include the variety of curricula, the adequacy of physical facilities, the extent of auxiliary courses such as classes for the gifted or handicapped, provision for transportation in larger school districts, and the text books necessary today for even a basic education. All these conditions vary widely, as thousands of Canadians who moved their children from one provincial system to another last year will testify.
The fathers of confederation could not possibly have foreseen the conditions that would arise in the succeeding 100 years. No one could have anticipated the enormous costs of modern welfare services or of public school systems or of institutions of higher learning. What made good sense financially in 1867 is absolute nonsense today. The fact that in 1867 education was made an entirely provincial responsibility should not now stand in the way of assistance from the government in Ottawa.
The principle of direct federal aid for education is really nothing new. The education of Indians and Eskimos and children of parents in the armed services overseas is a federal responsibility. Through the years substantial grants have been made available to the provinces for technical and agricultural education. More recently money has been advanced for vocational and industrial training. Following the war an immense D.V.A. program was financed by Ottawa. A per capita grant of $2 has been paid to universities, as well as various aids to research and scholarship through Canada Council. The
The Address-Mr. Webster Glassco commission refers to 20 different federal departments which provide some educational service.
Even acknowledging the good work of these many agencies, informed Canadians are more convinced that today there is greater need than ever before for federal participation in the broad field of education, either directly or indirectly through financial arrangements with the provinces. There is a growing awareness that the advanced technological development which sustains and causes our economy to expand is dependent upon a high level of training in our labour force. Whereas the industrial revolution was created largely through individual genius, today's scientific revolution depends not only on isolated genius but more importantly on the planned co-operative efforts of large numbers of highly trained personnel. As a consequence of this neglected relationship, education has come to be regarded as an investment on which the future productivity of the economy depends. In other words, education has been elevated to the level of an investment in human capital, rather than current consumption.
This is an entirely new concept. When the level of education in a country is high, then the level of per capita income is high as in Canada, the United States and western Europe. When the level is low, no matter how many resources a country possesses the level of income is low as in South American countries. No nation ever became an economic leader without a relatively high level of education; conversely, a high level of education is a stimulant to economic growth.
Canadians are coming to realize that our strength as a nation depends upon the job we do in providing education for our citizens to the limit of their abilities. Anything less will be to deny to our youth equality of opportunity to share in the task of developing to the full our greatest resource, the native intelligence of our population. It is now generally accepted that at least 30 per cent of our young people could benefit from higher education and could complete one kind of post-secondary training or another. Today we do not provide facilities for more than one quarter of these potential students.
The basic dilemma stands forth in bold relief. For the welfare of individual Canadians and for the future development of our economy it is hard to disagree with the proposition that every student, regardless of his financial resources and family background, should receive as much education as he wants and can absorb. If we are to achieve a truly democratic educational system in Canada we

The Address-Mr. Webster must strive toward the time when all financial impediments to attendance at university are removed for Canadian youth.
An impressive number of organizations have urged a policy of greater participation by the federal government in supporting education as a national responsibility in this scientific age. I wish now to present some of their views on this vital subject. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce at its annual meeting in October, 1963 expressed the following view:
While recognizing that educational institutions and their administration in Canada are under the specific jurisdiction of the provincial and local authorities, it is nevertheless asserted that education is and ought to be of national concern and of direct interest to all Canadians. A competent and well balanced work force is essential to the healthy growth of our Canadian economy and the maintenance of our standard of living. If Canada is to compete successfully in the international, economic and political struggles of the future, a much greater percentage of its citizens must possess a higher degree of education or skill.
The Canadian home and school and parent-teachers federation declared in their brief to the Prime Minister and the cabinet in September, 1963:
We are convinced that education in Canada would be better served by the organization of an office to co-ordinate federal educational assistance of all kinds. We suggest the following functions could be performed by such an office:
(a)	Establishment and maintenance of a liaison with other countries on matters relating to education and the right to speak for education in Canada;
(b)	Supervision and co-ordination of federal activities in education;
(c)	Action as a clearing house for educational information;
(d)	Stimulation, support, and conduct of educational research.
The Canadian school trustees association in their brief to the royal commission on taxation in November, 1963 expressed the following view:
The association recommends that the federal government effectively assume the full cost of all vocational, technical and university education either through increased payments to provinical governments under existing schemes or through vacating certain areas of taxation in favour of the provinces. The association further recommends that the federal government devise some means whereby additional revenues may be channeled to the "have not" provinces in order that they may provide educational opportunities equal to those in other parts of Canada.
The Canadian teachers' federation, representing 135,000 teachers in 10 provinces, said in their brief to the Prime Minister and the cabinet in November, 1963:
This 1963 submission is directed by our sense of urgency which prompts us to seek a solution to this problem. Our national and international leaders have again and again testified to the strategic importance of education as a basic tool

in the economic and social development of all countries in the world, including our own.
To continue the quotation:
Canada has long since reached a state of national emergency in education. Educational costs are expected to double in the next decade. The Canadian government has tried to stimulate the economy of certain sections of our country through the use of grants and subsidies to specific industries. We believe that economic growth in relatively poor areas of our country could be more effectively stimulated by equalization grants or other fiscal arrangements aimed at upgrading the level of their education. Investment in human capital, designed to foster economic growth is perhaps the most promising strategy in any long range attempt to reduce our gross inequalities in education and in prosperity.
Canada is a confederation of 10 provinces but it is also a nation. Therefore, it is appropriate that in matters of broader scope we should act as Canadians and not only as citizens of any one province. Surely every Canadian boy and girl has a right to an equally high level of educational opportunity.
The Canadian universities foundation, representing all our institutions of higher learning, made two submissions to the government in 1963, one to the Prime Minister and cabinet in May 1963, and another to the Minister of Finance in December, 1963. The following quotations are from their briefs:
The Canadian universities foundation, as the executive agency of the National Conference of Canadian Universities and Colleges, is naturally alarmed by the fact that Canada's institutions of higher learning are steadily falling further behind in providing facilities for rapidly rising student enrolments and in satisfying the growing demand for professional and postgraduate education. The universities and colleges of Canada are facing a situation which calls for prompt action if their obligations to the nation are to be met.
We Canadians have been relatively slow to realize that the economic, social and cultural health of the country all depend on a high level of investment in education. We recognize the complexity of Canada's constitutional position in matters relating to education, even higher education. Nevertheless, we urge the government of Canada to deal directly with these expressed needs or to initiate action with the provinces so that, one way or another, arrangements may be made to meet them.
The Canadian council for research in education, in a brief presented to the government in November, 1963, made the following appeal:
The total cost of public education has now reached approximately $2 billion per annum and is likely to double in the next 10 years. To ensure the most effective use of these huge sums, it is essential that every effort be made to improve and modernize educational procedures, as has been done in other fields of public endeavour, through a large scale program of experimentation and research in the basic processes of learning. The government of Canada by providing funds for long term research to be conducted by national organizations and educational institutions can make a stimulating and vital contribution to education at all levels and at the same time, to the total development of Canada.

From among scores of editorials in Canadian newspapers on this subject I have selected one from the Ottawa Citizen of May 28, 1963:
In seeking help from Ottawa, university authorities are being both responsible and forthright... The federal government would not be breaking new ground if it were to accede to the latest request of the university group. Government support of the Canada Council's university capital grants fund makes it possible to offer some assistance on campus projects. So do the loans provided by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation toward the cost of construction of residences. But the scope of this financial help is far too limited.
The Canadian universities foundation told the federal government that increased expenditures on higher education were in the national interest. There is nothing far fetched about this statement. For it will be to the benefit of the country as a whole if means can be found to develop the full potential of Canadians in the field of education.
From among many comments of outstanding Canadian writers I have chosen one from an article in a recent issue of Maclean's magazine by Jack Scott, Vancouver Sun columnist:
Surely in the name of Canadianism it should be a constitutional commitment to make the wellbeing of every Canadian a federal responsibility. Education and health are the classic examples. If the defence of a country militarily is accepted as a national concern it would seem reasonable that education and health fall into the same category, especially when we know that millions of Canadians are penalized by purely local conditions. The simple truth is that what seemed perfectly reasonable 96 years ago under sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, which still defines education as a community responsibility, however rich or poor the community may be, just doesn't make sense any more.
Until this is changed, we will have low budgets, unqualified teachers, overcrowded classrooms, dated curricula, the whole range of double standards that seem deliberately contrived to aggravate every regional difference and to thwart any realization of the long sought Canadian identity.
All governments have a responsibility to strengthen our Canadian educational system to meet the demands of the atomic age. Provincial and municipal authorities are becoming increasingly aware of the vital roles they play in this important public service. The evidence indicates very clearly however, that they cannot do the job alone. They must have assistance from other sources. Ottawa is already playing a significant part through many federal agencies. In the view of many Canadians we have reached the point where the national interest demands even greater participation in the total educational effort. To this end I suggest that consideration be given by this parliament to the following 12 points:
1.	Establish some agency in Ottawa to coordinate existing federal services in education and to serve as a medium of communication among the provinces and with international educational bodies such as UNESCO.
The Address-Mr. Webster
2.	Continue equalization grants to those provinces with depressed areas to permit support of education at a level equal to that in the better endowed regions.
3.	Increase the $2 per capita grant to the provinces for operating cost of universities by an amount commensurate with rising prices and salaries. This would be the most effective way of preventing an alarming increase in student fees across the country. The objective should be the lowering of fees and their eventual removal altogether.
4.	Implement the recommendation of the Canadian universities foundation for $300 million for matching capital grants to universities and colleges to be used during the next three years. A similar sum would be expected from the provinces, together with $100 million from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and $100 million as donations from corporations and individuals. Only in this way can our institutions of higher learning be brought up to the standard expected of a modern democratic nation.
5.	Provide for a broad program of scholarships and bursaries, as well as loans to ensure that every student may obtain as much education as his ability will allow. At present it is estimated that only one third of our students receive even limited assistance through scholarships and loans.
6.	Support graduate schools as the source of tomorrow's university teachers, scientists and specialists in business and industry. We must train our own leaders in all branches of our national life, as we can no longer depend upon Europe and the United States at a time of world-wide shortage. We must educate the educators in our own country.
7.	Grant the request of the Canadian council for research in education for $100,000 per annum for a period of five years in order to recognize educational research as of equal importance with research into the problems of agriculture, production, health and defence. We must apply the methods of science to education if we are to avoid unnecessary and costly waste of human talents in the future.
8.	Instruct the Indian department to persuade more boys and girls to complete secondary school and to provide them with financial means to attend an institution of higher learning. The fact that in 1962 as few as 98 Indian students were enrolled in Canadian universities can be described only as a tragedy. This country needs the services of more educated young Indians in industry, in business, and in the public service.
9.	Encourage the practice of student exchange. Last year 8,115 Canadian students studied outside their own country and approximately 8,500 foreign students enrolled

