1964-02-25

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as promised I should like to bring the house up to date regarding the choice of a site for the proposed national centre for the performing arts. Since the last session of parliament there have been a number of developments in this matter. Most of these are on the public record, but I might usefully and shortly review some of the more important matters.
First, Mr. Speaker, the mayor and board of control of the city of Ottawa agreed to recommend that the city make available without charge land between Elgin street and the Rideau canal north of Mackenzie King bridge as a site for the proposed performing arts centre. The national capital commission was directed by the government to report on the suitability of the above site and on others that had been suggested. Supported by the unanimous recommendation of their advisory committee on design, the commission reported in favour of the Elgin street site.
In submitting its report the national capital commission said that it had placed before the architects a number of essential conditions laid down by its design committee to ensure that certain long term principles for the development of the Confederation square area would not be infringed. The architects appointed to design the centre went into these conditions specifically and also into the general adequacy of the site for the needs of the centre as they saw them. After carefully investigating the Elgin street site, the architects had reported that the performing arts centre could be built on that site in a manner which would contribute to the development of the area within the principles of the Parkin plan for the central area of the capital. The government thus had the results of very thorough study of the site and its suitability, as well as a report on other sites.
After receiving the national capital commission report with its recommendation I wrote on behalf of the government on February 17 to the mayor of Ottawa to say
that the government agreed to the construction of the national centre for the performing arts on the site between Elgin street and the canal, provided the city would convey to the federal government a clear title to any city lands required for the project. Should the city require time to establish beyond doubt its ability to meet this request, we asked that a rent free long term lease, renewable in perpetuity, be granted, pending the eventual transfer of title, in order that work on the site might begin without delay. The city council that same evening agreed to a memorandum of understanding which makes it quite clear that the city is to make the site available free of charge and clear of all claims or reservations. The only provisions the city had sought were that the centre would in fact be built on the land, and that the mayor of Ottawa should in future years be ex officio a member of whatever board is set up to be responsible for the centre under the federal government. I have since received a letter from Mayor Whitton informing me of the city's agreement to the memorandum.
Reference has been made to controversy surrounding the subject. There has been no such controversy involving the federal government. Our arrangements have been made entirely with the city of Ottawa, and on a co-operative and cordial basis. We have, of course, been aware of the fact that members of an old and distinguished Ottawa family have raised some question about the course of action taken by the city. We trust that this question will be settled amicably and promptly. It will be evident, however, that the clarification of the city's title to the lands in question is a matter for the city to handle. The project for the construction of the centre for the performing arts on the Elgin street site rests firmly on our definite understanding with the city under which we shall receive a clear title to all the lands required.
The centre will, along with the centres to be established in the provinces as part of the centennial program, be of great importance in the cultural life of Canada. To ensure that it will be of outstanding quality the government is making provision for consultation with the best authorities in Canada on the various performing arts that will make use of the facilities when they are completed. I

Statement on National Arts Centre hope to be able to announce very shortly the composition of committees being established for this purpose.
To derive the greatest value from that consultation, and to ensure that the views of the artistic experts and the architects are brought together effectively and continuously within the relatively short time available for this project, the government has appointed Mr. G. Hamilton Southam as co-ordinator. Mr. Southam is president of the national capital arts alliance which had the original study for the centre made, and has had a long and close association with encouragement of the performing arts in Canada. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, he will be a very successful and efficient administrator and co-ordinator of the project.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the statement he made earlier in the house with regard to the site for the national centre for the performing arts, for which statement I thank him. Will he state whether he has received any representations from supporters of his in this house, or other persons, against the appropriateness of the site that has been chosen?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which has come up in our caucus, and it would be quite improper for me to discuss what went on there in connection with it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There were reports in the newspapers and, seeing it has got out to the newspapers, I am sure the Prime Minister would not mind reporting to the house.


Mr. R. W. Priiiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: As
a supplementary question concerning the national centre, did the planning department of the city of Ottawa recommend against that site as likely to cause more confusion in "Confusion" square?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the recommendation in favour of that site came from the municipality of Ottawa.



FINANCE


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will recall, on October 2 last I tabled volume I of the tariff board report on reference 130 relating to machinery and equipment used in the mining industry, and the oil and gas industries. Volume I dealt with oilfield equipment.

I have tabled today copies in English and in French of volume II of this report. I have also tabled a transcript of the evidence presented to the board at its public hearings. Volume II relates to machinery and equipment used in the mining and processing of minerals. I can assure the house that the board's recommendations contained therein will receive most careful consideration by the government, and I should like to take this opportunity to invite interested parties to let me have promptly any comments which they may wish to submit on this report.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


[Stage Direction]
"elevator"
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-70, to amend the Canada Grain Act (off-track elevator licensing).


Mr. Speaker:: This bill, like other public bills presented by private members, is subject to the caveat I gave on other private members' public motions. For this reason I do not wish to discriminate between public bills introduced by private members at different times.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a number of questions to the Prime Minister in connection with a report in the press today regarding a search made at Ashbury College in the village of Rockcliffe Park in which soldiers, allegedly armed with fixed bayonets on their rifles, picked up the college's cadet corps arms and ammunition at midnight on Saturday.
This is a very serious allegation, if true. Is it true? If it is, who directed that this type of lawlessness, outrageous and squalid, should take place? What possible warranty, what information of wrongdoing, was there that would demand that the search be made at night and under these circumstances? Under what authority did this action take place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, without accepting some of the adjectives used by the right hon. gentleman in putting his question, I am going to ask the Minister of National Defence to deal with it.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there was in fact no invasion of privacy.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh no?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The local cadet commander was advised that the soldiers would be coming to pick up the rifles and ammunition which were there-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -in accordance with the general directive.


John George Diefenbaker: At midnight?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Unfortunately there was some delay in arriving.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am informed that bayonets were not fixed, as alleged, and this is an inaccuracy in the report. I apologize for the fact that the general orders which had gone out were effected with such zealousness but, in view of the seriousness of the situation, I am sure my right hon. friend will appreciate that this action was understandable.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that in a matter as serious as this it would have been the Prime Minister who would have replied. The questions are still not answered. I would ask the minister to answer these questions. Why did the search take place at midnight? Was lawlessness believed to be in existence in this college? The minister smiles about this. I ask him to take the matter seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh, but lawlessness is worse when it is lawlessness under the crown. Let that be clear. What has been done in order to assure that there will not be a repetition of this? Where else has anything like this taken place? The minister speaks of the seriousness of the situation, and then he goes to a private school in Rockcliffe Park and acts in this way.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there was no search. As I indicated earlier, advance warning had been given. I think it is regrettable that the party arrived at the late hour they did, and I have asked the army for a complete investigation as to how it happened.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is insufficient.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. gentlemen opposite do not regard this matter as serious. I ask the minister to answer the questions. Was it he who directed that this should take place, or 20220-13i
Inquiries of the Ministry was it done under his authority? That is what I want to know. When was the direction given, and who is responsible for this most opprobrious and reprehensible conduct?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the right hon. gentleman will find the answer to his question in Friday's Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be brushed off with that kind of answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We are in a strange position in this house when a minister of the crown treats individual rights in this country with such supreme contempt and disregard.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I shall try to exclude emotion from my question, Mr. Speaker, but as an old boy of Ashbury I am a little disturbed by this incident. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if there are any other school cadet corps on the list for similar raids in the near future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In accordance with the general directive that went out, all small arms and ammunition were removed from all reserve units, including cadet units, where adequate protection could not be provided. At such time as another recommendation made by the commission can be carried out, namely that each unit be inspected individually by a senior officer to determine the degree of protection which can be afforded, then longer term measures can be taken such as the reinstatement of weapons under proper conditions.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Does the minister feel it is in the interests of security that rifles of 1917 vintage, without bolts, supplied with ammunition that can be purchased in any sporting goods store, would have to be seized from the cadet corps of Ashbury College?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Without a detailed report, I might just say that this is perhaps an exception to the general rule.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: hope when the minister is making his inquiries he will find out whether or not there is any association between the raid on Ashbury College and the press gallery dinner on Saturday evening.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.

Inquiries of the Ministry Was his department asked in any way to have a search warrant issued before action was taken at Ashbury College; and did any police officer accompany those who went in there at midnight? If such a search warrant was not issued, is martial law in effect?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman will,
I hope, allow me to take this question as notice.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence how it is proposed that small arms training will be carried on by the reserve force units in those armouries from which these small arms have been removed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, one of the longer range measures proposed by the special commission, which incidentally was set up on January 31, the first day after the raid in Montreal, was that every unit be examined individually by senior officers of the armed forces in Canada to determine the adequacy of present protection measures, and to make recommendations in respect to improvements that must be made before small arms and ammunition would be sufficiently secure. This is now being implemented, and each unit is being examined and appropriate recommendations made. After the recommendations are accepted the small arms and ammunition will be made available on a properly secured basis. In the meantime small arms and ammunition are held at central points and will be made available on request for training purposes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister mean by this that when a unit wants to carry on small arms training, which is a very large proportion of the training, particularly of infantry units, it has to send a truck to some central point to pick up the arms and then send them back after the day's or evening's training is finished?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is true in the short run. This is a temporary measure which was taken until such time as individual inspection of units could take place. I do not think it is an undue hardship, because the level of training at the present time is not as great as it will be later in the year, by which time we will have had a chance to look at the units individually and to make appropriate arrangements.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister or his advisers consider putting into effect the [Mr. Diefenbaker.l
system which has been in effect in Switzerland for many years and is in effect in some other European countries, whereby the individual soldier is given his rifle to look after and is held responsible for it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is just one of many suggestions that have been made. I am sure it will be considered along with other suggestions. I am not sure whether it would be a practical measure.



THEFT OF ARMS IN MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that it is now over three weeks since the raid on the Montreal armoury, at which time some 30 machine guns and 60 automatic rifles as well as a number of side arms were stolen, will the minister inform the house what progress is being made toward the apprehension of those who were responsible?


Guy Favreau: I answered a question in relation to this matter yesterday. I hope the house will take my word for it when I say that, for the moment, it would not be in the public interest to divulge minute details concerning the progress of the investigation. I hope, too, that the house will take my word as Minister of Justice when I say I am completely satisfied that all that can be done is being done by the R.C.M.P. and by the local and provincial authorities.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.

What steps does the minister intend to take to protect the R.C.M.P. against the theft of their revolvers and ammunitions as was the case in St. Jerome recently?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. would be the first one to take a decision in that connection and in such circumstances. However, I shall discuss the matter with him and I thank my hon. friend for having brought it to my attention.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence?
Could the minister assure the house that steps will be taken to guard against any disturbance that might be created by those

who, through burglary, got into possession of small arms lately in Montreal and Shawinigan?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we have taken all reasonable steps, and I hope they will prove to be adequate.



U.S. TROOPS IN CHARGE OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS AT CANADIAN BASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that United States troops are in charge of nuclear warheads and responsible for their protection at the North Bay and La Macaza bases?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, under the agreement between our two countries the custody of the warheads themselves is the responsibility of the United States forces.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and I do so now because time is very important. In accordance with the recommendation made by the Cape Breton county council, will the minister give consideration to extending from February 28 to March 15 the date when the Department of National Defence will cease to pump water through a line to Point Edward naval base that now serves a large number of ratepayers of Cape Breton county, in order to allow time to make other arrangements for a water supply?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask me this question. The water line referred to is a 12-inch wood-stave pipe built in 1943 to supply water to the Point Edward naval base. By about 1956 excessive leakage was becoming a problem due to the condition of the line and the number of unauthorized tappings by private individuals. A new steel line with related works was completed in 1960. However, the department continued to pump water under pressure to the old wood-stave line because of the approximately 25 families in Coxheath who had come to depend on this line as a source of supply, although no payment was being made.
Recently formal notice has been served on the department of possible damage claims
Inquiries of the Ministry concerning damage to property allegedly caused by water escaping from this line, and as a result I informed the warden of the municipality of Cape Breton by telegram and letter on February 8 that unless the county of Cape Breton would assume all liability, the department would discontinue water supply effective the 28th of this month. In reply I received a letter from the warden asking that an extension be granted to March 15, 1964, but no undertaking was given that the county would assume liability.
I have today sent a telegram to the warden informing him that we would of course extend the water supply until March 15 if the county will save us harmless from liability.
I should point out that in correspondence which has continued over a considerable period of time, the department has offered to provide water from the new steel line on a metered basis; and should this be acceptable, every assistance will be given to the county in order to furnish adequate outlets.


Robert Muir: May I say that I am very grateful to the Minister of National Defence, and the previous minister, for their excellent co-operation in this matter.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Favreau: should like to refer to a question raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition on Thursday of last week concerning outstanding judgments of a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada who recently retired.
The situation is that there were at the time-of his retirement outstanding judgments in only two cases tried before him. In one of those cases the parties have agreed to a new trial or hearing based on the existing evidence and argument. It is expected that a similar arrangement will be made in the other case. This is the normal procedure in the exchequer court where a judge dies, resigns or ceases to hold office by reason of age.



HAL BANKS CASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Favreau: On Monday, February 24, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked what action was being contemplated in relation to an act of perjury alleged to have been committed in the course of the proceedings against Hal Banks. All I think I can say in

Inquiries of the Ministry answer to this question at the moment is that crown counsel is giving careful consideration to all aspects of this matter, but it would not be proper for me to discuss such matters arising out of a prosecution which is presently before the courts. At the appropriate moment I will be glad to make a further statement.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister advise the house what is contemplated in the event that the hint he is reported to have given in the press yesterday to the shipping companies that they co-operate is not taken? What is the "or else" that is indicated?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, it would be altogether wrong for me to attempt to answer a hypothetical question on orders of the day.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I have a question to address to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman has seen the report in the Globe and Mail of a statement by Dr. Chaput to the Y.M.C.A. club in Toronto, in which he is reported to have said that the Queen will meet with trouble on her visit in Quebec, and-I quote -"Some of my own people are ready to let her know, and brutally, that she is no longer welcome in French Canada". After which he concluded "She will not come to Quebec this year or any other year".
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate to us what is the intention of the government in the face of this statement and of all the problems it is bound to create.


An hon. Member:: Treason.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the plans regarding Her Majesty's visit to Canada will not be affected in any way by such an irresponsible statement as the one to which he has referred.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to ask the hon. member for Lot-biniere to assist the Queen?
[Mr. Favreau.)