The Address-Mr. Webster in Canadian universities. In terms of international relations this was a praiseworthy undertaking. In this regard the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been urged to establish a program of scholarships and fellowships for exchanges within the worldwide French cultural community, a proposal comparable in its conception to the successful commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan. Centennial authorities are to be commended for considering a vast exchange of students among the colleges and universities within Canada as a worthy centennial project in 1967. At the same time the plan might very well be expanded to include the exchange of French teachers and professors between Quebec and the other provinces.
10.	Extend family allowance payments to age 18 for students who remain in school or university.
11.	Treat all university donations from private sources and corporations as deductible items for income tax purposes; and exempt universities from payment of federal sales tax in the same manner as hospitals.
12.	Revise the provisions of the Income Tax Act as recommended by the Canadian universities foundation as follows:
(a)	Increase from $550 to $1,000 the deduction for dependants who satisfy the conditions now required for existing tuition fee deduction.
(b)	Exempt full-time students, who now qualify for tuition fee deduction, from the first $2,000 of their earned income. In this way the government can provide a measure of relief from the present high cost of university training to both students and parents.
There are some of the decisions that might be made at once without a massive expenditure of money from the federal treasury. It is vital for us at this time to understand that what we face is not a simple crisis or emergency, but entry into a new era of development at all stages of education which requires the co-ordinated and steady support of all levels of government in a period of rapid technological change.
Our society has the resources to provide facilities for increased enrolment in secondary and higher education, but this government is not giving the leadership that is needed to accomplish this purpose. However, more and more Canadians are coming to realize that education in all its forms is an asset that is fundamental to our nation's well-being. To move forward into the scientific age with imagination and confidence, public authorities across this country need to take what President Claude Bissell of the

University of Toronto calls "heroic measures' to meet the pressing demands of modem education.
In conclusion I wish to emphasize the latter point by quoting a passage from the report on higher education in Great Britain, issued in October, 1963, by the committee appointed by the British prime minister under the chairmanship of Lord Robbins:
Throughout our report we have assumed as an axiom that courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.
We do not believe that modem societies can achieve their aims of economic growth and higher cultural standards without making the most of the talents of their citizens. This is obviously necessary if we are to compete with other highly developed countries in an era of rapid technological and social advance. But even if there were not the spur of international standards, it would still be true that to realize the aspirations of a modem community as regards both wealth and culture a fully educated population is necessary.
The good society desires equality of opportunity for its citizens to become not only good producers but also good men and women.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Restigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, let me join with the hon. members who spoke before me to offer my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They both proved equal to the task entrusted to them.
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I propose to point out the economic difficulties of northern New Brunswick and to offer some solutions.
Also, I should like to recall for a few moments the trip of the NATO parliamentarians and conclude with my personal impressions on national unity.
During the last year, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada initiated several pieces of economic legislation intended to improve the standard of living in underdeveloped areas of eastern Canada and more particularly in the maritimes.
I only have to mention the three-year tax reduction for new industries in those designated areas; the $500 bonus granted to the buyers of houses built during winter; the construction already under way of federal buildings and of many post offices; the $100 million grant to the Atlantic region economic development board, out of which $20 million have already been earmarked for the construction of a hydroelectric project at Mactaquac, on Saint John river, in New Brunswick.
Those very generous measures will be a great help, and they are already helping the economy in various areas.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, when we have before our eyes the example given by the new President of the neighbouring republic, who in his first message to the American congress, suggested a massive program of aid to economically feeble citizens, would it not be appropriate to wage our own war against poverty, here in this country.
It is hardly necessary, Mr. Speaker, to visit the abandoned districts of the American Appalachians, or the forgotten people in the southern states, to find depression, misery and poverty. Poverty prevails in various areas of this country, in eastern Quebec, in northern New Brunswick, and in my own county of Restigouche-Madawaska.
Generally speaking, our cities and towns are comparatively prosperous, but the ones who are most affected are the country people who eke out a living partly from the bush, or farming and fishing. As submarginal farming does not yield a living, the head of the family works in the bush for a few months every year, and during the winter, he has to resort to unemployment insurance benefits or, if he has no stamps, turn to social welfare to survive for the rest of the year.
This government's economic legislation during the last few months has been helping the urban and semi-urban centres of our various areas, but prosperity develops very slowly in a rural economy.
Our war against poverty should be more intensely waged, to help all our people get their share in this nation's development as rapidly as possible. We should more particularly find long term solutions. Workers should obtain permanent employment, farmers should find a market for their products. In other words, our heads of families and our young people want the privilege of earning their bread by the sweat of their brow without always having to turn to unemployment insurance and social welfare. A massive government effort in this direction would bring quick dividends to all taxpayers in this country.
The three years of tax exemption should be extended to six years for new industries in designated areas, because those industries which are able to show a substantial profit in their first three years of existence are very few indeed. A six year exemption would be an extremely attractive feature. It might be necessary, however, to give a more specific definition of the type of industries which could take advantage of that six year exemption. It should concern mainly industries of a permanent nature which would give rise to other small satellite industries.
Would it not be advisable also to alter the present standard income tax form? Since 20220-121
The Address-Mr. Dube economic opportunities and activity are unequal in the various parts of the country, why not adjust the tax rates accordingly?
In that respect, I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Revue Economique of September 1963. It was written by Jean Cadieux, a Moncton university professor, and is entitled:
A few remarks on taxes
All Canadians are equal before law, all Canadians are equal as concerns social benefits. However, they are not equal as concerns economic activity. There are, in this country, areas where the standard of living is much higher than in others. This is a simple phenomenon, since nature endowed such areas with resources which are absent elsewhere.
In the ease where economic activity and employment possibilities are not the same in this country, I wonder if it would not be appropriate to amend the concept of income tax. Why should the same taxation apply everywhere in the country?
Our taxation provides for an exemption for each child or dependant. Why should it not provide for an additional exemption according to the area where one lives?
I believe that such a reduction in taxation applied to handicapped areas would greatly help the weaker link of the economy and consequently strengthen the national economic chain from sea to sea. In a few short years, we would witness a noticeable levelling of the economy in all areas, and then, all taxpayers throughout the country could equally contribute to the payment of taxes. In other words, the temporary loss of revenue occasioned by such reductions or exemptions would quickly be compensated in a few years, by income from new sources of taxation. [Text]
One project which would be of tremendous assistance to the Atlantic region is the Pas-samaquoddy tidal power development scheme. This project would definitely fulfil man's centuries old dream of harnessing the energies of the tides. Quoddy would, it has been established, provide one million kilowatts of dependable and needed peak capacity and, combined with the development of the upper Saint John river, would produce an extra
250,000	kilowatts of dependable load factor firm energy.
The report presented to the late President Kennedy by the United States secretary of the interior last July makes it quite clear that the tidal power project is feasible and desirable from both engineering and economic points of view, alone or in conjunction with the upper Saint John river, for storage and power. The secretary of the interior recommended that negotiations be entered into immediately with the government of Canada. France is already constructing a tidal power, and it is known that Russia is planning one.
A project of this magnitude would not only
boost the economy of the region; it would
168	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dube also greatly enhance our engineering ability and associate Canada with one of the greatest undertakings of the century. Central Canada has its St. Lawrence seaway. The Pacific area will soon have its Columbia river treaty. Let us hope that the Quoddy will become the subject matter of the next treaty to be ratified between the United States and Canada.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I underlined the distressing situation in which our rural areas find themselves. Just as an example, the June 1963 issue of L'Economiste Agricole reported that the proportion of municipal taxes as compared to farm income in New Brunswick was 34 per cent, the highest percentage in the country. There is reason to hope however that the Byrne commission report submitted early this month shall bring about a better taxation distribution.
Our people are anxiously awaiting the implementation of ARDA. They have a right to expect that the forthcoming appointment of the minister of rural development will speed up the rehabilitation of their area.
In New Brunswick, potato producers are reorganizing themselves. Following a report submitted by the Whalen royal commission in 1962, the New Brunswick minister of agriculture set up three associations, one for potato producers, one for potato shippers and one for potato processors. And finally, in 1963, a joint committee made up of the directors of the three associations. It is greatly to be hoped that this new measure will give valuable help to industry in the province.
It is to be hoped in particular that through the federal Department of Trade and Commerce and its capable minister the present government will discover and develop new foreign markets. I urge the government to undertake a vigorous campaign to that end in the months to come.
We rely tremendously on the new federal Department of Industry to help us attract more diversified industrial capital to our depressed areas. I know that this department is still in the organization stage, but I hope that very soon the area development agency will be in a position to let us know in detail its plans with regard to the setting up of manufacturing and processing industries in our regions.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we must first help ourselves. Our people realize now that the time for complaining is over. They understand that no government can solve all our problems, but they have a new spirit of confidence, of determination. Our municipalities, our public bodies, our chambers of


commerce, our manufacturers, in short, all our people are co-operating in order to achieve a better world.