Robert Muir: As one who is not a member of the legal profession might I ask the Minister of Justice whether he considers the remarks attributed to Dr. Chaput to be of a type which would make him liable to criminal proceedings?


Guy Favreau: I do not want to shy away from answering questions put by hon. members, but I think I must make it clear as early as possible in my new role as Minister of Justice that the rules prevent me from giving legal opinions to the house.


Erik Nielsen: Does the Minister of Justice intend to cause an inquiry to be made by his officials as to whether or not the statements made by Dr. Chaput are actionable under the Criminal Code?


Guy Favreau: Without giving an opinion I may say this-that all hon. members may be assured that when any matter calls for study by the department under my direction and under my responsibility, such study will be made.


Erik Nielsen: Does the minister intend to instruct his officials to make an inquiry in this particular situation to see whether charges should be laid?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the minister answered that question sufficiently.


John George Diefenbaker: With great respect to you, sir, that question was not answered.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps I could repeat the question in case Your Honour did not hear it properly. I am asking the minister, as a responsible minister of the crown, whether he intends to instruct his officials to cause an inquiry to be made as to whether or not charges should be laid as a result of the statements made by Dr. Chaput.


Guy Favreau: First, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I have not yet seen or read the statement; but even if I had read it I think the question would be answered by my previous answer.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's statement that these are the words and actions of irresponsible people, is the government making any investigation to see whether any such people, even if they are irresponsible, are contemplating acts that might tend to embarrass Her Majesty during her visit to Quebec?


Guy Favreau: The house can be assured- and I believe the question need not even be asked-that in relation to any statement made

by any person or group, action is always taken, and is being taken, by the responsible officials and officers to ascertain whether any measures ought to be taken, and to take these measures if necessary.


Erik Nielsen: What action is being taken?


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman, as the temporary head of the government, assure the house that every possible security measure will be taken during the Queen's visit?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that question has already been answered in the house and need not be asked, because my hon. friend knows that this government and any government of Canada will take adequate measures for the security of Her Majesty the Queen when she comes to visit this country.


Robert Muir: It was thought that President Kennedy was safe, too.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the government adopted a new policy in regard to the operation of D.V.A. hospitals; in effect, the proposals put forward by the Glassco commission?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question on two or three occasions since the opening of this session. It is not possible to adopt the recommendations of the Glassco commission as contained in the report because there are too many factors involved. All we have received at the moment are proposals from a number of people, cities, provinces, and in one case a university, to consider the integration of these hospitals in order to assist in the bed shortage which exists generally across the country. We are studying these proposals now, and we are meeting fairly frequently. As soon as I am in a position to indicate a clear cut decision I will be pleased to make a statement in the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from the minister's reply that the government have changed their policy in regard to the operation of these hospitals. This being the case, I would like to ask whether the government is prepared to
Inquiries of the Ministry refer the whole matter to the veterans affairs committee for study and advice.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I did not hear the first part of that question, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The first part was that I take it from the minister's answer that the government have changed their policy in regard to the operation of D.V.A. hospitals. My further question is, is the government prepared to, and will they, refer this whole matter to the veterans affairs committee of the house for study and advice?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The answer to the first part of the question is no, not at this moment; because, as I said before, we are taking these proposals under advisement and are studying them. From that study will come a conclusion. The next part of the question I can only answer at that time.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. When the minister used the word "integration" did he mean that these hospitals would be actually and physically transferred to the provinces? I am thinking in particular-as I am sure is the hon. member for Calgary North-of the Colonel Belcher hospital in the city of Calgary.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that I had used the word "innovation".


Some hon. Members:: "Integration".


Roger-Joseph Teillet: These are the proposals we are receiving from these people. We have taken no decision on these proposals. I believe I stated yesterday, or last week, that we had received a proposal from the city of Calgary; that we had had a meeting with that city, their hospital people and some of the veterans organizations in Calgary. As a result of that meeting a proposal is coming forward in writing from Calgary, and when I receive that proposal I will be in a position to reach a conclusion on it. Until I have done that it is impossible for me to be definite.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the government have not in effect changed their policy, why are they making very definite plans with the city of Calgary and the province of Alberta for turning over the Colonel Belcher hospital to civilian operation?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: There are no definite plans to turn over that hospital to the city of Calgary. I indicated as clearly as it was possible for me to do so that we have had requests, and in this particular instance from the city of Calgary, to assist in their difficulties. We have sat down with them to talk the matter over and see what we can do. When that proposal
196	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry arrives before me I will then be in a position to judge whether I can recommend a change of policy.
I realize there have been reports, and I understand that the minister of health for Alberta has stated that they were taking over the Colonel Belcher hospital. He is well ahead of me, because no such decision has been taken. We are awaiting a proposal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has it occurred to the minister that he is really holding out what are probably false hopes to the people of the city of Calgary as far as this hospital being made available to them is concerned, and is seriously disturbing the veterans?
[Later:~\


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs with regard to the hospital situation. Does the minister not agree that these veterans hospitals will be badly needed shortly, as the second world war veterans become older and in need of medical care? I am sure he would agree to give this matter his attention.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure the hon. gentleman that we are giving very careful thought to this entire question. There are very great difficulties involved. I think the best way to deal with the matter to place it in clear perspective is for me to give an undertaking to make a clear cut statement to the house as quickly as I can. I should like to hold this off, however, until such time as we have completed this arrangement, or at least are in a position to reach a conclusion on the situation at Calgary, which will indicate to us the manner in which these things can be done. We want to cooperate with the communities while retaining the ability to discharge our responsibilities to the full. I can assure the hon. gentleman that this has been very carefully looked into.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he will make a statement to the house immediately after the arrangements have been completed with reference to the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I certainly will, after we are in a position to be specific on the action we intend to take.



FINANCE


[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 Finance. In view of the fact that


the National City Bank of the United States has obtained control of the Mercantile Bank of Canada, and in view of the fact that it intends to greatly extend the operations of this bank in Canada with United States capital, would the minister inform the house of the government's view with respect to this development?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question. There is no legislation at present which would prevent the take-over of any Canadian bank by a non-resident. The government's views on this matter will be made known when the Bank Act is up for revision. I do not know what the plans of the National City Bank of New York may be for expanding the operations of the Mercantile Bank of Canada, but there is no legislation at present which would interfere with the opening of more branches if that was desired.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had conversations with Mr. Rockefeller of the National City Bank of the United States with respect to this matter?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not in the last six months or so, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received any request for a report on the probable effect of the proposed Mactaquac dam on the salmon fishing of the Saint John river and tributaries situated north of the proposed dam?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisier of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, while I do not recall having received any specific request for a report on the probable effect of the proposed Mactaquac dam on the salmon fishing of the Saint John river, I want to assure the hon. member and the house that, as provided by the Fisheries Act and regulations, provision will be made for the protection of the salmon fishery in the Saint John river and tributaries north of the proposed dam.


Hugh John Flemming: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister consider that this is an exceptional situation, due to the fact that the proposed reservoir will be 55 miles long?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the length of the reservoir would have any effect on the protection of the salmon fishery

Inquiries of the Ministry
of the Saint John river. Provision will be on a report that a wounded Canadian mis-made, as I have said, for the protection of this sionary told Monday how he had twice asked particular fishery.	for the evacuation of a Roman Catholic
mission in Congo's Kwilu province and was EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	refused?



MALAYSIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to provide economic and/or military aid to Malaysia in her present struggle for existence against aggression?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge no such request for military aid has been received from Malaysia. I believe we are already providing economic assistance under the Colombo plan.



PROTECTION OF CANADIAN CITIZENS IN KWILU PROVINCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whom I sent notice of my question, I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the government taken any steps to protect Canadian citizens in Kwilu province of the Congo; and if not, are any arrangements being made for the evacuation of Canadians there until the cessation of the present terrorism?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I promised the Leader of the Opposition yesterday to make an additional statement on this matter as soon as the information was received.
I can add this to what I said yesterday, that when the attacks on missionaries in the province of Kwilu first began, the evacuation of missionaries of all denominations and nationalities in the danger area who requested help was carried out by the United Nations and the missionary organizations themselves. As the house is aware, the United Nations evacuation program at that time was under the direction of a Canadian Colonel Mayer, who has been commended by the secretary general for the gallantry with which he carried out his task.
It is our understanding that all missionaries who were willing to leave have been evacuated from the danger area. The danger area may, of course, spread. In these circumstances I am informed that the United Nations is ready to deal with any requests for evacuation by Canadians and other persons which may subsequently be made.


John Chester MacRae: A supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister care to comment 20220-14


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have seen that report, and inquiries are being made as to its accuracy or otherwise. I will reply as soon as I get some information.


Douglas Scott Harkness: supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister tell us how many United Nations troops are still left in the Congo available to deal with situations of this kind?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot with accuracy, offhand, but I will get that information.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry whether, in view of the fact that United States contributions to the Canadian medical research council will be considerably reduced this year, and in view of the fact that apparently we have only enough funds for three applicants out of 13 who applied for assistance in the research field, the government intends to increase the funds available to the Canadian medical research council, whose facilities, as you know, are used by the leading biologists and researchers in Canada.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the government has for some time been aware of the possibility of a reduction in grants to individual researchers in Canada by United States authorities. In view of this the hon. member for Simcoe East will have noted that when the estimates were tabled there was a very substantial increase this year in the amount of money to be provided to the Canadian medical research council for grants in aid of research and for medical scholarships. I think the situation has been considered and is now properly taken care of.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the statement that Dr. Hans Selye made last week in Toronto to the effect that it was likely he would have to release 40 out of the 120 workers at the institute of experimental medicine; and will these grants about which the minister spoke take care of that kind of situation?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not aware of this particular situation, but I will seek advice from the Canadian medical research council and inform the hon. member.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has an agenda for the forthcoming federal-provincial conference in Quebec on March 31 yet been sent out to the provincial premiers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the date for the conference was not finally cleared with all the provinces until the day before yesterday, because one province had found March 31 a not very convenient date, although the other provinces were agreeable to it, and it was not until the other day that that province accepted the date because of the fact that the other provinces did find it convenient. I am sending out either today or tomorrow a formal notice to all provincial governments regarding the confirmation of that date, and I hope at that time to send out a draft agenda for their consideration.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: .Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister consider sending an agenda and an invitation to attend to the governments in the Yukon and Northwest Territories so they may participate in this conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know that question came up before in connection with such a conference, and I know of my hon. friend's interest in it, but it was decided that previous practice should be observed with regard to the representation of the territories by the federal authorities. I will be glad to look into the possibility of making a change at this time, but we have to consult the provinces about it.


Erik Nielsen: I should like to ask a brief question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. When the Prime Minister is consulting the provinces in respect of the matter of representation of the Yukon and Northwest Territories at the federal-provincial conference forthcoming in March, would he approach the provinces as well in relation to representation by those two territories as observers if not as participants?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I will do that.
[Mr. Orlikow.l



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us whether all the municipal winter works projects approved and recommended by the province of Quebec have been accepted by the federal government; and can the minister tell us whether his department are requiring petitions from the provincial authorities after recommendations by those provinces of municipal winter works projects?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the officials in my department are dealing with applications from the province of Quebec in exactly the same way as they are dealing with applications from any other part of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question. Would the Minister of Labour consider extending the municipal winter works period in those areas or districts in Canada where snow and cold weather prohibits winter works during the months of January and February?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to consider any proposal made by any hon. member, but in the absence of a more compelling argument which has not been forthcoming to date it is not the intention of the government to extend the deadline for the operations of the municipal winter works program.



ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Minister of Labour because it affects the coal industry of the province of Alberta. Yesterday a mine, in which $1J million had been invested to make it fully automated, was closed and 100 men were put out of work. I wonder what plans the minister of mines has in this regard, and what plans the Minister of Labour has. Also while I am on my feet I would like to ask the Minister of Justice when the construction of the penitentiary is going to start.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that requires a detailed answer and should be put on the order paper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I agree on the importance of the question. Unfortunately the hon. member did not give me notice of it. He refers to something that happened yesterday. I will take notice of it and give him an answer tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very kindly.



MONT JOLI, QUE.    REPORTED REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN WORK UNDER ARDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and rural development?
What step does the minister propose to take in order to rectify an abnormal situation where, in order to get some work under ARDA, in Mont Joli area, the unemployed individual has first to register with the local Liberal federation?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Forestry does not want to answer, as to the exploiting of the unemployed, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. Can he tell the house whether he intends to take measures in order to rectify this situation which casts a doubt on people's honesty and which is also quite harmful to the unemployed who try to find a job in the Mont Joli area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question, but I shall be glad to look into it.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I would like to know what response he made or what plans he announced with regard to the presentation he received a few days ago entitled ."Twenty two suggestions to improve the film industry in Canada." I understand he made some policy replies and I would like to know what they were.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet formally received this presentation and I certainly have not made any policy formulation with respect to it.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him, in the discussions now going on between Canada and the Republic of France in the field of defence production, what studies are being made at this time and what particular phase or commodity in defence production is being considered?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defence Production has a distinguished representative stationed in Paris who is in continuous contact over the whole range of defence product development and defence product production as between Canada and France, and it would call for a very long answer were I to endeavour to enumerate what is being done in respect of each commodity. However, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that we are fully seized of the importance of rationalization of defence production as between Canada and France and as between Canada and any other NATO country, and work to this end is continually in progress.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. minister say what is being done in connection with uranium?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that uranium does not fall under the heading of defence equipment.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Picfou):: As a
supplementary question, in view of these efforts which are being carried out with France, is it the intention of the government to reduce the defence sharing arrangements which are now carried out with the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the whole of that question.