Mr. Speaker, last November I had the privilege of leading a Canadian delegation to the ninth annual session of the NATO parliamentarians' conference in Paris. Reports of our contributions to the conference have been made to this house and have appeared in the press, so I do not propose to again go into all the deliberations and resolutions which were proposed at the five committee and the plenary sessions.
However, I wish to make a few general remarks, mainly to express my appreciation to all the members of our delegation for their diligence and for the magnificent spirit which they displayed at the meetings and in our travels abroad. Our delegation included 16 members of this house and two distinguished members from the other place, which members represented all political parties and came from almost all areas of the country. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we got along fine, in complete harmony, and not once did our respective political affiliations or our different regional backgrounds interfere with our work or our mutual respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, as we associated with members of delegations from countries, and as we looked at Canada from a distance, I think we became better Canadians. We realized that in many ways we were much alike. We realized that our common Canadian aspirations were much stronger than the regional or racial issues which would divide us at home. We were very proud that the two official languages at this conference of 15 NATO countries were our own two Canadian official languages, English and French, and that we as Canadians were the delegation most fluent in both languages. We then found out, at least I did, that what was at times a source of friction at home had become an asset abroad. As compared with our NATO allies, we could not but feel that ours was indeed a very young country, and that we should become much more interested in preparing for our future than in enlarging upon our past and present difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday in this house our Prime Minister delivered what I thought was a stirring address in favour of national unity. It is unfortunate indeed that some of us were apparently more interested in the breaking into of the Shawinigan armoury.
In my opinion the speech of the Prime Minister may become a landmark, a charter on national unity, whereas these armoury robberies will soon fade into oblivion.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can think of no words more fitting than those of Premier Louis Robichaud of New Brunswick, the premier of a province which could stand as a symbol of confederation. These words by Premier Robichaud were delivered at the Empire club of Canada, Toronto, on October 31 last:
This is, without doubt, a time when the voice of reason must be heard-not in angry argument- but in the calm and rational dialect of responsibility. That voice must become predominant in every province of the nation-in order that extremists of all persuasions will come to know, once again, that true Canadianism can swallow them up in its strength and leave barely a trace of their passing.
You may accept as fact that I am proud to be a Canadian and that I am seized with a determination to remain one.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply, and I also want to say how pleased I am to be following two New Brunswickers at this time. The last speaker, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, was a friend of mine at law school, and I might say we are very pleased that he was nominated chairman of the NATO parliamentarians' group, because we know he has carried out his duties well. I agree with the remarks he made about unity, and we were very pleased that the premier of New Brunswick spoke out in the way he did. I disagree with many of his policies, however, and later in my speech I will outline my disagreement; but in this respect I think we in New Brunswick can be a very moderating influence in this matter of national unity.
I am also pleased to follow the hon. member for York-Sunbury, who spoke a short while ago in the scholarly way in which only school teachers can speak. He referred to the question of assistance to university students, and I know his remarks will be followed closely by those at the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, and elsewhere.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a wide ranging debate, and it is difficult to find anything on which one can hang one's hat; I do not know whether that is because of the barrenness of the throne speech or whether it is for other reasons. I did note one part of the remarks of the Prime Minister, as reported at page 61 of Hansard, which has given me an opportunity to speak about maritime province matters. He said:
A third problem that exists and has always existed in Canada, is the differences-and I have just mentioned this in passing-in the levels of prosperity, income and employment in different sections of our vast country.
The Prime Minister's speech was almost a second throne speech, but I want to use those remarks as a springboard to mention some
The Address-Mr. Bell maritime problems which are in my mind. I realize there are some in this house who feel that we should not be harping on our conditions in the maritimes as much as We are. I see the hon. member for Port Arthur has complained about this. However, I will leave problems in Outer Mongolia to such experts and deal with some matters which come very forcibly to my mind, particularly in light of the words of the Prime Minister.
I also note with some satisfaction the new ministerial appointments, and we will be watching the new ministers, or the old ministers who have new responsibilities, as the session goes forward. I was sorry to see that the former minister of transport went to a new department, because I felt that he had a fair-minded, constructive approach to the Department of Transport. However, at the same time I must admit I am pleased that a member representing a maritime constituency is now taking over that portfolio, and we will be watching every move he makes in carrying out the work of this department, which looms so large to us in the transportation field in the eastern provinces. It has been some time, Mr. Speaker, since a maritimer has taken on this responsibility. I believe the Hon. J. E. Michaud in the late forties was the last minister of transport from that area, and we are looking for great things. We know the new minister will have many problems with the air lines and other related matters, but he has the Atlantic development board and other maritime transportation matters before him, which matters are so important to our every day life.
One way or another I spend a great deal of my life around the waterfront of Saint John, and I should like to say that nothing looms quite so large for us as this matter of icebreaking in the St. Lawrence. It is a grave matter, and we cannot make it less grave by ignoring it. It affects the entire province, because during the winter season many come down from the north shore area, to which reference has just been made by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, to seek employment for the few months when there is work.
Last year I made a complete review of the matter of icebreaking. I went back to early history and the promises made at the time of confederation, when Halifax and Saint John were given port status. I was willing to leave the matter where it rested with the Atlantic development board, and I said that in an unpolitical way. However, this past season has seen the most brazen attempts yet to keep open the St. Lawrence at the expense of Halifax and Saint John, with the help of the money of the Canadian taxpayer. Someone

The Address-Mr. Bell has said that it looks as though we are pallbearers at our own funeral. I would add to that statement that we are not only pallbearers at our own funeral, but we are also paying for that funeral.
I want to review, Mr. Speaker, some of the events which took place during the last season.
I do so in an effort to be helpful, and I hope my remarks will again be considered unpartisan. I begin by saying that it has been a good year in the ports of Halifax and Saint John. The latest figures show a reduction of about 1 per cent in general cargo tonnage, which is the method of assessing the true value of the traffic of a port. Grain has been very high, and we are grateful for that; but the events which began in December, and which have continued to date, show that the everlasting merry go round is still continuing. It is impossible to sort through the many stories and press reports, but there are four aspects of the icebreaking question which come to my mind, and which since I last spoke on the matter have taken on a new and different interpretation.
First of all there is the excuse given that icebreaking helps to guard against flooding. To this excuse has been added the additional one that icebreaking is now necessary because of the world fair construction. I wonder whether the cost of this icebreaking is included in the extravagant losses we are going to have on the world fair, as announced the other day. This icebreaking happened in December, at a time when spring flooding was far back in everyone's mind. It seems difficult, as far as maritimers are concerned, to believe the excuse that icebreaking was done on account of flooding. A short while ago, when these specially reinforced ships slipped through Montreal harbour, they followed a path broken by the icebreaker; and at the time it was said that this was not assistance but merely a coincidence.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you how gullible we maritimers are supposed to be, when we are asked to believe that this was a coincidence. Everybody knows that the Department of Transport maintains an ice information office at Sydney, and the whereabouts of every ship in the ice floes is known to every other ship. In other words the full information relating to icebreaking activity is known to every ship that goes up the channel.
Many people have said that this is progress, and I must admit quite honestly that I myself, in an effort to be a good Canadian, have stated that we in the maritimes should not stand in the way of progress; but I seriously say that the use of the word "progress" is improper in this case. We have the facilities, and we have demonstrated that we can handle in an even more efficient manner all

the traffic that goes through the St. Lawrence or is capable of dispatch at the present time.
I ask, is it progress to use the taxpayers' money to build up facilities on the St. Lawrence while our own excellent docks and sheds are allowed to lie idle? It is up to the government to move quickly so as to avoid an indecisive year, and this is the problem I put forward to the new minister. I hope he will accept this challenge, as the mari-timer that he aspires to be.
I want to mention quickly again the two interrelated solutions that have been put forward, and I hope the new minister will accept these as constructive suggestions, and that a new policy will emerge under his guidance, a policy that will end the indecision and vacillation so that we in the maritimes will know where we fit into this important matter. First is the proposal to assess the icebreaker costs to the users of such service and the second, and closely related, is to subsidize the rail freight that moves to and from Saint John and Halifax in the winter.
Dealing with the first suggestion, may I say it can be very simply stated; that the users of the icebreaking service should pay the tune; not you and I, the Canadian taxpayers, but those who use this service. In connection with this matter I have here a resolution passed by the Saint John common council on January 10 this year. I shall not read the preamble but it states:
Further that if it should occur again-
-referring to the misuse of icebreakers-
-that the government of Canada be asked to charge a minimum fee per day in each case of a vessel making use of icebreaker service, whether requested or otherwise, to reach the St. Lawrence up-river ports during the period that the St. Lawrence seaway locks are closed, such period being the accepted "winter port" shipping season -such charge to cover the full cost of the icebreakers' operation.
Statements have been made that the Dan icebreaking ships are not an economic proposition. Surely then if they were assessed the full costs, their winter St. Lawrence activities would cease. In fact, to underline their own shaky future, a company official stated today, as reported in the Montreal Gazette:
Next year the line hopes to continue reaching Montreal during the winter but that would depend on conditions. Any decision would have to wait until the Canadian authorities decide whether they are going to keep the channel open.
This, I suggest, presupposes an early decision that next year the St. Lawrence is going to be kept open all year round. The icebreaking costs are tremendous, even without the new $18 million icebreaker, and if a channel is to be kept open then every

port, including Churchill, has a right to demand the same facilities. The same applies to flooding, if it is carried to the extreme. We, on the Saint John river have experienced considerable damage from flooding every spring, and we would be in a position to demand icebreaking flood control there, the same as people on the St. Lawrence, if this damage is as serious as it is made out to be. The simple answer to deal fairly with this problem is, as I have said, to assess the cost against the users of this icebreaker service.
The second solution lies in assisting or subsidizing the freight that moves overland to and from Halifax and Saint John. It has been argued that there is an advantage of $12 a ton in shipping through Montreal rather than the maritimes. If this is true, then it is mainly due to the complex freight rate structure built up in Canada since early railway days. As a layman I am not going to try to unravel the rates, but let us take a percentage of the advantage St. Lawrence ports claim and apply it in the form of this assistance.
Mr. Speaker, may I quote from a brief that the longshoremen made public last year with respect to this matter. This is from men who for generations have been in the stevedoring business. Their local in Saint John has around 5,000 members and is one of the largest unions in the maritimes. They are the ones who would be affected, and make no mistake about it. They stated:
Due to the complicated nature of the modern ocean-land transportation system, and the very powerful political and economic issues involved, many of which will be in violent conflict, such a policy will not be easy to find. Possibly the answer lies in calculating the expenditure now being made by the federal government on winter navigation, in all its phases, in the gulf and on the river, and in paying an equivalent sum as a rail freight subsidy on export and import traffic moving through Halifax and Saint John in the winter months. Whatever the answer, this problem is of critical importance to the ports and cities of Halifax and Saint John, and indeed, to the whole economy of the maritime provinces, both present and future.
Here is the challenge to the new Minister of Transport. It is one of his biggest problems in a complicated and heavy portfolio. As I have said, I think it is good that we have a representative from the maritimes in this ministry. I intend to support him in any moves he makes that will be of benefit to the maritimes. At the same time I intend to keep after him on this matter that looms so large to us. We hope he will solve this problem, and bring forward a positive new deal that will compensate us for the losses in our economy. He will get credit for it if he does this.
Mr. Speaker, I have another matter which I would like to mention under the heading of
The Address-Mr. Bell the capital centennial grants. I do not know why it is that every time the federal government, through its great beneficence, give a matching grant to New Brunswick they seem to make a mess of it. Two years ago we had a serious problem under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. New Brunswick did not choose to change its provincial legislation, so Saint John was thus not able to expand its very nice vocational school. We now have a situation where it seems to be very indefinite what share the municipalities in New Brunswick are going to receive under the $5 million extra granted to that province last year.
I do not know the reason for this, but two thoughts come to my mind. The first is that New Brunswick is more bankrupt than they say they are, and the second is that they are playing more politics than appears on the surface. In this connection I go back to the statement made by the former president of the privy council in a press release on January 8, 1964, and these are the significant parts of it:
The capital works would be almost exclusively of a cultural character which would give a clear relevance to the current problems of confederation which basically centre on cultural questions-
"It is possible," Mr. Lamontagne pointed out that in British Columbia and New Brunswick, the provincial governments might wish to have the centres in Vancouver and Saint John."
Then there were questions asked in the house by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and myself, and after most of the other provinces had decided how their centennial grants were to be spent the premier of New Brunswick's decision was that an office building, a common, ordinary office building in Fredericton that had been decided upon many months before, was to be considered New Brunswick's cultural building for confederation.
These questions were asked. The people of Saint John and elsewhere in the province have been writing to the Secretary of State, and he has answered them. I do not have his exact answer here, but his letter is quoted in the Telegraph-Journal of Saturday, February 22. I will not read it. It merely adds the word "preferably" in two instances to his former statement. All I can say is that the Secretary of State, in order to meet the whims of the premier of New Brunswick, has stuck in the word "preferably".
I am not prepared to say whether Saint John should have this centennial grant. I am the member from the Saint John area, and I hope we will get the grant or another one that might be made to the municipality. But I do challenge the right of the premier of New Brunswick to take this money that is intended

The Address-Mr. Bell as a grant in celebration of confederation and use it for an ordinary, every day office building in Fredericton which has no confederation or cultural significance of which I am aware. All I can say is that in the light of this decision and the one or two others to which I have referred, I hope that when the federal government gives money to New Brunswick their mind will be made up as to what is going to be done with the money. It is an expensive proposition for a poor province to match such grants, and if the province cannot afford it then let the province say so, but let us not have all this messing around and playing politics.
Another matter I want to mention concerns the rules of the house. I do not have anything of great significance to say. I should merely like to mention, without reflecting on the Chair in any way, that in my view the decision this afternoon to enforce the rule of relevancy was a good omen for the future. It was about 10 years ago that I came here and at that time Mr. Beaudoin was the Speaker. I admired him very much because he continually enforced the rules regarding relevancy and repetition to such an extent that after we had been here about six months there was nothing left to say and we were then all in a mood to go home.


Harold Edward Winch: He was the Speaker on black Friday, too.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am talking about another matter. Regardless of other events that occurred, it is a fact that Mr. Beaudoin did try to enforce the rules regarding relevancy and repetition, and I think it had a good effect. Without reflecting in any way on the present situation, I merely say that in my humble opinion there has been a tendency over the years to get away from the rules respecting relevancy and repetition. The result is that after we have been here six months everything is so wide open that, as someone has said, you can come into the house and talk about your mother in law, no matter what the subject under discussion may be, and still be in order. I hope we will continue, as a measure of self discipline at least to accept the rules with regard to relevancy and repetition.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. I noted in the speech from the throne that plans are going forward for the restoration of the Roosevelt home on Campobello island. We in New Brunswick were very pleased with our connection with the late President Roosevelt. We commend this measure, and we hope that all Canadians will share our pride in the preservation of this historic site.


I told the hon. member for Medicine Hat that I would only speak until 5.45 p.m. Therefore I will conclude by saying that it was with considerable pleasure that we noted the appointment of the new senator from Saint John-Albert. We welcome him to the fold. At the same time I want to express the great loss that I feel in the death of the former senator from Saint John-Albert, a great personal friend of mine who died last year.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the immediately preceding speaker for sticking so closely to the schedule that he said he would. My first words in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne must be to congratulate both the mover and seconder of the address.
During the approximately 60 days that hon. members had in which to travel to their home constituencies and visit with the people they represent I suppose most of us tried to pick up as much as we could of current public opinion. I think it is well for members to have an opportunity occasionally to go back to see the people they do in fact represent in the house, so that we can represent their sentiments and opinions as accurately as possible. As I am about 2,000 miles away from my constituency I have felt from time to time that there are occasions when I get into what might almost be called a vacuum. In other words, we are talking so much to each other and about each other here in the house that we are sometimes unable to pick up the sense of the views of the people we represent.
I think this last opportunity we had to visit our constituents was probably more valuable than any other recent opportunity; because as I travelled through my constituency I at least felt that the people were expressing opinions more in the national interest of Canada than opinions representing political party policy. I suppose this is perhaps true because they felt there was no election in the immediate future.
Most of the people in the constituency of Medicine Hat had one thing uppermost in their minds, and that was the question of national unity. I am sorry to say that most of the people there and in other parts of western Canada do not understand what the problem is. I think most of them reject the positions that have been taken by the extremists both in French Canada and in English speaking Canada. But at the same time, even though they are trying to understand the problem and to reconcile their thinking so that something can be done to bring national interests in all parts of the country closer together, it is still a fact that they do not

quite understand the problem. I am also sorry to report that I think there is a reaction building up in western Canada against the opinions that have been expressed by extremists in French Canada. I hope this does not go further than it has, and in fact I think during the last few days this feeling has softened to some extent.
I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition for the position he took on February 4 last. There were expressions of opinion in the press and on the part of people to whom I talked that he was perhaps going to attempt to lead the reaction that has been building up in English speaking Canada, and use it for the purpose of some temporary or short range political expediency. I listened very carefully to the speech he made on the afternoon of February 4 and, as I said, I think he should be commended for the position he took at that time respecting the problem.
I should also like to commend the Prime Minister for the speech he made in the House of Commons last Thursday, and for some of the suggestions he made. Certainly I agree with him that we in the House of Commons have a responsibility to talk about understanding and appreciation of the other point of view whenever we have an opportunity to do so.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I think we should be doing much more. We should also face up to the problem now, because I think time is on our side at this moment. We could use this time between now and 1967 very profitably if we would undertake some practical measures that would cause a greater intermingling of people as between regions of this country. I should like to tell you in just a few moments what the city of Medicine Hat has planned as part of its centennial celebration. It has twinned itself-at least this is the term being used-with Moncton, New Brunswick. The reason for this is that these two cities are approximately the same size. One of the main reasons Medicine Hat chose Moncton, New Brunswick-of course Moncton, New Brunswick had to choose Medicine Hat, too-was the large French speaking population in the city of Moncton. We certainly want to do something to bring some of these people to Medicine Hat and send some people from Medicine Hat to Moncton. This will enable them to look directly at the problems and aspirations of the people in these cities.
We plan to exchange students. I believe there are plans under way now to exchange a whole classroom of students between these two cities some time during the centennial year 1967. The centennial committee also plans to exchange some municipal officers for a few days, including the mayors of these
The Address-Mr. Olson two cities. I feel that this is an excellent program. I hope other regions in Canada will attempt to do the same thing.
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the 10,000 scholarships mentioned in the Liberal platform. I am sorry to say that at this time we have no positive indication when that promise is going to be implemented. I suggest that these 10,000 scholarships and the legislation necessary to authorize the expenditures for them be brought forward very soon. I do not believe this program needs to be an intrusion into the rights of the provinces in the field of education. I feel we can justify this kind of program in the interests of national unity.
However, there should be some qualifications and some rules with regard to these scholarships. The students who accept them should be required to take advantage of them in a university in another part of Canada. I am not suggesting this plan should necessarily be a substitute for loans to university students or any of the many other things the provinces are doing to help university students. I feel this is something that could be done in addition to all the other help that is now being given. I believe the result would be a higher degree of understanding, if I may put it that way, if a number of students from British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan went to Quebec or the maritimes and vice-versa. I believe there would be a tremendous increase in the understanding resulting from an exchange of students, as I said, between the maritimes and the prairies, between Ontario and the prairies or between Montreal and Vancouver.
There are some centennial plans that should be undertaken in co-operation with the provinces. However, I believe the scholarship scheme is a practical project which would result in creating more understanding. This is one thing that the federal government could do by itself. There are some other federal government plans that could be followed to celebrate Canada's one hundredth birthday without necessarily seeking the cooperation of the provinces. The provinces will be very busy doing a number of other things. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I feel the scholarship program is one. It has been suggested that each one of these scholarships should be for $1,000. This is a good figure to use; but if the requirement were attached to the scholarship that advantage of it be taken at a distant university, perhaps the amount should be increased so the student could make use of it.
There are a number of other matters, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to discuss this afternoon. One in particular which is of national importance is this matter of sugar.

The Address-Mr. Olson During the past 18 to 24 months there have been some wide fluctuations in the price of sugar in Canada. I was interested in the statement the Minister of Trade and Commerce made to the house last week. In looking over some of the reasons that he advanced for not accepting a national sugar policy, which included long range pricing, I was a little disappointed.
In order to provide some background for this discussion, perhaps I may say that almost all the sugar that is traded in the world today is sold at forward agreed prices. I am told by the beet producers of Alberta that there is only about 10 per cent of the world's production of sugar that could be termed homeless sugar, that is sugar that finds its way into the free market. Of course Canada has been subjected to wide fluctuations in price because we buy about 80 per cent of our sugar requirements on the open market where only about 10 per cent of the world's supply of sugar is being sold. We know that in many of the cane sugar producing areas of the world there is a guaranteed price for up to 90 per cent of the production. This leaves, as I have said, about 10 per cent, and in some cases producers are not particularly interested in what happens to the price of that quantity as long as they get it off their hands.
I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that this situation has resulted in a serious problem in our attempt to build up beet sugar production within Canada. At the moment the producers are very happy because the price is so high their returns are well above the cost of production. A few months ago and for a number of years before that the selling price was substantially below the cost of production.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Address-Mr. Olson so that the beet producers can in tact get their total income from the sale price of sugar.
I have one or two other points to mention before I conclude, Mr. Speaker. I want to urge the government to repeat the kind of deal they made with Russia for wheat during 1963, particularly that part of it which called for 29,500,000 bushels in flour content. I say this because I know that all the flour mills in Canada are running at near or full capacity today, and they have firm prospects that they will continue to do so at least until the end of July. This is extremely important to the constituency of Medicine Hat, and to other parts of Canada also, because it in fact gives a stimulus to an industry that was very badly depressed before this order came along. I would hope that in future contracts the government, the Canadian wheat board and the Minister of Trade and Commerce will consider trying to negotiate to have a large part of the wheat order delivered in the form of flour. In the last order it was something like 12 per cent which is acceptable, because if the flour mills in Canada could deliver 12 per cent of all our exports of wheat in the form of flour we would not have any unused capacity.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this on my own behalf. I am not speaking for the party. This is with respect to what we are going to do with these phony motions of no confidence. I have given an undertaking to my constituents that I have no intention of either moving or supporting any what might be termed phony motions of no confidence. Whether they talk about the sales tax, about medicare, about family allowances, whether we believe in kindness to little children, or motherhood, they have exactly the same effect. If you support them you do one thing and one thing only, and that is dissolve parliament. That is all you do; because we know that even if we supported the amendment that is before the house today we would not have the sales tax rescinded. That and everything else that is on the order paper would die and we would go to the country. Therefore all we would have achieved would be to dissolve parliament. When I feel that is a desirable thing to do, and somebody moves a motion that we have no confidence in the government and there are not all these other double barrelled implications attached to it, I intend to vote for it. But in the meantime I think we all have to agree that the people of Canada voted in this parliament exactly as it is made up today. I am willing to accept that the people of Canada have the right to select a parliament made up in any way they like,