Howard Russell MacEwan: In view of what is now being carried out with France, is it the intention of the government to reduce the present defence sharing arrangements now under way with the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. It would be our objective to increase production sharing arrangements not only with the United States but with all other countries. The objective,

Inquiries of the Ministry of course, is to lead to a more efficient and more productive Canadian industrial capacity. The more we can do of this the better, and of course with the more countries the better it will be.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER RESPECTING MONTREAL MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister, and to lay the basis for it I am going to read a short quotation, allegedly from the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
The conversion of the Montreal market to Canadian crude oil is no longer practical within the framework of an evolving continental oil policy.
Does this statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce represent official government policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it would be quite improper for me to comment on such a matter as national oil policy in reply to a question on orders of the day. The statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce speak for the government and are clear and unequivocal on this point.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Skeena asked me to report on the current situation with respect to orders for returns. There were 229 such orders made during the first session of the twenty sixth parliament, and at the prorogation of that session there were 49 outstanding. Since the beginning of the second session of the twenty sixth parliament there have been 27 orders for returns deposited with the Clerk of the House, leaving as of this date 22 orders for returns still outstanding.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Secretary of State if he would be kind enough to table a document indicating or designating what are the 22 orders that have not yet been complied with, and whether he would check into this and see if he can table the returns?


Maurice Lamontagne: I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question asked last Thursday, February 20, by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) relating to CJBC radio station in Toronto. The answer to the question is that the board of broadcast governors have not arranged for a hearing on this matter.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I heard the Secretary of State correctly. Did he say they have not arranged?


Maurice Lamontagne: Have not arranged.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Then would the Secretary of State request the B.B.G. to arrange a public hearing?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what are my prerogatives with respect to the B.B.G., but I shall inquire and ask them what are their intentions in this respect.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Does the absence of any reference to the matter in the speech from the throne mean that the government has abandoned any attempt to deal with the long standing grievances of the Indian people by setting up an Indian claims commission or a court of Indian claims?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minisler of Citizenship and Immigraiion):: No, Mr. Speaker. A bill will be presented to the house at this session.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the proposal to be put forward at this session represent an improvement over that placed before us at the last session?



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the many representations we are all receiving urging the implementation of the recommendations of the

standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, can the minister indicate what action the government intends to take and when?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: I should like to ask the
Minister of Transport whether he intends to introduce any legislation in this regard during this session of parliament?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No decision has been made about that.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. The question was with respect to the Three Rivers bridge, and to save the time of the house I think I will answer it by tabling a copy of a letter I addressed to the minister of highways of Quebec and a copy of the reply 1 received from him yesterday. I will send copies to the hon. gentleman. I think they contain all the information he would want.


Léon Balcer: A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apart from this correspondence, has the minister had meetings with representatives of the province of Quebec and also with the bridge corporation on this subject; and what decision, if any, has been arrived at?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will send the hon.
gentleman a copy of the correspondence right away, and if he will read it I think he will find a complete answer to that question.
[Later:}


Léon Balcer: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport arising from the letter he has just tabled. I should like to ask him if any period of time has been discussed with the consulting engineer, Mr. Lea, in relation to his study of the situation. I think it is quite important, because the letter says that the contract will be suspended until this study is completed. Can the minister tell us approximately what the expected length of time for Mr. Lea's study will be?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No precise deadline was set, but Mr. Lea expects to be able to complete his work in a very short time, certainly within a fortnight.
Inquiries of the Ministry SUGAR



REPORTED REJECTION OF LONG TERM CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 
Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What was the minimum figure which was offered to the Canadian government in any long term agreement for the purchase of sugar?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in the answer I gave last week I said I did not think it would be in the interests of the commonwealth sugar producers to reveal this figure, in view of the fact that they have asked us specifically not to do so. The figure, however, was very much higher than the prices prevailing at any time except in the recent past.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I said I did not think it would be in the interests of the commonwealth sugar producers for me to reveal this figure, and I do not intend to do so.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the government

Inquiries of the Ministry give us a report on what progress is being made by the committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Arnold Heeney dealing with the question of collective bargaining for the civil service? May we expect action on this matter soon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a detailed report. I know that progress has been made. I will ask Mr. Heeney if he can submit an interim report, and I will be glad to present that to the house as soon as I get it.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, more particularly in his capacity as the minister who reports to the house with regard to the National Housing Act. Is the minister aware that certain companies in the construction industry have already incorporated in their price structure the 4 per cent tax increase which is due on April 1? If so, is the government contemplating any action in this matter?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might take this question as notice.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the government's intention to regulate community television aerials such as the one in Hamilton operated by Hamilton Coaxial Limited? If so, how will this affect those people for whom this service is their only source of television reception?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the government did request the board of broadcast governors to inquire into this matter, and until that inquiry has been completed and advice tendered to the government it is not the government's intention to formulate any policy in respect of regulations.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he preparing or

has he prepared an amendment or amendments to the Canada Shipping Act in accordance with Mr. Justice Norris' recommendations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understand the matter is under very active study at the present time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that, following statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), the domestic consumption of cigarette tobacco dropped alarmingly, what steps does the minister intend to take to protect and help the Canadian tobacco growers who contribute to a large extent to the development of our economy?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: May I take that question as notice, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he tell the house whether there has been some progress these last few months concerning the negotiations between the state of Maine and the Canadian government on the Canadian bushworkers working in that state?


Mr. Speaker:: This is surely a question for the order paper.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Perron.
Mr. Speaker:: Last evening a discussion took place concerning a new subamendment, upon which I am called to give a decision. Before giving that decision I would be glad to hear from any hon. members who would like to help the Chair in arriving at a decision.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, last night, during the discussion on the validity of the subamendment introduced by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron), the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) indicated that I shared his interpretation of the application of our standing orders. At that time, he referred to the existence in our country of two systems of procedure, one under which a statutory principle is first applied and then illustrated by jurisprudence and the other where we proceed by establishing precedents which become law.
Of course, it should be pointed out that the error consists in forgetting that this dual system is the one which governs the application of either civil law in the province of Quebec or common law in the other provinces.
But this is strictly a matter of parliamentary law and the suggestion I respectfully make to the Speaker of the house is that standing orders apply equally to all members.
As far as Beauchesne's volume is concerned, it is of course a book of reference helping the Speaker of the house to make his rulings.
I think only a part of Beauchesne becomes law, if you will, as far as this house is concerned. It is that part which reports the rulings made in the British House of Commons when the rules or regulations of this house do not cover a specific case. Indeed, here is what is provided for in section 1 of the standing orders of the House of Commons:
In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that when Beauchesne's work reports a precedent on usage in the United Kingdom parliament, it evidently becomes an order in the Canadian House of Commons, unless otherwise provided for in the standing orders.
As far as Beauchesne is concerned, like the hon. member for Lapointe, I hope that the translation of that work will be completed as soon as possible and that French copies will be made available to all hon. members.
Point of Order
As the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) said yesterday, if Beauchesne is worth translating, it is worth at least one quotation from the Chair. However, I must say that the house is, in the final analysis, master of its own procedure and not bound by Beauchesne up to a certain point since the very rulings of the Chair can be appealed from; so, it is the house which, finally, decides what procedure is to govern it.
With regard to the limits of the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Beauce, I will point out first, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) moved a subamendment, we did not move that it be either rejected or maintained, but relied on the fairness of the Chair.
When the hon. member for Lapointe moved a subamendment, the government adopted the same attitude. I think that we cannot blame the government for not trying to avoid a vote here, on a motion which can involve the confidence of the house.
Therefore, regarding the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Beauce, we intend to use exactly the same approach'and abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I am not very clear as to the last statement made by the Minister of Justice. It is not a question of the government's attitude toward any particular amendment or subamendment. It is surely a question of the attitude taken by hon. members toward the rules of this house, and I am disappointed that the minister should have shied away from the subject matter.
Our stand, which we did not put forward last night, is simply that we are relying on the ruling delivered yesterday by the Deputy Speaker when he dealt with the earlier subamendment put forward by the hon. member for Lapointe. We consider that the subamendment now before us fails for the same reason that one did, namely because it introduces a new subject and runs contrary to the rule of relevancy. Consequently we thought last night that it was unnecessary for us to make any comment or offer any advice to the Speaker in connection with the subamendment now under consideration.
However, in order that the record may be perfectly clear, we take the same stand with regard to this subamendment as we did with regard to the other, and we are hoping that the ruling of yesterday will be applied to this particular subamendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With the greatest respect for the Minister of Justice and the leader of the

Point of Order
house, Mr. Speaker, I find it disappointing that the hon. gentleman took the position he did with respect to this subamendment. Your Honour has asked the house tor assistance in helping you to make up your mind. It seems to me that this is an obligation which falls upon the leader ot the house as well as upon the rest ot us who are interested in these matters.
In the first comment I have to make on this subamendment I wish to dissociate myself from the view expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg North Centre frequently disagree on questions of procedure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are nearly always
wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not the way the people of Winnipeg North Centre feel about it. It seems to me that what is involved here today is not the question of relevancy, which was the basis of the ruling made yesterday. As a matter of fact I think it is unfortunate that the house decided as it did yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but that decision has been made. What is wrong with this subamendment, as we see it, is that if the house were to pass the amendment as amended by the subamendment it would be passing an unintelligible and meaningless proposition. I hold some of the same views about Beauchesne as the hon. member for Lapointe, but even Beauchesne's volume can contain common sense sometimes. Citation 203, which was read last evening, should, I think, commend itself to all of us. It states in part:
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 think the house should have at some place on the record a clear statement of what would be the effect of passing the amendment and the proposed subamendment. We would then be accepting a proposition which would read 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 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.
The hon. member for Lapointe knows how ready I am to defend amendments when

they are in order. I think a defence must be put forward on behalf of minority groups in this house as far as these subamendments are concerned. But all we have to do is to read those two paragraphs together to realize that they end up by making an unintelligible proposition. We would in effect be saying to the government: you should remove the 11 per cent sales tax but you should use the money from that tax to increase family allowances. I suggest that the hon. member for Beauce and the hon. member for Lapointe are deluding the people of this country who are interested in an increase in family allowances if they attach an increase in this allowance to revenue from a tax the repeal of which is being asked.
I think it is as simple as that. The subamendment put together with the amendment would make an unintelligible proposition. It is on that basis that I think Your Honour should find it inadmissible, not on the basis of the view put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question? What does he mean by saying that minorities have to be protected in this house? As far as the members are concerned, the rules are here for the protection of all members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I mean that a particular responsibility rests upon us in this house to see to it that those who are in the smaller groups get the full protection of the rules.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. gentleman says they do, but he has been here for a few years and I have been here for a few years longer, and it does not always happen.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You were away for four years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was a lot worse, then.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to make a few remarks on the amendment to the amendment.
Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I am of the opinion that the drafting of the subamendment is completely inconsistent with the amendment itself and that, for this reason, it must be rejected.
I should also like to make a few short comments on the statements made yesterday by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) with respect to the Beauchesne manual.
It is obvious that it would be better if we had rules which would provide for what

Point of Order
can happen in the house, as far as speeches and the quality of amendments and subamendments, etc., are concerned.
In this regard, we know what the order of authorities is: the first one is the legal authority under acts which have been duly passed. Then, there is the authority under the judgments handed down by the judges in the various courts. Then, we have the authority of jurisprudence and, finally, recognized authorities such as Beauchesne, Bourinot, May and other authors who have dealt with these problems for a long time and whose rulings were approved by the house at the time they were made.
While being in the hands of parliament, so to speak, of each hon. member individually, the Speaker can nevertheless stand on precedents approved by parliament following a vote, either a definite vote where yeas and nays are counted, or merely unanimous consent, or even where the matter is not put to a vote.
I do not see why, at a given time, one can question the authority of Beauchesne, Bourinot or May concerning statements made here in the house.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was saying, I think that small parties, third parties or minor parties should be given the protection of the house as well as that of members, and that this protection should be safeguarded either by the standing orders or by texts such as those of Beauchesne.
However, it is unfortunate, as it gives rise to a loss of time, that members should constantly appeal against the Speaker's authority or ruling, merely to gain some prestige and to show that though they may not be important, they are nevertheless alive.
If the thing is to be taken seriously, we must cease those repeated appeals against the Speaker's rulings.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I shall not judge a man's value by his large size; a lot of soul may make a man big but not necessarily one with any backbone.
Turning back to a more serious matter,
I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the text which was read to us earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the meaning of the subamendment may be ambiguous.
According to what I understood from the English version, our subamendment would have read as follows:

This house regrets that the government does not use the moneys coming from the 11 per cent tax-

But if we consider the French version, we notice that the English version should have read "did not" instead of "does not". That shows, Mr. Speaker, that two different chronological periods are involved here.
Concerning the first one, we blame the government, in our subamendment, for not having used the funds collected by means of this 11 per cent sales tax, when it was applicable, for family allowance purposes. [Text]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. The translation I have read from Hansard is similar to the language the hon. member has now used. Does he mean by this that all he is asking is that the sales tax which has been collected for a few months be used for family allowances, but that when the sales tax is repealed we discontinue the increase in family allowances?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that is somewhat the meaning of the resolution which reads as follows in French:
Que le gouvemement n'ait pas cru bon-
-not "n'a pas cru bon" but-
-n'ait pas cru bon d'utiliser 1'argent provenant de la taxe de 11 p. 100.
That is where the interpretation differs a little from that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If the government had seen fit to use that money to increase family allowances in the past we would not have been compelled to demand the withdrawal of the 11 per cent tax.
Consequently, the amendment and the subamendment do not relate to the same period of time and, from the interpretation we give to the French version, both the amendment and the subamendment make sense.
So much for the interpretation of the subamendment.
Let us now consider the value of Beauchesne as far as we are concerned. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Beauchesne may be a book indicating some precedents, but the quotation of such precedents stops at a particular time, that is, when Beauchesne's material was printed. Since then, however, other rulings have been made but they have not been included in Beauchesne. As an example, there is the ruling Your Honour made a week ago on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), accepting a subamendment relating to medicare. This is a ruling you