and it is not our prerogative to destroy parliaments simply because we are not satisfied with the results of the last election.
I have talked to people in various parts of Canada, and by and large they are not particularly happy with this idea of destroying the institution that they set up because we may not like the way the house is made up. I think one of the improvements in the procedures of parliament would be to incorporate something in the rules so that we could do away with this sham that allows, for example, the press, after Tuesday night, to report that the government was sustained and all those people who voted against the amendment were in favour of the sales tax. Of course that is not true. Nevertheless that is the kind of sham we are faced with, with all these phony votes of no confidence. In closing I would like to express the hope that this parliament will do the job, and that all the members of this parliament will do the job they were elected to do; that is to help govern the country and to formulate policy in the interests of the country rather than in the interest of any one party.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my remarks in this throne speech debate I would like, as has been the custom, to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I would also like to congratulate the newly elected members of this house, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) and the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I have had the privilege in the past week of meeting these gentlemen, and I believe they will make a contribution to parliament in the nature of the contribution that was made by their predecessors in office.
These newly elected members have made a contribution already to which I wish to draw the attention of the house for a moment. I think this has been referred to before. I refer to the issue that was raised in the by-elections in Laurier and St. Denis. The issue appeared to be between these hon. members who are now our colleagues in this house and the representatives of the party led by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). I think if there is any lesson to be drawn from the results of those by-elections, it is that the hon. member for Villeneuve and those in his party do not in fact, as they would like us in English Canada to believe, speak for our French speaking compatriots in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Russell Clayton Honey: I should like to come back for a moment to my remarks congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think these

two gentlemen struck a theme which has been common throughout the speeches in this debate, and was most recently mentioned by the hon. member who preceded me. I refer to the theme of Canadian unity, and the necessity that all hon. members and all Canadians speak with reasonableness and moderation as we consider the difficult days that may lie ahead of us in the next two or three years.
I wish to refer for a moment to the remarks of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote), who said in effect that he wanted to assert to the country that the voice of the extremists, even though it receives much publicity, is not the voice of the vast majority of Quebeckers. The hon. member went on to say that in this controversy over national unity, everyone's opinion is to be respected, even that of the extremists. For, he said, it is not in abusing them that we shall make them change their minds; it is up to us to give them concrete evidence that their theory is wrong.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Bur-rard (Mr. Basford), who seconded the motion, reciprocated the sentiment of the mover when he said that none of us came here to take part in the breaking up of a nation. He said we should have pride in Canada, pride in the 96 years of nation building which has gone before, and pride in the future that lies ahead for Canada. I am pleased this theme was struck by the mover and seconder of the address, and it has been followed by and large by all hon. members. I for one, Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members, am dedicated to the proposition that the unity of the nation must be preserved and strengthened, and 1 am dedicated to the proposition that no task which will direct us to that end is too minute to overlook and no task is too large to undertake.
For a few minutes I would like to deal with some of the substantive aspects of the throne speech; and initially, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct your attention to the undertaking of the government given in that speech, and subsequently confirmed and elaborated on by the Prime Minister, with respect to the Canada pension plan. I welcome the statement in the throne speech dealing with it, and also the statement of the Prime Minister, who has indicated that this house will be asked to move ahead expeditiously with that legislation.
We have a responsibility and a duty to go ahead with it. I make this point as kindly as I know how, that we have heard from the premier of Ontario that he has a responsibility to those in his province who are participating in private pension plans. Those
The Address-Mr. Honey people constitute something like 30 per cent of the population of Ontario, and I believe this figure applies to all Canada; but the government has a responsibility in this chamber to the other 70 per cent of the people who have no pension plans, and I want to emphasize that we must approach this legislation fully cognizant of the fact that we have a duty to perform. Of course, while we must do this reasonably, we must also approach it in a spirit of co-operation and intelligence. I do not suggest that any particular party has a monopoly on virtue or knowledge. This is something which will require the best that all minds can contribute in order to do the job.
On more than one occasion the Prime Minister has indicated that when this legislation is introduced it will be referred to a special committee of the house, a forum in which the details of the legislation will be worked out, where we may hear those who are in favour and those who are opposed. This will be the real test of the legislation and the test of the hon. members who compose that committee.
No useful purpose is served by editorials such as that which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail, which said that this special committee would be "packed with a majority of government supporters". Hon. members and others who are acquainted with this parliament know that committees, whether special or standing, do not in fact have a majority of government supporters, let alone being packed with a majority of government supporters. That editorial casts a doubt on the sincerity and the ability of hon. members of the house to deal intelligently with the Canada pension plan. It does a disservice to the main objective which all of us have in this chamber, that is, to obtain the best legislation, and to do this in the spirit of co-operation with the provinces and in the spirit of accepting the best technical and professional advice we can get. With all the assistance and co-operation we can get, then we can come up with a pension plan that will do justice to the people of Canada and to this house.
I also welcome the announcement in the throne speech of the program for student loan assistance. I quite appreciate, as has been already mentioned in this debate, that members of the government have said over and over again that this party is committed to a program for a parliament, and while at times we may be a bit impatient to see more items of legislation announced in the throne speech we must realize that this parliament, as the Prime Minister said on Thursday, is in its second session and should in all probability

The Address-Mr. Honey continue for four and maybe five sessions, and can get down to its work in a progressive and business-like manner.
I should have liked to see an indication in the throne speech of the extension of family allowances covering those students who remain in high school beyond the age of 16 years. If that is not forthcoming this session I hope it will be forthcoming next session, but in any event we have the undertaking of the government that it will be forthcoming during this parliament. This is important. We have to get the children through high school and into the universities where student loans and scholarships would be helpful, but at this point in their high school years their books are expensive and the problem of providing their shoes and clothing becomes more burdensome. An extension for another one or two years of the family allowance would be helpful, and I hope we will see legislation to that effect before too long.
I also welcome the notice in the throne speech with respect to the establishment of a ministry responsible for rural development. As the Prime Minister has said, this ministry and this legislation will give emphasis to the two great primary industries in Canada, forestry and agriculture. The present land use pattern in Canada, particularly in eastern Canada, is of concern to all of us. There is a great deal of inefficient and sometimes wasteful use of our greatest natural resource. I am referring now to the land, and if you wish to take the land in the broad context of forestry I will admit to that also.
I hope this new ministry will be an imaginative one. I congratulate the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), who will be the new minister in charge of it. I think he is an imaginative man who will be daring in this new field. In this area we have to be daring and resourceful, and we are going to have to do things that maybe our predecessors would have thought somewhat radical. In this respect I refer to areas in eastern Canada of low farm income, about which we have heard in this and other debates. I look forward to this ministry, probably through ARDA or some other legislative means, taking some of the marginal land out of farm production and helping our farmers to become more productive on better units of agricultural land.
Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned some of the items that appeared in the throne speech. I now want to deal with an item which was not in the throne speech. I wish to place it on the record now, and I hope it is something that is within the consideration of the government in its program for parliament. By way of introducing it, I may say I do not feel that because I sit on this side of the house I should

be inhibited from reminding the government of the things I think should be done and have to be done. That applies also to other hon. members on this side of the chamber. In this context the matter I refer to is legislation providing for the establishment of national marketing boards and marketing co-operatives. I know this is a complex matter and involves a constitutional problem, but because it is complex that does not mean that the government should not proceed with it.
I do not suggest, even if it were constitutionally possible to do so, that the government should enact legislation making national marketing boards and co-operatives obligatory or compulsory, but I do say that the government should proceed in due course with consultations with the provinces. I know the Minister of Agriculture has already been doing this and I congratulate him on it. These consultations with the provinces should be with a view to reaching agreement on the enactment of permissive legislation which would allow marketing boards and marketing co-operatives to operate on a national scale when any particular producer group desired that its particular commodity should be marketed in this fashion. In other words it would be a matter for determination by each producer group as to whether or not it wished to market its commodity on a national scale. This legislation would be permissive in that if the producer group wished to market its commodity on a national basis, the legislation would be available to permit it to do so.
I have referred to the constitutional problem relating to the establishment of national marketing boards, and I reiterate it here only to say that there are no insurmountable constitutional blocks in the way of establishing such agencies if there is a genuine desire on the part of the federal and provincial authorities to do so.
Many hon. members are familiar with the natural products marketing act of 1934, which was a hurried attempt in the context of that parliament to set up some sort of national marketing legislation. I shall not go into the details, but it is sufficient to say that in 1936 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled this legislation ultra vires the constitutional authority of parliament. The legislation was found to be ultra vires because it did not limit itself to affairs of an external and interprovincial nature only, but dealt also with trade which was of an entirely local concern, and the Supreme Court of Canada said that regulation of trade in this sweeping fashion, particularly as it purported to affect trade within a province, was not within the competence of parliament.

There is no question but that parliament can enact legislation permitting the establishment of a national agency with powers relative to marketing in interprovincial and export trade. I trust that communications are now being conducted with the provinces directed to the matter of agreement whereby the provinces will delegate their authority to regulate marketing within their jurisdictions to a national marketing agency, so that such an agency would have the undoubted authority-and again I underline that this would be exercised only where the particular producer group requested it-to obtain the benefits which would flow from the marketing of some commodities on a national basis.
I have been privileged to deal with some of the items which to me seemed to be of importance in the throne speech, such as the Canada pension plan, the university student loan plan and the new ministry of forestry and rural development. Also, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to refer to an important part of a program for parliament that I would like to see mentioned in the throne speech, provision for national marketing boards and co-operatives.
In closing I want to remind hon. members, though I know they need no reminding, that tomorrow night they will have an opportunity to vote on the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat has said, this is a vote of confidence. If this minority government is defeated, it will be forced to submit its fate to the voters of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Russell Clayton Honey: Hon. members opposite say "hear, hear". I think that the people of Canada would not say "hear, hear". I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that for the many reasons that have been mentioned in this debate, the many items which appear in the throne speech and the performance of the government to date in this parliament, the government by and large commends itself to the majority of Canadians. In the vote tomorrow night it is my sincere hope that hon. members will reflect what I deem to be and submit to the house is the general feeling of the people of Canada, that they would like to see the government permitted to complete its parliamentary program.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise at this time to take part in the throne speech debate. First of all I want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the delivery of their speeches. That does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything they said, but
The Address-Mr. Coates at the same time I think they acquitted themselves well and their party should be proud of them.
I think I will take the liberty of reflecting to a degree on what has gone on in the past, although with the Liberal government of the day this does not seem to be a popular approach. They say to us "Forget what has gone on in the past. Know us by what we say we will do in the future". I think the Canadian people elected them on what they said they would do in the future, and I am very doubtful that they would re-elect them on what they have done since taking office.
I go back to the 1962 and 1963 campaigns, and I recall the great slogans they put forward. "Vote for us. We have all the answers. Take a stand for tomorrow". I liken those slogans of yesterday to the passage in Shakespeare's "Macbeth" that commences with the words, "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" and ends with the words, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". That is all we have got from the Liberal party.
Then we look at the lacklustre list of legislation contained in the throne speech, which only took 11 minutes to deliver, the legislation that is supposed to be the answer to the ills that are facing Canada at the present time. When I think of that and of the boldness and the 60 days of decision that began the last session; when I recall the budget that eliminated tradition which was brought down by the Minister of Finance, and think of the Minister of Finance today, who must be assembling the budget he is going to propose in the near future, I am reminded of a passage in John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" which I think probably describes the Minister of Finance very well today. I am only going to read a short passage. It is titled "The Den and the Dreamer" and reads as follows:
As I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place where there was a den; and I laid me down in that place to sleep: and as I slept I dreamed a dream. I dreamed, and behold I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand, and a great burden upon his back. I looked, and saw him open the book and read therein; and as he read he wept and trembled: and, not being able longer to contain, he brake out with a lamentable cry, saying, What shall I do?
The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, are saying "What will he do?" Certainly the people in the building industry are saying "What will he do?" In fact I imagine every taxpayer in Canada is saying "What will he do?"
I think one of the things that is missing from the list of lamentable legislation that will be placed on the order paper as a result
180	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Coates of the throne speech is an amendment to the Atlantic Development Board Act to give the board enough money so it could do something that would have a profound influence on the future of the people in the Atlantic provinces. Certainly we are not going to get this from the board having regard to the way it is set up today. I predict that if the board continues with no more money than is available to it at the present time, and makes grants similar in nature to the one made to the province of New Brunswick, it will be bankrupt by the end of 1964, just as the hopes of the people of the Atlantic provinces will be bankrupt from the point of view of the promises that were made by the Liberal party as to what they would do for them if they were elected in 1963.
The other important thing is the fact that the type of grants that the board has made is not going to have a significant effect on the economy of the Atlantic provinces or the lives of the people there. We said last session that the amendment which was proposed to make the amount $100 million was not worth while. At one time this amount might have seemed rather significant, but there is no project that can be undertaken today in the Atlantic provinces for $100 million, nor any five projects at $20 million each that will have a profound effect on the economy of our area.
When we look at the unemployment figures, we are told that unemployment is not a national problem today. It is said to be a regional problem. Well, it is a national problem for the 500,000 who are unemployed across Canada, whether or not the Liberals say so. They sure as the devil said it often enough when we were in office. I say that whether it be a national or a regional problem, action has to be taken in our area that will give our people the opportunity to move forward with the rest of Canada. We were giving them that opportunity when we were in office, but that is not happening any more.
Nowhere do we know this better than in Nova Scotia. Nowhere has it been displayed better than in Nova Scotia. This government abandoned the frigate program. This would have been all right if the government had had some alternative program to put forward that would have provided the same amount of employment for our people. There was no alternative, unless you call the closing of the Point Edward naval base an alternative, or unless you call mothballing 33 ships, most of them stationed in Halifax, an alternative. This is the type of thing that has been happening to our area since this government took office. It is no wonder we have been concerned about our future since April 8,

1963, and are becoming more and more concerned as the days pass. There seems to be nothing coming forward that is going to help us the way the Diefenbaker government was so willing to give us help year after year and session after session.
There is a program, Mr. Speaker, which I consider would be of tremendous benefit to the whole of the Atlantic area if it were undertaken. I refer to the harnessing of the tides in the bay of Fundy. I have a resolution concerning this matter on the order paper, and no doubt it will be debated this session. I do not intend, therefore, to spend a great deal of time during this debate explaining the potential of this project. I should like to say that it has been recommended as the type of project that is feasible and reasonable, and which will have a considerable impact on the economy of the maritime provinces. It is a project which was recommended to the government by the premier of New Brunswick.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask the hon. member if he would suggest that the province of British Columbia relieve the eastern provinces of the burden of the heavy water plant that has just been established there.


Robert Carman Coates: First of all I may say that it was the Nova Scotia government that located the heavy water plant in Nova Scotia, so the hon. member had better talk to them. In addition to that, the maritime provinces gave to British Columbia their premier, so what more can they ask?
I do suggest that this government has been treating the harnessing of the bay of Fundy tides with contempt. They have not moved to any appreciable degree in this direction since they took office. Oh, they were anxious to get the Columbia river treaty settled. They were most anxious to see the Hamilton falls project under way. But when it comes to the bay of Fundy tides and the expenditure of a minimum amount of $325 million in our area, there is great hesitancy. Is it because the bay of Fundy tides are located in the maritime provinces, a part of Canada the Liberal government never really pays much attention to, a part of Canada that the present Minister of Finance wanted to depopulate, if possible? Is this a continuing policy of this government?
Let us look at another field of endeavour; let us look at agriculture. There, more than anywhere else, you can see the complete, flagrant disregard of the rights of the farmers of eastern Canada to fair treatment. We have been hounding this government with questions for a year asking when the feed grain policy

would be announced that was prepared by the former government, the legislation covering which was ready when this government took office. A year later we are still in the same place we were when this government took office. Certainly I wish I could say the farmers of eastern Canada are in the same place, but they are not; they are going backward, and fast, every day this government procrastinates and does all the other things that it does except put this policy into effect.
To give a still greater example of the ineptitude of this government and the disregard it has for the farmers of eastern Canada, I cite a news story in the February 22 edition of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. I note that the government of Nova Scotia has had to pay an extra bonus to provide limestone assistance for the farmers of Nova Scotia, something that is basic to good agriculture in that province. The federal government will not even pay its fair share of the assistance that has been made available to our farmers. This is the type of agricultural policy we see coming forward from this government for the farmers of eastern Canada. In so far as western Canada is concerned, the government gives it Harry Hays and tries to keep him there as much as possible.
I feel there are other things this government could do that would be of real benefit to the Atlantic provinces. Certainly they could endeavour to improve and take greater advantage of the port facilities that are available in the maritime provinces. Today the hon. member for Saint John-Albert did what I considered an excellent job in putting forward recommendations that would be of real benefit to the ports of Saint John and Halifax. I should like to make one further suggestion. It is my understanding that the government is now negotiating with Russia for the sale of large quantities of fertilizer. This sale of fertilizer, combined with the grain sales instituted by the former government, will tax port facilities to the utmost. I feel that because of the necessity for providing greater facilities to cope with the large shipments of grain and fertilizer, a second look should be taken at the port facilities in Halifax and Saint John to see if they cannot be expanded, to see if they cannot be used more efficiently, to see if we cannot obtain a longer shipping season in that part of Canada and thus keep our people employed for a longer period during the year.
I have only a few more remarks to make. I should like to recommend to the government for consideration the project which was prepared by the centenary committee of Amherst. That committee has proposed a civic centre which would include a library and a museum to honour four fathers of confederation all of
The Address-Mr. Coates whom came from Cumberland county. I think Cumberland county is unique in that it produced four fathers of confederation. I doubt that there is another area in Canada which could say the same. They were: Sir Charles Tupper, father of confederation, premier of Nova Scotia and prime minister of Canada; Robert Dickie, father of confederation and senator; E. B. Chandler, father of confederation, lieutenant governor of New Brunswick, and Jonathan McCully, father of confederation, senator and judge of the supreme court of Nova Scotia.
Cumberland has gone even further than this. It has also produced Hon. A. R. Dickie, minister of justice; Hon. W. T. Pipes, premier of Nova Scotia; Hon. E. N. Rhodes, premier of Nova Scotia, minister of finance in the House of Commons and Speaker of the House of Commons as well as the Senate; Hon. J. Layton Ralston, minister of justice and minister of national defence; Hon. Norman MacLeod Rogers, minister of national defence; Hon. Stewart Jenks, justice of the supreme court of Nova Scotia; Hon. Percy C. Black, minister of highways and leader of the opposition in Nova Scotia; and Hon. John Smiley, justice of the supreme court of Nova Scotia.
Certainly with a list as long and outstanding as the one I have just read it would seem to me that the federal government would be wise to look well at this project which has been prepared by the Amherst centenary committee and give it careful consideration for special action in the way of grants for a memorial to these outstanding Canadians.
I should also like to mention for a moment the work of Father Bauer and the hockey team which we sent to the recent Olympic games. As one who has a passing interest in sport, I believe the job performed by Father Bauer with these young men to be an outstanding one. We finished fourth in the Olympics, but we came very close to winning. We had an amateur team which measures up to Olympic standards. In Canada, when a young man reaches the age of 16, if he has any hockey potential at all, he almost immediately becomes a professional or a semiprofessional. It is difficult indeed to secure talented young amateur hockey players. But Father Bauer was able to find them, and while he was at the Olympics he did an outstanding job as a person, as a Canadian and as a hockey coach. We should be proud of him.
I think we in Canada need to place greater emphasis on athletics. I think we need greater training facilities for our Canadian athletes, and I think we should do more about seeing that our young people have proper training facilities so they can go to the Olympics and

The Address-Mr. Coates win the honours which are available to them.
I believe our Olympic team generally did very well considering the size of this nation, and we should be proud of them; but I think we could do even better in the future if we placed greater emphasis on providing the necessary facilities and coaching personnel for our young people in Canada.
In conclusion I should just like to say a few things about the crime rate in Canada and the problem facing our penal authorities.
I feel a degree of concern about the substantial increase in the crime rate in this country.
I feel that this, in part, can be associated with the intensive investigation being carried out in the United States at the present time into organized crime. I think a lot of the organized crime in the United States, rather than going underground, is moving into our major cities in Canada. I think one of the best examples of this is the recent capture by the R.C.M.P. of individuals carrying large amounts of heroin. This to me is just one of many examples of an increase in the type of organized crime which has got such a stranglehold on the major cities in the United States today. I have questioned the Minister of Justice about this in the house because I would like to know, as I am sure most Canadians would like to know, just how intensive the work of the R.C.M.P. has become with regard to the detection of organized crime of this type moving into this country.
I noted in Saturday's edition of one of the Ottawa papers that the commissioner of penitentiaries had stated:
A record increase in Canada's penitentiary population has been recorded in the past five months.
Since September, the inmate total has gone up 550 to more than 7,500, an all time high boost for such a short period.
Mr. MacLeod stated that the increase was substantial in the 18-25 age group. He also stated that there was a big prison building program under way but that it would be 15 to 18 months before the necessary facilities for the penitentiary population were provided.
In this regard I should like to say that I know the government has reached the point where it feels it can go forward with the construction of a medium security penal institution in Springhill. It is close on two years now since I first announced that this penitentiary would be built in the Springhill area. It would have been started last year except for the fact that this government did not like the architects which the former government apparently considered satisfactory. They fired them without notice, and paid a new firm an amount in excess of that which would have been payable to the architects already appointed. Not only did they waste