Point of Order
made yourself, Mr. Speaker, a ruling which has been reversed by the Deputy Speaker.
But we are dealing with another matter today, and since Your Honour is in the chair, we are asking Your Honour to sustain the ruling you made a week ago, even though it would be at variance with the ruling made yesterday by the Deputy Speaker.
For these reasons, we believe that the subamendment should be accepted.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that he, especially, could refer directly to the French version of the Votes and Proceedings where he will find all rulings made in the past. Let him read the record for himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. members who wish to make a contribution? If not, I am prepared to render a decision. The discussion last night centered around a new subamendment and I am now called upon to render a decision as to whether it is, in my opinion, in order. It seems to me that the situation before the house is the following. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition on February 20 moved the following amendment. Shall I dispense with reading it?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Last evening the hon. member for Beauce moved an amendment to the amendment reading as follows. I think I should read this subamendment in view of the allegation that there is a difference between the English and French versions. I have read both, and I do not see any difference. It reads:
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.
The question the Chair must decide is, if the subamendment were now agreed to would it be intelligible and consistent with the amendment as a whole? The deputy chairman of committees in his capacity as Acting Speaker last evening, as reported at page 187 of Hansard, said in part:
We have an amendment respecting the repeal of the tax, and a subamendment concerning the use of the tax.
He also stated, as reported at page 188:
On first reading, the subamendment does appear to be inconsistent with the amendment.
I share the view of the Acting Speaker that the amendment and the subamendment as a whole would not be consistent, and in my view the subamendment is in contradiction

with the amendment. Therefore I cannot accept the subamendment as being in order.
There are two important matters I should like to bring to the attention of the house. I would now like to deal with the alleged question of privilege, which in my view is really a point of order, raised by the hon. member for Lapointe, when he made a distinction between two systems of law; that is, the common law, where he says rulings, jurisprudence and precedents are referred to, and the civil law, where regulations are codified. He seems to be under the impression that for these reasons we in the House of Commons should make use of the two systems. Surely such a distinction cannot apply in parliament, for the very reason that parliamentary law is something quite different from the ordinary civil law or common law as recognized and practised in the different provinces.
Parliamentary law as applied in Ottawa, and for that matter also in the capitals of the different provinces, is based on centuries of tradition and precedents which have marked the evolution of parliamentary freedoms from the time the first parliaments were governed under the rule of the divine right of kings to the stage of parliamentary sovereignty which we have now acquired. This system of parliamentary law is therefore based on the usages and customs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, so much so that our first standing order reads as follows:
1. In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.
The question is asked, what is Beauchesne made of? And the answer is that it is made of our standing orders, made applicable for nearly 100 years to the House of Commons and previously to the parliaments of united Canada and of the maritime provinces, and of citations made up mostly of the decisions of previous Speakers, either here or in the British parliament. In this connection, when both myself and the Acting Speaker referred to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 203, that is not Beauchesne's quotation; it is a direct quotation extracted from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition, page 285.
We can, of course, refer to the decisions reported in Gcoffrion or in any other provincial commentator, but surely the decisions based on our own rules and our own precedents should prevail unless we want to balkanize our own procedure, which is already complicated enough as it is. Since the hon. member for Lapointe has referred to the procedure followed in the province of

Quebec, it might be of some interest to him if I referred in the present case to the "regle-ments annotes de l'assemblee legislative" of Mr. Louis Philip Geoffrion and quote article 173, which is as follows:

Annotated regulations of the legislative assembly by Louis-Philippe Geoffrion, section 173:
Any amendment must be written in such a way that the motion on which it is proposed should not take a negative form and should remain intelligible, if adopted.

The hon. member will notice that in the present case the rule followed in the province of Quebec is the same one which we follow ourselves and which I have quoted previously, so that the situation is the same in the United Kingdom, in Canada, and in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Jean L. Rochon (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish in the first place to extend my congratulations to the mover and to the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both have shown that they deserved the confidence reposed in them and I am *convinced that the house appreciated their responsible and restrained speeches. They are a credit to their constituency, and their constituents will have every reason to be proud of having elected such representatives. As for us, their colleagues, we thank them for having clearly brought out the truly democratic and national spirit actuating the government of this country.
Indeed, this government, which has been in power for less than a year, has put before us last week in its speech from the throne a number of projects underlining the fact that it intends to proceed, as it has done up to now, with its liberal and innovating policy in favour of the various ethnic groups which make up the population of our country, with its policies regarding national unity and welfare, in spite of the difficulties and requirements which we are now facing.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I shall take the opportunity afforded me by the debate on the speech from the throne to tell you, on behalf of the voters of my county of Laval, how much I appreciate these policies, and to what extent their beneficial effects have been felt and are still felt at home. I would without any narrow partisan feeling, like to raise my voice as a citizen of Quebec, who, like the great majority of his fellow citizens, has understood and realized that if the awareness of our maturity opened up new vistas indicating the important part that may and should be played by us in the world,
The Address-Mr. Rochon it also has given us very definite responsibilities, and outlined a policy to which we must remain true, wherever we come from in our great country, whether from the Pacific coast, the west, the prairies, Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes, and which, as the Prime Minister said last week, is a policy of united action and thought for an ever greater and more prosperous Canada, a Canada which should not only affirm itself but also be respected.
When I speak of raising my voice as a Canadian from Quebec, I am coming, Mr. Speaker, to what I consider my duty, which is to express a few ideas now current in that province, which in 1867, agreed to become a partner in the Canadian confederation, an equal partner, who would accept its responsibilities, but who would also want its guaranteed rights to be respected.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, let us remember the speeches made by the fathers of confederation in favour of this pact, more especially those of Sir Georges Etienne Cartier. Let us remember the formal statement which he made in the house, in 1865:
Mr. Speaker-he said-in answer to what was just said by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Antoine Dorion), I shall only point out to the members of this house that there is no need to get frightened by the misgivings and the predictions of the hon. member. I have stated on my behalf and on behalf of the government that the delegates who will go to England will not accept any decision from the imperial government unless it is one based on the resolutions passed by this house and they will bring back no others. I have given my word of honour about that.
And, Mr. Speaker, apart from guaranteeing the preservation of our language and our faith, those resolutions also guaranteed the French Canadians this: To be considered equal partners who would take part fully, as their English speaking fellow citizens, in the country's economic, social, cultural and political development.
The federal system did much for the emancipation of our country. From a simple colony, we became a nation, each province contributing its share to the greatness and growth of the country. Not more than another province, but as much as the others, Quebec understood the part it had to play. But, unfortunately, Canada was considered far too long as an Anglo-Saxon country, making it necessary for us in Quebec to fight for our survival. For too long, the federal pact, which stipulated that Quebec should be treated as an equal, was disregarded.
For too long, our status as equal partners was ignored, so much so that we felt-and, unfortunately, too often feel even now-we were strangers in our own country. And yet, if someone should feel at home everywhere in this land, is it not those who, in 1813,

The Address-Mr. Rochon checked the advance of Commander Arnold who had been sent by General Washington to take over Canada, those who fought the glorious battle of Chateauguay where Salaberry and his light infantry put an end to the United States' ambitious dream of making a new American state out of Canada.
Fight for one's survival? Those days are over. The province of Quebec has come to realize its strength, and especially the role it must play within the Canadian confederation; the present government, more than any other, has explained that to Quebec and tries by its legislation to unite all men of goodwill.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec does not want to obtrude itself. Quebec understands that if we want to have a great and prosperous Canada, every citizen must work with goodwill toward that unity of action to which I referred a moment ago. Quebec does not want separatism and those extremists' actions which we deplore are not taken by the majority but by a very slight minority. That a peaceful revolution is under way in our province, only the blind would deny it. But let us realize that for the majority that peaceful revolution means only a contribution to the community and to the enrichment of the culture of our common country, Canada.
I share the views of Mr. Brunet, history teacher at the University of Montreal, when he says that we should show more realism and be less emotional in settling the difficulties arising between French and English Canada. And the chances of doing so successfully were perhaps never better than they are today. The high commissioner to London, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, who was appointed to that high office just a few days ago, stated at a press conference, as soon as he arrived:
-that we should be pleased with the "tremendous awakening" now taking place among French Canadians.
And1 he went on:
It will be most useful for Canada that French Canadians play fully the part that is rightly theirs in a young nation, but one which already ranks among great countries.

Rather than crying out for separatism, why cannot French speaking as well as English speaking Canadians use more moderation in their claims? Why not try to understand one another by a loyal and sincere discussion of their griefs? Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that confederation cannot survive without the province of Quebec, and outside confederation Quebec could never succeed in overcoming all the difficulties inherent to an independent state. It would be asking for disaster.

As does the majority, I cannot understand the behaviour as well as some of the statements-which I do not dare to qualify here- made by Canadian people praising that harmful theory. It is said and repeated that separatism will never survive in Quebec or in any other part of this country, be it French or English. This is the phenomenon born of the belief that nationalism emanates from sentimentality rather than reality. It is the phenomenon of a group, the clamours of which should be rejected. It is the phenomenon of a group whose only good achievement has been to shake off the stupor of those whose duty it is to stand for Quebec in its rightful place within confederation. In other words, Mr. Speaker, to resume my thoughts, as we live in one of the most beautiful countries in the world, Canada, let us all be real Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock? [Text]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house agreed it is one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Jean-Léo Rochon: The Address-Mr. Danforth
of all kinds and where the finest pages of our history were written, pages which tell the deeds of our founding fathers whose spirit of dedication has made possible, in a mere three centuries, the establishment of one of the finest civilized nations in the world, Canada.
To that end, tourists should be able to proceed from lakes St. Louis and Two Mountains to the two rivers, but the latter are not navigable when they are not dredged. It would be hard for my constituents to understand that, on the occasion of this fair which will be held in a superb maritime decor, that of Notre Dame and Ronde islands right in the middle of the majestic St. Lawrence, visitors are unable to use the waterways which surround Canada's metropolis to visit the gardens of Quebec as people like to call the communities established on Jesus island, one of the most important parts of my riding of Laval.
Mr. Speaker, if I were to express a wish it would be to invite the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) to pay us a visit as he did last fall; but this time regardless of all the comfort provided by modern transportation, I would rather see him admire our beautiful landscapes from a magnificent yacht that would sail down the Mille lies and Des Prairies rivers which would then be called the centenary waterway.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Ont.):: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to add my congratulations to those of the many previous speakers to the mover and seconder of the address in reply. I am certain all members feel that the contribution of these two hon. members at this time so early in the session has lent a great deal of prestige to it.
I believe that the rapt attention that has been given to the speech from the throne in all parts of Canada, and to the debate that has followed, has been due in part to the media of television, radio and the newspapers. Many more people are becoming aware of the speech from the throne through these media, and the implications it may have in their daily lives. We who have the honour to sit in the house, sir, give careful and critical scrutiny to the speech from the throne, because through our office we are aware of the very many implications that can be contained in even the most simple and vague phraseology that is used in the speech from the throne as well as in explanations given later by the Prime Minister.
The speech this year has been the subject of many adjectives, both pro and con, depending on which side of the house the particular speaker sat. But no one can deny that

it was very short and very vague. No one m this house can deny that the Prime Minister was justified in devoting a great portion of his address to the maintenance of unity and co-operation in this country. I should like to pay particular tribute to him for doing so. I should like also at this time to compliment the speaker who immediately preceded me for the way in which he tried to portray the causes and effects of the trouble in Quebec today.
I feel justified, Mr. Speaker, in assuming that the members of this house and the people of Canada from now on will have little patience with anyone who endeavours to use this critical issue to further cheap political ambitions, rather than displaying the necessary statesmanship that is so vital if confederation is to survive.
The speech from the throne has been termed simple and businesslike. Well, I heard it, and I can vouch for it being simple. When we come to the description "businesslike", however, we in the official opposition are left with grave doubts. We have heard it said that it lays a firm foundation for a quiet, businesslike session. But if the legislation brought down this session is as ill advised, as ill conceived and as ill planned as it was last session, I am confident that the present session, too, will be far from quiet.
Having said this, I feel certain that the present government, like all previous governments in Canada, does wish to promote legislation which will be of benefit to the citizens of this country. I wish to point out to the hon. gentlemen opposite that now, as perhaps never before, they have a golden opportunity to do just that. I should like very much to deal with a variety of subjects, but on this occasion I will confine myself to one main topic, namely transportation. In particular I intend to deal with one phase of transportation, that is freight rates and the effect they have on southwestern Ontario, specifically on the county of Kent.
The one item in the speech from the throne which created the greatest stir in our immediate area was the indication that perhaps this session legislation will be introduced having to do with transportation and that the basis, at least, of the government's proposals will be the report presented by the royal commission on transportation known as the MacPherson commission.
I listened with a great deal of real interest to the representations which were made by the hon. member for Lambton West on behalf of the trucking industry and I am sure, from his remarks, that he is well aware, as I am, of the serious difficulties which are being experienced in this industry in south-

western Ontario. I would certainly lend my support to what the hon. member had to say in his summation of the problems of the trucking industry, and to his contention that the treatment meted out to this industry over the past few years has been far from optimum. It is my hope that legislation will be introduced to remove many of the handicaps under which this industry operates, and to do away with some of the contentious restrictions which seem to work solely in favour of the railroads.
I am particularly concerned about the way in which freight rates are calculated and applied. In the examples I intend to give I shall use as a basis first class freight rates and a weight of 100 pounds in all instances for the sake of easy calculation. I propose to illustrate how unfair these rates are at the present time and how their application is resulting in definite hardship. These rates are in fact discriminatory, and from time to time they are changed in a manner suggesting a day to day effort to patch up and sustain a most unstable vehicle.
In southwestern Ontario we do have ample physical water and rail transportation facilities. We have a climate which is most favourable for year round production. We have a dense population giving us ample labour reserves and ready markets. Yet despite all this the very heart of the area was made a designated area by the present government on account of chronic unemployment.
What is the reason? May I suggest in no uncertain way that we in this area feel that the freight rate scale to which we are subjected is the real culprit. This one factor is throttling the great industrial complex of which I have spoken, and the tempo of the constriction is ever increasing. It is at the present time driving large segments of our industry out of the area, while preventing new industry from entering.
May I emphasize the fact that designation of this area as a distressed area in no way alleviates the problem. Its only effect is to add gross insult to injury. But I will have more to say about that a little later. Why are we concerned about transportation? What is the story? May I be permitted to simplify as far as I can a most complicated subject for the benefit of all hon. members.
I should like to state that much of my information is taken directly from a brief on the subject submitted to the royal commission on transportation by the southwestern Ontario associated chambers of commerce, which deals with the subject in some detail.
I would certainly recommend this document to the attention of all hon. members for study, because it is the most comprehensive analysis of this problem that I have ever
The Address-Mr. Danforth seen. Southwestern Ontario comprises five of the most southerly and westerly counties in the province of Ontario. In each of these-counties there is at least one major manufacturing community. They are London, St. Thomas, Chatham, Sarnia and Windsor. The-area in between is mainly rural. It is intensively cultivated, and produces an annual income from agriculture amounting to more-than $159 million. Because of the nature of the agriculture most of the major canning companies in Canada, together with distilling companies, breweries, cereal manufacturing companies followed by can, bottle and carton manufacturing companies, are located in this area. In addition we are mass producers of automobiles and component parts, petrochemicals, diesel locomotives and other products.
What does this amount to? Our established factories ship annually $1,208,118,000 of goods; they purchase materials costing; $886,105,000, employ 74,755 persons and have annual payrolls of $291,214,000. I wish to place these facts on the record to illustrate^ the magnitude of the question, and the tremendous impact on the economy of the country of any factors interfering with normaL flow of freight to and from the area.
A major problem is, I think, brought about by our location. We are in the interior of Canada, and our difficulties are magnified tremendously because we are subjected to two different methods of rate calculation. Westbound rates from most origins are equal,, while eastbound rates reflect mileage operated. This creates a directly unfavourable freight rate picture for southwestern Ontario,, and it removes any possible advantage due to location.
Perhaps I may be allowed to illustrate this contention using, as I said, examples based on first class freight and units of 100 pounds. Toronto lies approximately 200 miles east of Chatham, Montreal approximately 600 miles east of Chatham. Now, in shipping 100 pounds of freight eastbound to say Halifax, Nova Scotia, by rail, the rate would be around $2.71 from Montreal, $3.59 from Toronto and $4.41 from Chatham. This illustrates that the-further one is from the east coast in miles, the higher the rate; and since Chatham is around 600 miles further from the east coast than Montreal it seems normal to expect that the additional cost would be roughly $1.70-per 100 pounds. But what happens with regard to westbound traffic? Let us use Winnipeg as a western terminal or destination. The freight rate from Montreal to Winnipeg is roughly $5.89 per 100 pounds. Let us see what the rate is from Chatham, which is 600-miles closer to Winnipeg than Montreal. The rate is $5.89, exactly the same. We receive absolutely no benefit even though 600 miles.