the taxpayers' money, but they held up the construction of this institution by a year. I might point out, too, that they held it up in an area of high unemployment which has been struck by one disaster after another. By its action the government has curtailed employment which would and should have been available to these people, people who deserve at least a job after all they have gone through in the past.
I hope more than anything else that this government will come forward with agricultural legislation, a definite grain policy for eastern Canada which will be of benefit to our farmers. I hope they will do it soon. I certainly hope that before this session ends there will be an amendment proposed to the Atlantic development board legislation which will provide that board with $1 billion, enough money for it to undertake any project which might be considered advisable in the Atlantic region. This would have a profound effect on the livelihood of our people.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my opening remarks will be to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) for his virtues, his qualities and his talent as a speaker. At times he almost convinced us that the speech from the throne contained everything that was needed to settle the problems of Canadians.
But after reading the speech from the throne we notice that the hon. member for Longueuil had added a lot to it, and that is why our enthusiasm, after his speech, gradually subsided as we read the speech from the throne.
In actual fact, we were served warmed over material, and thus we can see how much the enthusiasm of our friends opposite, after the victory of April 8 last, has fallen off. As a matter of fact, the same gentlemen who were to settle the numerous and complex problems facing the whole country have brought forward no solution at all.
These last few days, on this side of the house and on the other side, as well as in every quarter, appeals have been made for national unity. Reference has been made to the immediate solution which should be found, to short term plans, to long term plans and meanwhile, nothing is being settled.
On the other hand, those who, last year, sat on government benches seem to have found all the solutions required to solve the problems. In fact, in an endeavour to settle the problem of national unity, the illusion was given to Canadians and more particularly to French Canadians in Quebec, that

an assessment oi the problems of the province of Quebec had been made and that an assistant leader was appointed, indeed, a new Sir Georges Etienne Cartier. Some newspapers went even so far as to speak of a Georges Etienne Balcer. But it does seem at last that a great deal of importance is being attached to national unity.
Yet, appeals in favour of national unity have often been heard. There was one made in 1940-41, when compulsory military service was imposed on the province of Quebec despite its clearcut opinion expressed in a plebiscite. This was done, it was claimed, for the sake of good understanding, and French Canadians in Quebec showed comprehension in accepting that decision.
A French Canadian leader was then introduced and he also spoke to us about the good understanding that existed and national unity.
Nevertheless, the country's economic problems have kept on increasing without any solution being found.
On June 19 last, I put on the order paper a question in which I asked for statistics concerning the gross national product, in constant and current dollars. The answer was that in 1950 the gross national product reached $17,471,000,000 in constant dollars and that in 1962 it had reached $28,111,000,000 in constant dollars also, that is an increase of 60 per cent.
In the same answer I was also given some information regarding average annual earnings of Canadian wage earners, again in constant dollars. From a level of $42.54 in 1950, that average income had reached $58.47 in 1962, that is an increase of 37 per cent, compared to a 60 per cent increase in the gross national product.
And there are still super-economists who claim that the solution to the problem of distribution is to increase productivity.
And yet, others understand also that it is essential to consider the Canadian consumer. As a matter of fact, a member of the New Democratic party said recently in this house that the chief objective of any such program should be to gear the Canadian economy to the needs of the consumer.
In my opinion, it is precisely in that field that we should explore the possibilities offered by a truly distributive economy, so as to enable Canadians to consume at least the goods they are able to produce. Thanks to their physical labour and their intelligence, and by means of machinery and scientific progress, Canadians are able to produce. That is not the problem.
Mr. Speaker, a clarion call for national unity has been sounded. But if the conditions now existing in the province of Quebec are considered, it is realized that speeches
The Address-Mr. Perron or attacks against extremists or so-called separatists will not succeed in solving the problems which we are now facing.
It has been suggested that the results of the by-election in Montreal-Laurier was a sort of test case indicating that Creditistes did not represent the province of Quebec. In fact, the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne referred to the fact that since the Creditistes candidates had lost their deposit, it was normal to conclude that the Ralliement Creditistes had lost much ground in the province of Quebec. If one refers to the number of deposits which were lost, one can speak of the loss of popularity of the Liberal party in the 1962 election.
But in my opinion, that is not a solution. It is not with such statements that one can claim that the death knell of the Ralliement Creditistes has been rung to some degree when we have not even had yet to face the voters. And that is certainly not a way to draw the bonds of friendship closer between the two great races in Canada. And with respect to the province of Quebec, we are not the only ones to express those views in public.
We are called extremists. Still, our demands are not contrary to the interests of the other provinces. We simply claim what we are entitled to in the province of Quebec, by virtue of the constitution, just like the other provinces.
Certain statements made by persons who are not in parliament are even more extremist and daring. I have in mind Mr. Francois-Albert Angers who, before the members of the St. Jean Baptiste society, mentioned precisely the last chance given Canada, the problems of Quebec and French Canadians in the state of Quebec. These statements were published in most Canadian newspapers. He said in particular: It is no longer up to French Canadians to take new chances, it is up to the Canadians in the other provinces to take, if there are any left, the chances needed for the survival of our confederation. Those are the words spoken by Mr. Francois Albert Angers, economist, professor at the school of higher commercial studies.
We heard also the minister of natural resources in the Quebec cabinet reply to journalists who asked him if he believed that the future of Quebec lay solely and exclusively in separatism: "Not necessarily separatism but separatism if necessary". In my opinion, that is much more extremist and much more separatist than the complaints we have voiced here ever since we came to this house.
We are not making unfair claims, we are
only requesting that our colleagues take

The Address-Mr. Perron into serious consideration the grievances which we feel are fully justified.
I have before me an editorial published in Relations of January 1963, that mentions bilingualism in the federal service. Still there is a quotation from a speech delivered at a conference by Mr. Eugene A. Forsey, an Anglo-Canadian intellectual from Ottawa, pleading in favour of real Anglo-French association in Canada. Here is what he said in part:
The effective recognition of the French partner is the price to be paid, and if the English majority is not prepared to pay this price, the truth of the matter is, that it does not really want a Canada.
Not only the Creditistes see in its true light the problem as it is today.
Let us see what are the grievances of the province of Quebec in the context of the economic emancipation it is undergoing at present. We are just being asked to make whatever contribution we can to confederation. The moment that the French Canadians from Quebec decide to assume their responsibilities in various fields, regarding the economy of their province in particular, it seems to displease and to scare some people. Are we being threatened with separatism?
Let us see what our grievances are. They are fairly justified when one looks at Quebec's poor record. In 1962, out of a national total of 9,000 bankruptcies, the province of Quebec accounted for 62 per cent of the whole, both in business and in industry. It is not a record French Canadians can be proud of. Evidently, some will say it is because we have no business acumen. However, there are among us institutions and structures which are becoming stronger and stronger from an economic and financial point of view: we have the caisses populaires, various industrial associations, consumers' associations, labour unions, farmers' unions and so forth. We simply wish to hold our place in confederation, without doing any harm to the other provinces by contributing what we should normally offer the Canadian confederation.
If we look again to statistics, we find we have the lowest salaries as compared to salaries paid in the five provinces in western Canada. So much so that some historians alleged that we in Quebec are the white negroes of America.
If we sometimes demand a speeding up of industrialization in Quebec, in regard to secondary industry, it is because the record I have just mentioned is not too pleasant. Quebec may certainly offer a great deal to the Canadian confederation, provided it is allowed to do so.
I have before me a report from the special committee on labour and employment in Canada, which was established under a Con-

servative government. The report is date [DOT] June 14, 1961. We are not, therefore, to blame, since we were not even in this house in 1961. After a serious inquiry conducted by the Senate, it is found that the province of Quebec still holds a notorious record for underdeveloped areas, where unemployment is rampant, to the point of becoming a festering sore. For instance, in the Gaspe area from November to April, 41 per cent of the potential workers were unemployed.
In other districts, like Riviere du Loup, 30 per cent of all available workers were out of work. In a more industrialized area, that of Shawinigan Falls, 20 per cent of the working force were unemployed. These records represent grievances to be considered.
When reading the statistics of unemployment in Canada, in November 1963, we found that 40 per cent of our unemployed were residents of the province of Quebec. Was that province really given the opportunity, the financial means or the financial structure which would help it attract secondary industries that would absorb its labour force?
I do not think that the federal parliament really did what it could have done to provide the province of Quebec, by giving it the necessary economic guidance, with an opportunity of setting up secondary industries which certainly would have solved its unemployment problem.
However, we have had three years of Liberal government in Quebec as well as in Ottawa. Three years ago the Quebec government was proclaiming in its electoral campaign that the problem of social insecurity among workers and farmers fell within the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. The Liberals came into power and in November 1963, we learned that 40 per cent of all those without jobs in Canada were in the province of Quebec.
In this respect also, farmers in eastern Canada certainly have grievances towards the Liberal party which had promised them a minister of agriculture for the east. That legislative measure has been withdrawn and they now bring us an alleged minister of rural development who will see to the application of ARDA in the eastern part of the country.
When I notice what happens in my riding or in the neighbouring ridings, I wonder if we should not call him minister of rural dismemberment, since a great number of villages of those ridings where families of seven, eight, 10 or 12 people had been living in the same house for 10, 20 or 50 years, and even for three or four generations, on the family farm are being "decolonized".
Now they are made to believe that it is not possible any more to live on the family