The Address-Mr. Danforth nearer the west than Montreal, and it costs us roughly one third more to ship east than any manufacturer in Montreal. What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that industry from our area can move eastward to Toronto or Montreal, receive as a benefit $1 to $1.70 on every 100 pounds they ship first class and be penalized not one cent because they are moving further east, because the rates to the west would be exactly the same as from southwestern Ontario.
One might say, what about water rates; what about trucks? The water rates are certainly somewhat lower, but they are seasonal; and the trucking rates are somewhat lower, but not too much. This is, in the main, because of fixed railway rates, and they tend to follow the same pattern. I hasten to assure the house, Mr. Speaker, that from time to time there have been changes in the rates. There have been horizontal increases in the rates. These are percentage increases in the prevailing rates for the purpose of raising more revenue. But where we have horizontal rates they only tend to aggravate the lot of the long distance shipper because, shipping further, he incurs a greater cost, and any percentage increase puts him more and more at an economic disadvantage and throws the entire picture further out of balance.
We have had government subsidies for particular commodities. In southwestern Ontario we have subsidies on grain, for example. This certainly helps in definite and specific instances, sometimes to a very marked degree, but it has very little effect on the over-all picture. You may say, what about agreed charges? Well, what about agreed charges? Agreed charges are negotiated rates arrived at when-a major industry has agreed to certain, specific conditions laid down by the railway. For example, an industry may be asked to guarantee 85 per cent of its entire freight business; it may be asked to ship only in carload lots. If the industry will meet these conditions it can obtain rates very much more advantageous than the published rates. These are called agreed charges. They are without doubt responsible for some of the industry remaining in our area, but certainly this can be considered as merely a stopgap measure. It certainly discriminates as between industries and companies, and most assuredly creates an even greater disadvantage and handicap for any small industry whose production capacity rules out any possibility of an agreed charge.
Mr. Speaker, we ask the government to introduce in this session measures to rectify the hardships brought about by this ridiculous application of freight rates. We have already had two major industries leave southwestern Ontario; we have had the Ford Motor Com-
[Mr. Danforth.l
pany leave Windsor and the Chrysler Motor Company parts plant leave Chatham. When major industries leave an area, sub-industries and subcontractors follow them. We in this area cannot afford this type of loss. We cannot allow this condition to continue and make this great area barren of industrial development. The time for action is now. The new Minister of Transport has a real opportunity to initiate measures at this time to prevent any further translocation.
It is true that we were named a designated area, and I join in the protestations made by the hon. member for Wellington South against this designation. In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker-although my reasons for being definitely against this type of action on the part of the government may vary somewhat from those of the hon. member, because I am within a designated area and he is without-a designated area creates an opportunity for industry moving into the area to obtain definite tax concessions. It enables the municipality to obtain certain favours and monetary advantages when putting people to work. But I think we all agree that men who are in business and industry, who are in charge of great factories, are indeed the finest businessmen in Canada. It is my considered opinion that no short term bargains will have any effect on interesting a major industry to enter a designated area. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I think a very suspicious eye will be cast on any area which must offer such monetary inducements.
Although this designation has been in effect, in my particular case, for some months, I have been unable to uncover one single instance where any industry has started in the area I represent that can be traced directly to such bribes. On the contrary, sir, we have lost some potential United States subsidiaries because of this designation, and also because of information given to them by published freight rates which not only portray a rigid discriminatory picture, but, because they do not indicate agreed freight rates, do not in fact give the factual picture of the cost of freight transportation.
We seek immediate and complete relief from this unjust and unfair treatment in regard to freight rates. As I have pointed out, we feel that industry in our area is definitely discriminated against and is being placed in an impossible economic position. We are determined that something be done. Mr. Speaker, we do not propose to withdraw from confederation if we do not obtain everything we want, but this raises an interesting fact; because it is strange indeed that if we were to utilize United States transportation from our area west we would indeed be much better off.

I could place on the record various proposals that might form a basis for alleviating this hardship. However, I intend to wait and study the promised legislation. Perhaps either then, or on the estimates of the Minister of Transport, I shall have an adequate opportunity to elaborate.
I suggest very seriously to the government, Mr. Speaker, that if their portrayal of a businesslike approach to this session is anything but another verbal hoax, then here indeed is one instance where such action is merited, and merited now. Let us have no more of this tongue in cheek, weak, timid, ill conceived and ill planned foray on unemployment in our area, as perpetrated unsolicited on us by our area being made a designated area. We neither ask nor desire special treatment or charity. However, we consider we are entitled to the right to receive equal treatment with every other section of Canada which falls under the administration of the federal government. This treatment we fully intend to have with the minimum of delay. We have been tolerant far too long. The price we are asked to pay in southwestern Ontario is leading one of the richest areas in Canada surely to economic catastrophe. The solution now lies within the power of this government. We shall await to see what action they take.


William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the others in congratulating the mover and seconder of the throne speech. I feel that this was the most omissive throne speech in Canada's history, and I should like to speak about one of those omissions. I should like to speak on one of the basic social necessities for the welfare of the country, a subject which is so basic that even the Liberals realized its necessity at the time of the election, but on getting into power could see that they would be stepping on the toes of private insurance companies in carrying out those measures even to a degree.
You must by now have realized, Mr. Speaker, that I am speaking of medicare. I should like to quote from a series of assertions which have been made by those opposed to the principle of tax supported universal coverage.
1.	It should be left to private enterprise, since public coverage would remove the enterprise and competition of individuals;
2.	If public funds are utilized, political bureaucracy will be rampant;
3.	Universal tax supported coverage will destroy initiative and ambition;
4.	Standards will be lowered;
5.	Governments should only concern themselves with coverage for the needy;
The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe
6.	Universal tax supported coverage is foreign to our country;
7.	Requiring people to pay under universal coverage is dangerous and there is no confidence in compulsory equalizations;
8.	If all are covered through tax supported funds, languor, decay and discontent will ensue.
All these foregoing statements are taken from statements made in the United States. 134 years ago, in 1830, by opponents of tax supported education for all children within the population. At that time the battle against universal tax supported education was fought as bitterly as is the current battle against universal tax supported coverage for medical care services. Surely we must realize that good health is as essential to the well-being of a country as is the education of its people. So why must this be left to chance, any more than education? We are leaving it to the individual to decide whether he is ill enough to spend the money to go to the doctor, rather than be free to go with no worry as to the expense involved. Is it on this hit or miss basis that we are going to decide the fate of the health of our nation? Is private enterprise to dictate the terms under which we are going to treat our illnesses? Are we going to use human need to serve the financial ends of the insurance companies?
I would have to answer yes to these questions if we had to depend on the Liberal party to do what they themselves have been promising since 1919. Are election promises only vote getters, with no intention on the part of the government of carrying them out? It certainly looks that way, in that both in 1962 and again in 1963 the Liberals promised a government sponsored national health scheme. Yet after two throne speeches, one session of parliament and the commencement of a second one, there has been no mention of medicare.
Under private enterprise insurance we have a levelling action, in that everybody pays equally and only those who are ill get any return. The amount of illness determines the amount of return. But out of this the private insurance company takes its cut. Our proposition is that people pay premiums according to their means, there is no cut retained by anyone because it is government sponsored, the rates are cheaper because it is compulsory and therefore universal, and the amount paid out has only one criterion and that is the severity and frequency of the illness.
It is my contention that not only should all people of all ages be covered, with no exception, but that funds should be designated for prophylaxis. If we can do research to prevent disease we will not have the cost

The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe of treating the disease. Is it not time Canada took its rightful place, with proper funds, in the world of medical research? Also, funds could be provided for medical education which would not only give us more much-needed doctors but likely doctors of a better calibre, because the students could be selected from a wider range than just the sons and daughters of the people wealthy enough to put their children through medical school.
As a member of the medical profession it seems odd to me that the greatest objectors to such a plan are the doctors themselves. Why do they complain and what are they afraid of? It seems that the doctors are concerned about providing adequate and proper medical services for everyone, yet the profession debates the merits of a government sponsored plan at the time it is most needed, and when it indicates some form of cooperation with the government. The medical profession wants the government simply to pay the premiums of those who cannot afford them and put these people in a position of receiving charity. Also the doctors seem to want a plan that is voluntary because for some reason or other it will cause complications if it is compulsory. However, by making it compulsory it ensures universality and also keeps rates at a minimum. The doctors fear that to make it compulsory the rates must be low and the bulk of the cost derived from another source of taxation; and that as the cost drops the demand for service will rise, leading to unnecessary calls by people who are truly "unsick", and that this overdemand will make the over-all cost rise for everyone. Does this mean that the doctors are putting themselves in the position of stating what the people want? Can they judge whether a person is sick or "unsick"? Is it not the duty of a doctor to treat a patient who comes to him for treatment? Whether the cause be functional or organic is of little importance as long as he is relieving the condition from which the person is suffering. This seems to me rather a jumble of incoherent thoughts on the part of the doctors, and if a doctor is truly a man devoted to the treatment of the sick, these ideas are purely irrelevant and the doctor can get back to caring for the ill with the true assurance he will be paid for his work, that his relationship with his patient will remain intact, and that he may devote all his energies to practising medicine without interference from anyone. It has been fairly well proven that anything that is not understood produces fear. A proper study of our program could readily alleviate the situation. With the New Democratic party program there would be no interference with the doctor-patient relationship but rather an improvement because of the removal of the financial barrier. This 
would also remove the need for charity because everyone would be paying according to his means, so that each and every person would actually be paying. Anyone who pays his share is paying equally with everyone else. I firmly believe in the equality of rights of individuals, not in the equality of people. There is no point in saying that everyone is equal, but I do believe each and every person has equal rights. I do not believe that anything affecting health is intended for a limited few or class who can afford it, but is for the benefit of everyone who needs it as determined by physical health alone.
So a proper plan of health insurance must be (1) universal to include everyone; (2) comprehensive to include the various medical and related needs in co-operation with the medical, dental, pharmaceutical and other related professions and, (3) national, with the provincial plans co-ordinated with the nationwide plan.
There are three areas of special need. They are the geographically handicapped, the economically handicapped and the physical and mentally handicapped by reason of age or chronic confirmed disability. Therefore this becomes a most pressing need for those of the population who have not the best medical care available to them at the moment.
Mr. Speaker, I have with me a brief submitted by the United Church of Canada which was presented to the medical services insurance inquiry in Toronto, and it refers to the geographically handicapped as follows:
In a day when Canada's population movement is from the rural to the urban areas it is easy to forget the tens of thousands of our nation's individuals and families who live and work in isolated places. This large segment of our population is to be found in frontier mining, lumbering and farm areas. Indeed, it is not necessary to go outside such a settled section as southern Ontario to locate isolated sections in which medical services are at a minimum or non-existent.
We believe that an adequate medical services plan would seek to provide adequate hospital, medical, nursing and pharmaceutical services for all areas of our province. Provision should be made for night calls, supply during doctors' holidays and emergency situations. Since ambulance service can be very costly in outlying districts, such service should be provided at a basic nominal fee or such charges taken into consideration in the over-all medical costs. We would laud the air ambulance service supported by public funds in the province of Saskatchewan.
The same brief, dealing with the economically handicapped states this:
Not everyone gets a fair share of the national income. The dominion bureau of statistics states that for several months of each calendar year from 6 per cent to 10 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. For those with jobs, the average weekly wage in 1962 was $80.55. A large percentage of families are burdened with mortgages on houses, furnishings, cars, etc.
Among the economically handicapped, there are urgent and largely unmet health services needs.

though some individuals and families in this group who receive assistance or relief often benefit from free medical services. Still, in the lower income groups, many who try to pay their way are burdened with medical bills. A large proportion endure illness because they cannot pay for medical services. Others find it impossible to purchase prescribed drugs. It is recognized that many doctors have given a great deal of service for which they knew they would never be paid.
The urgent need in this general situation to provide better health services can be underscored by a variety of illustrations. Two will suffice.
There is the bumt-out worker who at the age of 60 years is headed for a scrap heap. At the time of his economic weakness, his need for medical care is likely to be at a high level. He has no insurance. He is short of money. He is ten years from the old age pension requirement-and pension provisions for this category of worker are not uniform throughout Canada. He does not want to beg. He dare not steal. Society must provide an answer to this man and his family because, by his labours as a low income and likely an unskilled worker, he has undergirt our way of life by many years of hard work in mill, mine, factory at sea, in the lumber camps, on big scale construction.
Again, there is the plight of the non-union person and his family. Of these there are many thousands, indeed a million or two who never had a fringe benefit. They have no medical card-no guarantee of health services. They are penalized because they never achieved bargaining power, but their health services needs are many and acute.
Then dealing with the physically handicapped by reason of age, the brief states:
The plight of the chronically ill demands attention now. The need to provide relatively inexpensive bed care for the many older people who do not need much medical attention is an urgent one. There are signs of progress, but the kind of provision required cannot be made available short of a national health service.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to read the actual resolutions contained in this brief, and they date back to resolutions passed by the general council at various meetings in various places since 1952. They are:
(a)	The fifteenth general council, Hamilton, Ontario, September 1952:
Be it resolved that this council expresses its considered opinion regarding national health insurance, as follows:
(1)	Commend the federal, provincial and municipal governments concerned for progress made to date in providing more adequate health services, increasing the number of hospital beds and in related ways improving defective diagnostic, remedial and other forms of medical and surgical care and treatment.
(2)	Recognize the contribution that has been made by certain organizations and agencies that have promoted voluntary health and hospitalization plans.
(3)	Urge all responsible governmental authorities in co-operation with the medical, dental, nursing and related professions to move as quickly as possible to the establishment of an integrated and contributory national health plan.
(b)	The sixteenth general council, Sackville, New Brunswick, September 1954:
The resolution quoted above, passed at Hamilton in 1952, was reaffirmed at this general council meeting at Sackville in 1954.
(c)	The nineteenth general council, Edmonton, Alberta, September 1960:
The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe
Whereas the cost of medical care and treatment is a heavy burden which many are unable to bear; and
Whereas there are those who are deterred from seeking medical care and treatment because of the high cost involved; and
Whereas existing medical insurance plans are inadequate to cover all medical needs; and
Whereas the sixteenth general council has endorsed 'an integrated and contributory national health insurance program':
It is recommended that this general council:
(1)	Re-endorse the principle of a national health insurance plan.
(2)	Commend the province of Saskatchewan for steps being taken to implement such a program on the provincial level; and
(3)	urge the federal government in co-operation with the medical, dental, nursing, pharmaceutical and related professions to establish a comprehensive national health insurance program.
Recognizing the fine work done by the Saskatchewan government in bringing about a partial plan, we must now look at the inadequacies of some of the other provincial proposals. In Ontario we have bill 163, brought down by the Tories, and I would like to read some of the comments on it, again by one of the ministers of the United Church in his capacity as assistant secretary to the board of evangelism and social service of the United Church of Canada; and I quote:
First, we have recent evidence that the members and adherents of the United Church in Ontario solidly support the contention of the general council that a medical insurance plan should be universal, comprehensive and contributory. A systematic, random sample indicates that our people, furthermore, believe such a plan should be government operated and tax supported. We are now conducting a national survey of the United Church, and returns to date show that 67 per cent of members and adherents in Ontario favour a plan having these characteristics. By direct inference, Mr. Chairman, the United Church rejects the limited coverage proposed in bill 163.
So we can see from this that medical care is not only a social necessity and a government responsibility, but it is also the wish of the people of Canada. Continuing the quote:
Second, we stress the fact that the need for a universal comprehensive and tax supported medical care plan is becoming increasingly and critically urgent. Thousands of workers are retiring earlier, for the most part involuntarily, due to obsolescence of their skills and trades in our rapidly changing technological society. The trend towards automation and concentration in merchandising and service industries is steadily reducing the opportunities for self-employment which formerly served to augment the shrinking income of older workers. A few years ago, displaced farm and factory workers often could find work in stores, laundries, construction and other unskilled labouring jobs. These openings are shrinking rapidly in relation to the increasing work force.
We are also told by analysts that the teen age component of the labour force will double by 1970. Already unemployment among youths aged 16-24 is twice as great as the rate in general. The heavy burden of supporting them rests upon working class families at the very time when family allowances and insurance coverage under contract and voluntary plans run out-

The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe
I am convinced, and my church is convinced, that the provisions for medical services proposed in bill 163 are totally inadequate to meet the needs of modem industrial society. This is "horse and buggy" legislation for an urgent space-age need.
One of the greatest fears our government has is facing up to the private insurance companies. These companies charge large premiums to unsuspecting people who feel they are getting protection for when they are ill. Time goes by; then illness strikes, and they find that this illness is excluded or if it is not excluded this time it will be next time around. What kind of security is this to offer a person who can ill afford the premiums he is asked to pay in the first place, and who then finds that he is not protected anyway?
I have had many patients in my office who thought they were protected and found they were not. I recall that a man came into my office on one occasion and told me he had a certain kind of insurance, about which I made a rather caustic comment at the time, and was much embarrassed to find that the man was a salesman for this particular insurance company about which I had made the caustic comment. He assured me I need have no fear that the company would not pay. However, on sending the bill to the insurance company that he represented it was rejected and the man had to pay me himself.
Incidents like this may seem humorous, but this is the only type of protection that the Canadian people have with regard to their health. Just imagine, it is the only protection they have in something as basic and fundamental as health. If it were anything else I am sure something would have been done about it, but when it comes to sick people there is no government support. The attitude is to let them work it out for themselves.
I say to hon. members, therefore, that it is time, far past the time as a matter of fact, for our country to have a government sponsored national health plan. Let us try to rise above medieval mediocrity and give our people a well deserved security and freedom from the staggering expense of an unforeseen medical tragedy.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is readily seen that national insurance coverage will not increase the total social cost but merely distribute it equitably throughout society. The public is not forever deceived. The basic principle in question is not total cost but public as against private administration of the measures required to meet the common man's need for health care. It is within the capacity of government alone to undertake such a vast and unprofitable scheme in co-operation 
with the health professions. Furthermore, this is the duty of government in a society dedicated to the welfare of all its citizens.


Mr, Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, may I, after my colleagues who took part in this debate, not as a matter of usage, but because they highly deserve it, pay tribute to the hon. members for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) and for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Bas-ford) for the way they discharged their important task. The voices of Longueuil and of Vancouver-Burrard will find long lasting echoes, not only in this house, but all across the nation, if all Canadians want to listen attentively and intelligently.
May I also offer my congratulations and best wishes of success to the new ministers and to those who have assumed new responsibilities in the administration of our country.
I would be unforgiveable if I did not draw the attention of the house to our great loss caused by the departure of the Hon. Lionel Chevrier and the Hon. Azellus Denis. Those veterans in politics, while going elsewhere, surely deserve our deepest gratitude and the assurance of an imperishable memory.
To the former, I wish to express here the gratitude of the hon. members from Quebec who benefited, not only by his leadership, but by his untiring efforts and his sincere adhesion to the cause we are defending and for which he fought with so much love and conviction. Mr. Chevrier has already dedicated half of his life to the service of his country and his people, and his whole life should serve, for French Canadians and the whole Canadian nation, as the example of a man who, at all times, in every region, fought fiercely for respect of the rights of minorities. As for the former postmaster general, he is one of those who do not boast about their highest achievements, but his good humour, his good-fellowship, added to his numerous talents, were a precious asset in this house, and by his brief passage at the head of the Post Office Department he gave it new impetus and stimulus which will be profitable to his successors.
I should also like to extend a warm welcome to this house to the new members for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) and St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and wish them a fruitful political career.
Mr. Speaker, we are entering upon the second part of the twenty sixth parliament which will give the government an opportunity, with the co-operation of the house, to offer to the Canadian nation the second instalment of its program set out for the duration of one parliament, in the interest of all Canadian citizens. Our legislators will have to

face positively and resolutely the very important and no less serious problems facing our country at this time and the main items, I think, are unemployment, control of our economy and the no less crucial problem of relations between the two main ethnic groups, or national unity.
In those three fields, this government has already taken some positive action-legislative, administrative, and political-which, to date, have had most encouraging results, and the prospects of our economy for 1964 are very promising. On the other hand, the welcome given throughout the country to Mr. Laurendeau and Mr. Dunton, co-chairmen of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, gives us good reason to expect results which will bring about the adjustments needed for a greater mutual understanding and a truly equal partnership of our two groups.
In my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall briefly -and certainly incompletely-deal with the question of national unity before going on to a subject infrequently discussed in the house, the influence of television on our population, and more particularly on our young people, and concluding by a rapid review of the needs of the Gaspe peninsula and of Bona-venture in particular.
Ever since confederation, not to say for the last two centuries, the two main ethnical groups have faced each other in the same fields as today. A rapid review of Canadian history, since the capitulations of Quebec and Montreal, will certainly confirm it. The stubborn struggle waged by our forefathers to preserve their most precious heritage, their language and their faith, and the exercising [DOT]of their lawful rights as equal partners, is a good illustration of their determination in this respect. History again will teach us that the aim pursued by French speaking Canadians was not, and is not, to dominate or to subjugate the majority, their English speaking fellow citizens, but only to preserve the valuable heritage of their forefathers and the unequivocal right of exercising their lawful rights on an equal standing with their English speaking countrymen.
Canada as we know it today, Mr. Speaker, whose growing economic, social and political emancipation develops an ever-increasing independence, has been built, developed and strengthened thanks to the hard work, the perseverance and diligence of the two main ethnical groups, one English speaking and the other French speaking, each contributing its talents, its intelligence and even its capital-joined in that by many other citizens of different ethnical origins-to make Canada what it is today.
The Address-Mr. Bechard
Mr. Speaker, the ideal of any true Canadian citizen is to work continuously for the development of Canada in all fields, by contributing to its progress not only on the economic level but also on the cultural, political and social levels, by means of his work, his culture, his own knowledge and skills, in whatever part of the country he may be or to whatever race and creed he may belong. However, this should not be understood as being, for the various ethnic groups, the abandonment of their natural development in the Canadian nation, with their traditions, their language and their faith. However, it must be admitted that since 1867, French Canadians, perhaps through their own fault, feel frustrated on account of the rather limited part they play in our country's government. No wonder that, following the economic awakening which has been going on in Quebec since 1960, and in the atmosphere of freedom which prevails in the province, we should witness, on the part of the people of Quebec, a new awareness, which is typical of an adult nation, better informed and better prepared, anxious to really play its part in confederation and to share to a greater degree in the development of our country, and which, to that end, claims its rightful part, as provided in the very constitution of our country. The French Canadian people, to which I am proud to belong, wish nothing more than to participate in the economic expansion of Canada as well as in its intellectual, political and social development, working side by side with their English speaking fellow citizens, as equal partners, that is enjoying the same rights and advantages in the conduct of the business of the nation. No need to get all excited and cry for help. Above all, there is no need to accuse those Canadians of being separatists and wanting to destroy confederation.
Those who advocate separatism, and they are few in numbers, as the solution to the crisis we are now going through do not reflect the general opinion of the people of Quebec. Instead of being alarmed, we ought to welcome this new attitude, this new awareness, because it is proof of a greater maturity and of the burning desire of a people to play a greater and more efficient role in the management of the affairs of its country, something which can only be of value and benefit to the Canadian nation as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, it is to be deplored, however, that this awareness should be accompanied with thoughtless acts on the part of extremists who, more irresponsible than they are guilty, indulge in deeds of terrorism which we strongly reject and condemn.
By the same token, we condemn those who give free and indecent publicity to those

The Address-Mr. Bechard incidents and to those responsible for them, which makes us really wonder. In fact, these extremist disturbances which are stirred up, fostered, fed and kept constantly aroused by certain advertising media and some irresponsible demagogues with their speeches of a revolutionary nature, are not in the best interest of the French Canadian cause. It is not by stirring up extremist tendencies among our Anglo-Saxon friends, by our thoughtless words and actions, that we shall succeed in achieving that harmony we are all hoping for among our two ethnic groups. However, bilingualism has come a long way and the attitude shown by a majority of our Anglo-Saxon friends portends a better understanding among our two main racial groups.
Nothing positive will be done to strengthen national unity by laughing at the Lauren-deau-Dunton commission and by accusing of undermining national unity those who, by popular request, set up that commission, nor will it be by using, for purely electoral purposes, the fear which our English speaking friends understandably feel on account of those extremist happenings in Quebec, which is what a quite important member of this house is doing. On the contrary, such talk does nothing but make matters worse, interfere with the dialogue that is essential in the circumstances and strain relations between the two groups.
That matter of national unity is too important for the survival of our two main ethnic groups and, consequently, of our country to be made the subject of petty political partisanship.
All French and English speaking Canadians must unite. We who represent in this house the two main ethnic groups and who are responsible for the fate and future of our country, let us co-operate and use our intelligence, our skills and all our energies in order to draw our bonds closer, so that both groups will actually enjoy full equality of rights within confederation. The future of our country, our future and the future of our children are at stake.
Under the circumstances, let us get the Canadian people used to the idea of a distinctive national flag and a national anthem which are sorely needed in this country as symbols which would unite Canadians of all origins in affliction as well as in joy. We are an adult nation; let us prove it by adopting a truly Canadian flag. Any delay in this regard can only serve the cause of those who are opposed to it on both sides.
To my English speaking friends, as well as to other ethnical groups, I say that French Canadians do not ask for any preferential treatment or for any special rights. They


merely ask for their rights to be recognized and their legitimate ambitions to be respected, as they are entitled to as one of the two founding races of this country, so as to be able to play their part, fully and efficiently, in the building of a greater, a stronger, a more powerful and a richer Canada. French Canada, more precisely the province of Quebec, does not want to separate itself from the rest of the country, it does not want to leave confederation, for it knows that such a stand would bring disaster not only for Quebec or for French Canada, but for the rest of this country as well.
It wants to stay in Canada and increase the contribution of its culture, its language and all its talents in participating as equal partners with its Anglo-Saxon brothers to the expansion and development of the country. Do try to understand us and, above all, do not be tempted to judge the people of Quebec by the unfortunate acts of terrorism which Quebec disapproves and deplores just as much as you do.
Try and imagine what would be your own reaction to what I would call the flagrant acts of injustice to which the French Canadians have been and, unfortunately are still too often being subjected, in the civil service of their own country, in crown corporations etc.; if you had no access to the senior positions or if you could not be understood when you spoke your own language to such and such civil servant whom you paid with your own taxes.
I am very optimistic about the result of the work undertaken by the present government to promote greater understanding between both ethnic groups, and about the intelligent and useful work of all our leaders and those who have some responsibility in our society, at whatever level it may be.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word on a matter which very few people want to tackle, so sacrosanct it seems to be; I mean the influence of television on our people, especially our youth. While the press fully reports love tragedies of all sorts, murders, suicides, hold-ups, burglaries, etc., while the civil and religious authorities and our law courts are alarmed at the ever-increasing number of juvenile offenders, this perfect medium of publicity, television, presents in every Canadian home shows where crime, passion, gangsterim and immorality prevail. Guns, revolvers and daggers are used at the drop of a hat to settle the simplest problem seemingly insoluble.
Most movies and a great number of plays shown on television are immoral, even amoral, or at least colourless, and of a disconcerting