farm and they are offered the ARDA program which has a striking similarity to the program of community farms, the five year plans adopted by some countries. And that will take place under the guidance of the minister responsible for rural dismemberment.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the grievances of the province of Quebec are justified. In the name of this unity which is so often mentioned and referred to, I feel that the time has come for a better understanding. Mention is made of unity while the government is planning to introduce in this very house at least two pieces of legislation which will achieve nothing but a still greater discord.
The province of Ontario, like the province of Quebec, has practically taken its stand on the matter of portable pensions. A portable and contributory pension plan and a student loan plan have been submitted to us.
Nevertheless, we are not the only ones to express views that are contrary to those of the present Liberal party upon which fall the administrative responsibilities in this house.
In regard to loans to students, the premier of Quebec, Hon. Jean Lesage, made the following statement, as reported in La Presse in its February 20, 1964 issue:
Federal loans to students, another intrusion... in the provincial field, said Hon. Jean Lesage.
And the minister of youth of the province of Quebec, Hon. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, declared in turn:
It is an indirect intrusion through the back door.
Still, I would not think that these gentlemen could be classified as "separatistes" but they also reckon that this problem has become a burning question.
If must take a new look at confederation, let us do so by all means, but at least let us cease to overstep certain rights, in a way that is hurting or vexing in a disgraceful manner certain groups who have indisputable rights in the Canadian confederation.
The province of Quebec also realizes something else. While the gross national product has increased by 60 per cent and the national income by only 30 per cent, national indebtedness has reached such a point that the province of Quebec holds the record concerning finance companies. That is so true that a bill was introduced in the Quebec legislature recently to control the rate of interest charged in the province by certain loan companies on instalment buying and on direct consumer loans.
Indebtedness has soared. I have here statistics on the national indebtedness. They are fairly discouraging for anyone who has some understanding of our banking system.
The Address-Mr. Perron
The federal debt, which amounted to $15 billion 200 million in 1956, has increased to $18 billion 600 million in 1961. The total debt of the ten provinces, which was $4 billion 600 million, has now risen to $8 billion 200 million in a period of only five years.
The municipal and school board debt, of $2 billion 400 million is now $4 billion. The mortgage liabilities have increased from $3 billion 300 million to $5 billion 400 million.
Personal debts and liabilities which were $2 billion 300 million, are now $4 billion 200 million, which means an increase of 52 per cent in a period of only five years.
Certain groups in the province of Quebec are aware of the fact that the present system certainly cannot go very far.
Those enormous liabilities call for a payment of interest of over $150 a year per Canadian citizen taken from the taxpayer at all levels of public administration.
For the head of a family with four children, that is a family of six persons counting the mother, it means a burden of $900 a year in interest payments, because of our liability system.
Yet those who are sitting on the official opposition benches and those who are occupying the treasury benches do not seem in a hurry to review the monetary policy of this country. They seem to talk for the sake of talking. They speak about a new co-operative federalism. As long as the present banking system will continue to control public administration and to crush us under the burden of interest and loans, Mr. Speaker,
I think that we shall be on the wrong track and that problems will necessarily multiply, if no bold and drastic solution is found.
In my opinion, while speaking of co-operative federalism, the federal government owes it to itself to consult the provincial ministers of revenue and, with their co-operation, to launch a new monetary policy in the country.
I believe that it is high time to do it in 1964.
For two years, an inquiry has been going on in Canada on banking activities. Associations of businessmen and provincial groups, the Canadian association of municipalities have been presenting briefs in which they claim loudly the establishment of a municipal bank to facilitate credit.
They are not the only ones to request a revision of the monetary policy in Canada. In fact, we say: let the federal government begin at least by handing to the province of Quebec that to which it is entitled, through constitution, in the taxation field.
Then, instead of loans to students being granted to students by the federal government, the province of Quebec itself may assume this responsibility. The students of

The Address-Mr. Perron the province of Quebec, the growing generation, may take advantage of the loans, and so the province of Quebec will offer its contribution to the whole of Canada.
If the twentieth century is to belong to Canada, it is surely not by paying lip service to this axiom that such results will be attained, but when both racial groups in our country have obtained full control of their means of action and have reached a better mutual understanding.
It is not with mere words and a call to unity that we shall succeed.
The province of Quebec will not be satisfied as long as it is not able to free itself in the economic field and to take the place which is its own by rights, especially through rational exploitation of its natural resources. Let us stop integrating more and more on the plea of joint plans in matters which are strictly under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.
As soon as we will take serious action in that connection, we shall have the assurance of success because then we shall be less and less divided.
When we look at the economic problems confronting us at the present time, we realize that it is not a question of animosity between the two great races of the country but a question of economic problems such as to make complaints as vocal as the country is large.
At the last federal-provincial conference the premier of British Columbia stated that he was not satisfied with the agreements that had been concluded. The representative of the province of Quebec was perhaps less forthright in stating his dissatisfaction but since then he has been criticized about it by various groups in the province of Quebec who found that he had not adopted the right attitude, whereas six months or a year before he had delivered a so-called ultimatum to the federal government.
Let us hand back to the provinces their sources of revenue. We agree that the problems are complex. But the sovereign authority of the federal parliament must not be exercised solely to impose taxes on the small wage earner or when it is felt appropriate to send inspectors to the rectories in the province of Quebec to see whether the receipts for charitable donations are valid. No, the sovereign authority of the parliament should rather be exerted on one at least of the major institutions which it created, that is the Bank of Canada.
It is not with bold and drastic measures that we can give the Canadian economy the new and real stimulus it needs.

At present, the government is satisfied with half measures and only does some replastering to patch up the cracks made by the various problems facing our country.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that if the government sincerely wishes to settle all those problems, it must put forward an economic policy really favourable to the Canadian consumer.
If the Canadian people have the capacity to produce, we should give them the opportunity to consume, at least to the destitute and the handicapped through social security measures which will enable them to use up what is produced in such large quantities in the field of consumer goods as well as in the field of services in Canada.
That is why we think it would have been wise for the party in power to direct the policy of this session towards the family and the consumer.
That, I would like to submit, is why the following subamendment, of which I shall let you have a copy in both languages; I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier);
That the following words be added to the amendment;
The house further regrets that this government did not think fit to use the money from the 11 per cent tax on building materials to increase family allowances following the rise in living costs caused by tax increases over the last 20 years.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, we should give to our economy a progressively distributive character because this is not really a production problem, but rather a question of distributing the abundance of goods among Canadian consumers.
Let us see things with the eyes of those who are unemployed, of those whose income is so low that they cannot face the rising cost of living, when they see what generosity we show towards foreign countries and what importance we give to international trade through the sale of our surplus production, whereas, at the same time, there are underfed families here in Canada.
We should not be astonished, therefore, if sometimes dissatisfaction borders on revolution. We are not responsible for it, for we were not responsible for the country's administration for the last 97 years. The blame should not be put on the Creditistes who put forward suggestions. Instead of ridiculing them, every effort should be made in order to give a real economic impetus to the Canadian nation through injection of new credit put at the disposal of the federal government through an increase in social security benefits in the country.
We do not want social security tinged with paternalism but social security where the state would play a complementary part and

give to those with low incomes or without work, the possibility to live decently with some social security. Such a policy would boost the economy tor the consumers would be able to order because they would have the means to buy.
Where there is consumption, it commands production, and in turn the industries which work only two or three days a week would be interested in re-employing our people.
But the government prefers to proceed differently. A portable pension scheme is established. The 25-year old young man is told: let go of 4 to 5 per cent of your income, even if your income is now too low to meet the cost of living, for that will enable you in the year 2003, when you have reached the age of 65, to eat your bread. We do not care to know whether in 2003 we shall be able to produce enough to allow the aged to be fed adequately through the implementation of the pension plan we are putting forward today in Canada. We shall see to it that today's young man can eat when he is 65. We are providing for 25 years ahead. The tax is being levied immediately on the small wage earner, while 37 per cent of the Canadian wage earners do not even earn enough to pay income tax.
Considering what a family head with five or six dependants must spend to have a decent living, I wonder whether they do not make fun of him when they offer a contributory and compulsory pension plan. The cheque stubs of the low income people show so many deductions that you begin to think that the way things are going, in two, three or ten years, they will get a receipt to show how the government has spent their pay cheque.
So, I think there are other solutions, other systems and that the ones we are proposing should be taken under serious consideration. We may be the only ones in this house to seriously tackle that difficulty; do not pretend to have a cure-all for the problems of the world. But I am sure that if a revision was made of the monetary policy, instead of having quarrels over the problem of taxation, at any level, it would considerably contribute to a better understanding between the various groups which make up the Canadian nation.
We could truly say that 1967 could be a grandiose celebration, in a true apotheosis of the centennial of our Canadian confederation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Before I make any ruling on the subamendment I would invite the opinion of members of the house. I may say that I have some serious doubts as to the relevancy of this
Question of Privilege
subamendment to the amendment which has been moved. I should like to read this part of the amendment:
But we respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the repeal of the 11 per cent sales tax-
The subamendment also regrets that the government did not find it appropriate to use the money raised through this 11 per cent tax in a certain way. We have an amendment respecting the repeal of the tax, and a subamendment concerning the use of the tax. If this subamendment were adopted, then of course it would be almost impossible to adopt the amendment. I feel I should like to have a look at the subamendment and give the house a ruling tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is obvious when we move an amendment or a subamendment we do not foresee all the objections which may come from the Chair. Therefore, I wonder whether it would not be possible, under the circumstances, before Your Honour gives his ruling as to whether this or that subamendment is in order, that you raise your objections, thus giving us an opportunity to deal with them before you give your ruling. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: A few
moments ago I invited hon. members in the chamber to express their opinion concerning this subamendment. However, if the hon. member for Lapointe would like to do so now I would be glad to hear him.


Gilles Grégoire: Before answering the objections to the subamendment, I think the normal way to proceed would be to ascertain what the objections are. If we do not know what the objections to the subamendment are, we cannot answer those objections. This is what I have mentioned, that when we have the objections we will be able to answer them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should like to cite to the hon. member citation 203 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 177, which reads as follows:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I do not wish to make a ruling on this
subamendment unless I hear from other sides

Question of Privilege
of the house. On first reading, the subamendment does appear to be inconsistent with the amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege. I know that you are to give your ruling on that subamendment. However, I would like the Chair to take this opportunity to state in this house what is exactly the status of Beauchesne's, its official or unofficial character, and how strongly does Beauchesne's bind the members to the ruling that must be taken in this house. I believe that a statement on the intrinsic value of Beauchesne's citations should be given by Your Honour because we question that they should be used as the basis for rulings or decisions in this house. I rest my case on the fact that there are two ways-and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) will agree with me in this regard-to rise on a point of order or law.
In English speaking provinces, there are no prescribed regulations, code or book in which laws are codified. Therefore, the accepted procedure is to resort to jurisprudence. In the province of Quebec, on the other hand, and when a ruling is against people from Quebec, the procedure in effect in that province should be taken into account, because it is different. In our province, a provision of the act is first set forth and, in support of that provision or its interpretation, rulings, jurisprudence and precedents are referred to. This means that, according to our procedure, precedents and jurisprudence are put forward to
confirm or define a section of the act. But in this house, jurisprudence and precedents are put forward first, without the rule or a particular act being quoted. That is what we are against, we who have to suffer from such a procedure.
That is why I ask that the status of Beau-chesne in this house, its character, be exactly defined. Is it or is it not official? Is it simply used as jurisprudence or is it official and does it have a legal character? I think that we are entitled to those explanations, Mr. Speaker.
I would therefore ask as a question of privilege, in order that the procedure in force in our province of Quebec be complied with, that the true definition of Beauchesne's quotations be given and of the procedure followed with respect to rulings made in this house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: May I
point out to the hon. member and to the house that when rulings are made by the Chair, the various authorities on parliamentary procedure are quoted in support of those rulings. Beauchesne has been considered one such authority in this chamber. While the hon. member may have the right to object to any quotation from Beauchesne, I must point out to him that Beauchesne must remain my authority until the house advises me differently.
Since it is now ten o'clock, I may say this subamendment will be considered and a ruling given at tomorrow's sitting.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 25, 1964