foolishness and barrenness. Why must almost every T.V. show feature two or three murders or suicides or depict dissolute living or disgraceful scenes between married people? People wonder after why so many crimes of all types, so many acts of terrorism, are committed within our society, and about the increase in juvenile delinquency, and so on.
How could it be otherwise when such goings on are shown freely to everyone, young and old? The sponsors of such T.V. programs could surely make a much better contribution to the education of our people. It seems to me that T.V. can be more useful to the community. Imagine the responsibility of those who directly or indirectly contribute to the corruption of our youth and those who tolerate such conditions.
I therefore ask the government to take immediately the necessary steps in order to prevent that crown corporation from broadcasting such evil publicity in favour of crime which is paid for by the state. Some may say that the C.B.C. is an independent corporation beyond government control. I agree. However, this crown corporation is subsidized by public funds which the government has the heavy responsibility of controlling in the best interests of the taxpayers. The latter, far from blaming the government, would be pleased to realize that their government was taking vigorous measures to cancel those shows which had a corrupting influence on their homes and which greatly compromised their children's future.
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the government that the Gaspe peninsula, and more specifically Bonaventure county which I have the honour to represent for a second term, with a fivefold increase in the number of votes, still have numerous needs. The labourer, the farmer, the fisherman and all the working class are anxiously waiting for tangible improvement of their condition. Nevertheless, the people of my riding are happy that the present government has taken new measures to assist underdeveloped areas. These fiscal incentives and other benefits have largely contributed to the establishment, this spring, of a wood processing plant by the Bathurst Power and Paper Company at a cost of nearly $50 million in my riding, at New Richmond.
As for agriculture, I am glad to see that important legislation is announced in the speech from the throne, including provision for the establishment of a department of rural development which will be entrusted mostly with the agricultural problems of eastern Canada.
Fisheries which are a mainstay of our local economy deserve more consideration on the part of our governments. Thus, Gascons, a
The Address-Mr. Bechard village in the riding of Bonaventure whose sole source of income is fishing, urgently needs a harbour to ensure not only its normal and constant economic development but its very survival. Wharf extensions and repairs are needed throughout the area. Walls should be built to protect both public and private properties against the threat of landslides; in view of the heavy expenses involved the local communities could not afford to finance such works even in part.
Our project which is especially dear to me is the setting up of an air line in the Gaspe area which is deprived of such a service right now. Such a service will be absolutely necessary, considering the present industrial development and the expansion which will be forthcoming. Now that the project for the construction of a railroad between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts has been shelved, I feel that the central government would work in the best interest of transportation in our district if it established an air line in the Gaspe area. Certain existing private strips could easily be transferred to the public domain and improved later on to provide a service worthy of our district which asks nothing more than to co-operate and to make a greater contribution to the national economy.
To conclude, I would like to offer my colleague from Gaspe and the people throughout the Gaspe peninsula, especially the Canadian Legion, district No. 1 of Gaspe, who is the actual promoter of the plan, my wholehearted support for the building in Gaspe, within the framework of the centennial celebrations, of a replica of the Grande Hermine, on which Jacques Cartier crossed the ocean to land at Gaspe and reach the new world. As all hon. members know, the first pages of Canadian history were written in Gaspe and, for that reason, I am of the opinion that our government should take advantage of the centennial of confederation to proclaim Gaspe as an historical site and participate in the building in Gaspe itself of this historical vessel which, moreover, would be a monument to the glory of one of the founding groups of our country, and a tremendous tourist attraction.
So, with the co-operation of the Canadian government and the permission of Providence, we would be able, in 1967, at the time of the world fair, to visit this ship which would have sailed on the St. Lawrence up to Montreal, proudly hoisting our distinctive national flag.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?


Mr. Bechard:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Address-Mr. Grafftey


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member mentioned the economic recovery of the Gaspe peninsula. Would he favour the construction of a railroad between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts to help the economic development of the Gaspe peninsula?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the hon. member by saying that I suggested in my remarks, as it is indeed the intention of the government, that the peninsula be equipped with the best transportation service possible for the economic development of the area.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) and the seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Speaking with great sincerity, they dealt with several matters which are of great interest to the Canadian people.
I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the new ministers as well as the new parliamentary secretaries, and to extend to them my best wishes for success in their new functions.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of my short speech, I intend to deal with three subjects.
First, I want to talk about parliament and our parliamentary life here in Ottawa; second, about the economy of our country, Canada, and third, about national unity and various matters which interest both the federal government and the provinces of our great and young country, Canada.

Today, Mr. Speaker, in my speech I wish to touch briefly upon three main subjects. First of all I should like to draw attention to certain facts which I believe are relevant to our parliament and to parliamentary life here in Canada today. Second, I wish to outline in a general way some basic considerations involving the economy of our country. Third, I should like to discuss national unity, especially in the context of federal-provincial relations.
Under the heading "parliamentary life", I believe that many of us in this house feel collectively that we often lose touch with the people and their legitimate aspirations. This was what happened in Westminster before the second world war. I do not pretend to lecture or pontificate at the expense of my colleagues in this house, but I do not think I exaggerate when I say that the current parliament often fails to reflect the true feelings of the people and the aspirations of Canadian citizens.
I am not attempting to allocate blame either to the people or to ourselves; I am

simply attempting to enunciate an objective fact. Many speakers, in fine speeches, have suggested changes in the rules, but let us never forget that we in this House of Commons are masters of our own rules, and no rule changes will improve the situation unless good will and common sense prevail at all times.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch upon what I consider to be an even more basic and fundamental consideration in relation to the problem at hand. I think many hon. members of this House of Commons have often heard people say, "Oh, we are not really interested in politics. We cannot really see any difference between the parties in the House of Commons". We as members of the House of Commons might know that there is a difference as between the political parties, but let us admit that there is often confusion in the public mind. To a large extent, in my opinion, in the last four elections and in this house we have spent a disproportionate amount of time criticizing one another and conducting negative campaigns, while forgetting to a great extent to really tell the people of Canada what we stand for.
It is my impression, sir, that all parties have the obligation to recreate and remould their thinking in a positive vein. Let us make sure that in the next campaign we present the people with true and positive alternatives. After that it will be the obligation of the press and of the people of Canada to take an even greater interest in our political institutions and to cast off the cloak of cynicism. I fully realize, being ofttimes an unabashed partisan myself, that this will involve for me personally a high degree of self discipline and self denial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: I am prepared to admit that. But I would say to hon. members opposite, "Do not clap too hard. I would suggest to you that there is only about five inches between a halo and a noose". I fully realize that contemporary conditions have largely made obsolete some of the classical cleavages which in the past have separated political parties. Also, either in this House of Commons or outside this House of Commons we should not attempt to display differences for differences' sake. But apart from discussing issues, if every party in this house thoroughly examines its doctrines or its principles, as the case may be, and adopts what I conceive to be the true glories of positivism, Canada and the people of Canada will be well served. Whether this is done at a Kingston thinkers' conference or a Port Hope thinkers' conference is immaterial, as far as I am concerned; the obligation is still there.

During and after the last election a great deal of cynicism invaded the body politic of this nation. The Liberal party before, during and after the election, said that serious times were to be dealt with by serious people; serious people must discuss serious questions. Then they presented us with the slick slogan of 60 days of easy decision. Every member in this House of Commons must realize the power of communication media today. We must realize that it is a powerful instrument, and that we can create unnecessarily far too great a degree of expectancy, if you will, in the public mind. We must each of us realize that political programs cannot be sold to the public like soap flakes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: I hear some "Oh, oh's" from across the chamber. They undoubtedly denote a guilty conscience, Mr. Speaker. Because differences are not easily perceivable, it does not mean that differences are not there. Again, I repeat, I do hope it is not taken to mean that I have been so presumptuous as to lecture my colleagues in this House of Commons, but I hope that at least some of my remarks this afternoon might prove to be helpful.
I would now like to deal with the second phase of my speech, Mr. Speaker, namely a few general remarks relating to the Canadian economy. Herein I shall underline two positive and basic examples of modern, dynamic Conservative thinking relating to the principle of a property owning democracy and the principle of the government's real role in encouraging individual and national excellence. Before doing so I wish to make reference to some specific points which are of interest to me and, I hope, to other hon. members.
Sir, the basic strength of the Canadian economy is readily apparent when we consider that it survived undoubtedly the worst budget ever presented to the Canadian people. I think I am not exaggerating. Many hon. members and people outside this house have already termed the last budget a national disaster. We can only hope that before the Minister of Finance is permitted to present the Canadian people with another budget he will rely less on reckless experiments and more on experience, for experience is a quality which we Conservatives on this side of the house still feel has much merit. The basic long term objectives of the budget of the Minister of Finance were never fully debated in terms as to whether or not they were sound, because the short term measures that he took to gain, so to speak, these long term objectives were absolutely foolhardy. We on this side of the house will continue to press for the abolish-20220-15
The Address-Mr. Grafftey ment of the tax on certain construction materials and certain machinery entering into production. We will also press for a clarification of what seems to most of us an absolutely ridiculous and untenable stand taken by the government in relation to the withholding tax.
The next general remarks I have to make, Mr. Speaker, I am sure touch the experience of each and every member of this House of Commons. We as members of parliament know, no matter what the indicators say, that there are far too many people in this land who are not truly sharing in Canada's prosperity. Of course we realize that excellence must have its just rewards and that we must continue helping less privileged people and less privileged lands abroad. But in so many ways we have done a poor job right here at home in pushing back the frontiers of want and poverty. We on this side of the house rejoice with the government that the unemployment figures are down. At the same time there is the example of the province of Quebec, where regional unemployment is still a great problem. It is absolutely foolhardy, it is absolutely absurd to quote statistics to people who are out of work, who seek jobs and who are living in want and poverty. Some armchair sophisticates suggest from their ivory towers of affluence that there is a large body of men who do not want to work. It may well be that there are a few exceptions and a few men who do not want to work, but this generalization is just pure nonsense.
Wherever there is economic opportunity all men will willingly work; I repeat; with a a few notable exceptions. In many parts of Canada a number of our people living in great poverty and want do not fall under the aegis of government or private welfare help. This is largely true in so many of our rural areas. These are the masses of the silent, voiceless poor who have never known economic opportunity; and let no cynic say they do not want to work.
On the other hand, let us all join hands in this House of Commons in a bipartisan way and meet this challenge. This challenge must be met; because apart from other implications, if we fail to push back the frontiers of want and unbelievable poverty at home, what is our answer to communism? The challenge is at hand. We are a prosperous country. The answer will not always be easy. There will be no place for sloganeering or demagoguery; but the time to start is now. What does a prosperous Canada mean to the hundreds and thousands of our people living in substandard conditions of want and poverty?
The next question I wish to discuss under the economic heading relates to immigration.
I firmly believe-and this is a personal belief -that for the economic good of our country

The Address-Mr. Gfafftey we need more people. Are we to depend, I ask myself, only upon an increased birth rate to achieve a greater population; or is the government going to adopt a positive immigration policy? On the other hand, does the government feel that such a positive immigration policy would hurt employment prospects? I ask the government why Australia's immigration figures outstripped ours in 1963. Is the government going to adopt an assisted passage program? I ask the government what is the target for immigrants to Canada set by the department for this year. In other words, what is their immigration policy?
The move to have a separate minister in charge of the treasury board is of great interest, Mr. Speaker. It is only fitting that in this day and age detailed consideration should be given to government priorities. I believe that nations are like individuals and have certain capacities and aptitudes. We should give priority to those things which Canada is best suited to do, and this challenge faces the new minister. Only a few reactionaries are left in the country, who think ipso facto that any economic activity on the part of the government is essentially bad. Hospitals, schools, roads, public buildings, bridges and a great many public facilities need immediate completion, and governments are going to carry out these things. The new minister must get on with his job and show us that he is conscientiously planning his priorities, for when there is a great lag between the public and the private sectors of the economy the whole economic health of our nation suffers.
In closing this part of my speech I should like to refer to two principles in which my party deeply believes. While many of us recognize the welfare needs as already cited, we also recognize another great need of the day, namely the necessity for government to play its part in encouraging individual and national excellence. We must balance this notion with the true and rightful demands of the welfare state. We politicians talk loosely of the man in the street, the average man, while sometimes forgetting that every individual, in the economic and in every sense, has a motivation upward. Our schools have realized the necessity for paying attention to the often forgotten brilliant student while keeping educational opportunity open for the many.
The challenge for the government is this. It must play its rightful role in recognizing and encouraging individual and national excellence. Research is only one aspect involved. A government that neglects this challenge simply kills the goose that lays the golden egg. These remarks, sir, are based on a conservative respect for individual dignity and a conservative belief that we should expect
[Mr. Grafftey.l
nothing but the best from our country, from our people and from our government. Individual and national excellence involves no 60 days of easy decision, Mr. Speaker. This has often been said before, and I think it is applicable now. The spark from heaven, who picks it up? The crowd, never; the individual, always.
The last principle under economic considerations involves my party's belief that all individuals should be encouraged to have a property stake in their communities. I do not refer to property in the old fashioned landed sense. The government I supported, for example, encouraged, increased and improved farm, housing and small business loans. Government in co-operation with private enterprise must encourage the advance of a property owning democracy. It is my belief that the Liberals' throne speech leaves little room for the operation of this compelling principle. Property ownership must be encouraged in rural and urban areas.
Property should broadly include, Mr. Speaker, the desirability for Canadians to invest in Canadian enterprise; and government, in co-operation with our stock exchanges and stock commissions, must make it attractive for people, not only in the higher income brackets but for men and women in the lower income brackets, to invest in Canadian enterprises. Small business loans must be further stimulated, and one has but to see our bursting urban and suburban centres to recognize the necessity for encouraging home ownership in our cities as well as in our rural areas. The government must make sure there is no slowing down in the impetus given to farm credit by the former minister of agriculture. All these ideas are formed on our party's belief in a property owning democracy and in the importance of private property rights. Overcentralization by the Liberal party and an apparent lack of awareness of the importance of this principle in the throne speech itself gives many of us real reason to worry.
Finally I wish to touch on some questions relating to national unity, especially within the context of federal-provincial relations. It is self evident that constitutionally both levels of government have specific powers and responsibilities which must be carried out. It was no accident of history that in 1867 Conservative principle created the fact of confederation. Decentralization of powers, the necessity for strong and effective local and provincial governments, the idea of local self-agency-these notions have always underlined Conservative thought.
Between 1957 and 1963 our attitude toward the provinces and municipalities, ARDA, coupled with our initiative in the resources

field, are but examples. This attitude was and will always be based on our belief that very often people at the local level know what is best for themselves and how best to direct their own affairs, while at the same time the federal government must remain strong and constitutionally capable of carrying out its own activities.
Today, Mr. Speaker, one of the great challenges to this government remains in the solution to the problems found in the federal-provincial field. For the government to fail to meet this challenge and to solve many of these problems will only mean that national unity will be hurt. Many of the solutions to our economic problems will go by default; and unfortunately if this is the case the job of nation building will also be unnecessarily delayed. Today we realize that the strength of Canada lies in diversity. Let us say that in many parts of the west the melting pot theory has been operative and a strong and proud Canadianism has developed.
Yet it would be wrong to apply this notion of assimilation and this melting pot theory to the French fact in Canada, either in Quebec or in the rest of the country. We in the province of Quebec harbour an equally strong and proud sense of Canadianism, and Conservative action is always based on the realization of the strength and diversity of our confederation. Unlike a Liberal spokesman who spoke in this house the other day, we do not use the unfortunate word "coexistence", but in this house Conservatives understand the positive attributes of unity in diversity. To a degree the Prime Minister has recognized the problem by making himself directly responsible in this house for federal-provincial problems. Much of what he said in his speech last week was laudable, but speeches and action are two different things.
I fail to realize why anybody should be surprised at the unsatisfactory state of affairs existing between Ottawa and the provinces, especially under the present government. The centralist doctrine of Liberalism, largely put into effect by ex-senior bureaucrats sitting on the treasury benches, leaves no room for a satisfactory solution to the problems of confederation. In the two throne speeches the Liberals have talked about cooperative federalism. They only talked about it, and to a large extent the great failure of their economic programs has been based on their failure to consult with the provinces.
The government consults only under pressure, often unwillingly, and too often after the damage is done. Just last week we saw much unnecessary friction between the Prime 20220-15J
The Address-Mr. Grafftey Minister and the premier of Quebec in relation to the proposed legislation for student loan funds. Where was the proper consultation there? Time and time again during the last session I asked ministers if the provinces were consulted with regard to many pieces of legislation, but there was little or no consultation. Time and time again I put motions on the order paper for the production of papers relating to preparations for federal-provincial conferences touching upon proposed governmental action, and I was absolutely astounded at the lack of preparation.
Mr. Speaker, I am not becoming involved in the old debate as to whether we should be for or against centralization or provincial rights. I am merely underlining the real necessity for consultation. The Prime Minister's initiative in setting up offices under his direction is not enough in this regard. The ARDA approach and the secretariat experience in the resources field must be broadened and extended in the sphere of federal-provincial relations. The Prime Minister knows that one does not go to international meetings without consultation and preparation. If you do not prepare and consult, then the result is failure and disillusionment.
We in Quebec realize it is bad for Canada and Quebec when simultaneously there are Liberal governments in office in Ottawa and in the province of Quebec, because Liberalism has never said the same thing in Quebec as it has here in Ottawa. An hon. member on the Liberal side made a fine speech a few minutes ago but, Mr. Speaker, between the end of last session and the start of this session what did the hon. member for Lotbiniere say, and what did the hon. member for York-Humber say? Let us put an end to this hypocrisy. That is why Mr. Levesque is crying for separation of the Ottawa and Quebec wings of the party.
In the war years when the Liberals were in power here and in Quebec, the Liberal party practically sabotaged national unity with its performance in relation to the conscription crisis. Today the Grits are at it again. As soon as we have had simultaneously Liberal governments in Ottawa and Quebec, national unity has suffered and irresponsible utterances have been divisive. Sir, they must put a stop to it. This is the second time in my short lifetime that we have experienced Liberal governments simultaneously in office in Ottawa and Quebec. This is the second time in a short generation that national unity has been unnecessarily strained by their divisive utterances.
I know some of the Liberal members from Ontario find this hard to understand, but I ask them to come into the province of Quebec

The Address-Mr. Lessard and see how their party performs there. If they do, I doubt if they will sit much longer in the Liberal caucus. This reckless irresponsibility must stop. It is all very well in front of the press gallery for the Prime Minister to make his lovely speeches, and for other hon. members opposite to make their own speeches, but it is a very different cry if one follows them out on to the hustings in Quebec and sees the great difference in what they say there.
We on the Conservative side realize that the basic fabric of our confederation is too strong to succumb. Here on this side of the house, realizing the nature of confederation, we are working along the road to our party s return to power in Ottawa. The government must not only talk about co-operative federalism but it must act, and act now. Even centralists, however unwillingly, must understand the compelling necessity to consult, and also the nature of the problem.
In this debate on the throne speech we attempt to reflect the thinking of our people, their aspirations, and the mood of the time.


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


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks on the contents of the speech from the throne by congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the message read by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of this session. I congratulate them, first of all, for the trust put in their ability by their leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who awarded them this task, and also for their way of carrying it out.
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), who preceded me, I applauded the attitude just taken to the effect that we should banish party politics from the house and future elections.
However, I am sorry that in the last part of his remarks he should have let the worse side of his personality take over and air the virulent partisan views to which we had become accustomed from him, a practice which he himself admitted.
Mr. Speaker, the legislative program submitted by the government did not reveal any new plan for efficiently fighting unemployment. Practically all the proposed legislation was already contained in last year's speech from the throne. Moreover, some projects formulated but not discussed at that time seem to have been either forgotten or shelved this year.

Every Canadian will still remember the election promises which the authorized spokesmen of the Liberal party made, and more particularly the elimination of unemployment.
The corner stone of Liberal policy to revive our economy consisted in the creation of a municipal loan bank and the setting up of an economic development corporation.
The municipal loan board was instituted last year, but it lacks the suggested scope, and its operations up to now have not been anything to speak of and did not have the expected results.
The economic development corporation was not even set up. Its creation has been withdrawn from the list of sessional business. It seems that, in this respect, the corner stone of the Liberal program proved to be a block of ice which quickly melted away during the summer under the warm rays of the sun, or perhaps in the heated discussion or red-hot pressure of certain groups and interests to which the Minister of Finance had to submit after his budget speech.
This corporation was to create new industries and save those which were shaky; it was going to be also the very instrument that the government intended to use to prevent foreign control over our economy.
Recently, the Financial Post published a striking list of the various Canadian companies which have fallen into foreign hands these last two years, a list to which new names can be added every day.
Just recently, as everybody knows, a Canadian bank fell under American control. Even today, we are on the point of losing one of our large breweries; fortunately, there will be some others left to us, otherwise the Canadian population would certainly suffer from thirst.
But what are we doing, Mr. Speaker, to stop this economic haemorrhage?
Where are the patriotic spirit and the pride of our Canadians?
We hear people talk about economic independence, not to say simply independence. They talk about the serious chronic unemployment which plagues us, about the need to create new primary and secondary industries, about the urgent need to balance our external trade accounts. We claim to have a voice in the various international meetings and organizations.
But, Mr. Speaker, what sense is there in ah those claims? When shall we understand that in economics, just as in medicine, it is necessary to get to the cause of the disorder in order to cure the patient, to get him strong again.

The 19 million Canadians to whom we, in this house, are responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the country, expect us to put aside partisanship and to settle down to the task with that broadness of mind that every man should have who has been given the responsibility of representing his fellow citizens in the administration of his country.
I, for one, intend to take my responsibilities and even to make suggestions likely to be considered on their merits in the search for solutions to our problems.
I should like first of all to reiterate my confidence in the efficiency of private enterprise. But this confidence does not prevent me from seeing the deficiencies and recommending action on the part of public bodies and governments, when private enterprise will not tackle the job.
On the other hand, all private enterprise promoters say that if they lack initiative in setting up new enterprises or in enlarging those they already own and operate, it is because of the ever-growing burden of taxes of all kinds that reduces reinvestment opportunities. Moreover, all Canadians complain, as they well might, about this constant increase of taxes.
In view of those facts, what should we do? Knowing that the Minister of Finance is preparing his budget and that he must surely be looking for suggestions, I should like to humbly offer this one.
In order to encourage all Canadians to work harder for our economic recovery, a system should be developed which would provide for a tax reduction on corporation profits equal to 25 per cent of the increase in that tax revenue due to the annual increase in our national production.
Another 25 per cent would go to the taxpayers and the remaining 50 per cent would remain in the treasury to meet the normal increase in the administrative expenditures of the country.
It would be a kind of rebate or dividend, a reward directly and proportionately related to the collective effort and action of the people to raise the growth rate of our economy.
On Monday, the Minister of Labour gave us a somewhat optimistic view of the present situation and of the good effects produced by the different pieces of legislation he introduced and applied since he took office in order to reduce seasonal unemployment. To mention only one of those measures, the $500 bonus granted to the owners of houses built during the winter months seems to have been a sound step to keep construction workers on the job. But in Saguenay, as in many other regions across the country, that measure will
The Address-Mr. Lessard not be profitable because the need of new houses is not felt in designated areas since the people have already started to move out; and for every project carried out this winter there will be a proportional increase of unemployment next summer.
Mr. Speaker, since the minister succeeded to maintain winter employment and even to increase it, could he tell us what concrete action he is contemplating to fight summer unemployment, since it seems that in endeavouring to correct a situation, we are in the process of aggravating another one? If we carry out during the winter months part of the projects which normally gave jobs to our workers during the summer, we are only spreading more evenly the total amount of work to be carried out in that field of the building industry.
To date, I regret that most of the measures introduced and applied have only shifted the problems.
Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating what has already been said I say that only the development of secondary industries in these manufacturing sectors where we are importing our consumer goods can offer a permanent solution.
Everyone here, I believe, recognizes this fact. Then, what are we waiting for before taking necessary action? Measures are required to prevent foreign control, since the matter is very serious, for there is no point in building up our economy if, afterwards, it falls into the hands of foreigners.
Taxation reduction? Yes. And what for? Because it is the consumer who regulates production and we should increase his buying power.
Easy credit to encourage investments? Yes, through the economic development bank, in order that small enterprise, industries in general, may prosper and expand.
Technical aid? Yes. The government can ensure this aid thanks to all the talents it has at its disposal; it can reduce the companies' costs by supplying them with technical information at a comparatively lower price.
Research on foreign markets? It is especially in that field the federal government should assert itself, so that markets be developed in order that our industry may find the outlets necessary to support its production.
Export credit for economically weak nations? On that point, it is evident, and quite interesting to note, that Canada will be unable to compete successfully in countries where the economy has been highly developed. We should then look towards the less-favoured countries and really conquer markets if we want to help our country expand.

The Address-Mr. Lessard
These are the concrete measures liable to bring the results we all wish.
Not only the government but all the intermediate bodies of society should participate in the struggle.
I would particularly like to stress the important new role that the labouring classes and their organizations, that is the unions, should play. I would like our labour leaders to look beyond collective demands when they sit at the bargaining table and to indulge in a new field of action, which would serve to prove and to test some theories which the labour movement has used as a basis since its inception, that is profit sharing.
In an economic system, certain factors are elementary but essential to its proper function. The workers have and could reasonably control two of those important factors. They are both producers and consumers, but they do not have the financial control at present. Consequently, at this stage in the evolution of social-economic thinking, it would be advisable for our union leaders to take up a new role. They should contribute to the development of those secondary industries we so badly need and which, precisely, depend on the understanding and co-operation of unions in order to compete successfully and develop. Since the development of industry is a guarantee of the survival and prosperity of unions, the latter have every reason to contribute to that development.
All union workers could contribute, through their central unions, to an industrial fund invested in industry by means of secured bonds, of privileged and common shares, which would give them a strong voice in business planning and administration.
We have reached a point, I believe, where union leaders and workers must realize that the time for demands is over to some extent and that they now must extend the field of their activities. Workers in general must consider that they not only have rights and prerogatives, but that they also have duties and responsibilities.
Some will rightly say, I know, that heads of businesses also have duties and responsibilities that they failed to carry out and try to evade; but because some people do not assume or understand their responsibilities towards their country and their fellow citizens, this is no excuse for other groups or for the workers.
By doing so, the workers would partially solve a problem which affects them first of all. They would thus positively prove their desire to co-operate with the authorities of the country and the industry to build a strong Canada of which they would actually be the rightful co-owners.
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John) .1
Therefore, it is incumbent on all Canadians to relinquish certain antiquated ideas and act in such a way that common interest will prevail over sectarian, regional or even racial interests.
Other problems have evidently also retained my attention. But there will be many other opportunities during this session to express my views and those of my fellow citizens.
I would have liked to point out the advantages and the problems of my riding of Lake St. John but my fellow citizens will forgive my not mentioning them at this time, because I consider that our problems in Saguenay are closely related to the problems of Canada as a whole and that I must depart from this narrow-mindedness, this parochial spirit, and consider things from a national standpoint. In the past, members from Quebec have too often, unfortunately, showed interest solely in matters pertaining to the street where they were born.
If we, Quebeckers, sincerely want our opinions to be listened to and agreed to, we must try to consider the problems from the national point of view instead of a local one.
In eastern Canada, agriculture is in a rather precarious situation and I hope that the government will very soon introduce the bill concerning the establishment of the rural development department. Then, we will have the opportunity to express our views and to make suggestions.
The constitutional problems and all the discussions we are witnessing at this time are disturbing me also. But, in view of the complexity of this subject, I shall be very cautious in discussing it.
I think that too many terse statements have already been made by irresponsible people who are completely unaware of all the facts and who unfortunately get favourable press reports at home and elsewhere. For this reason, I shall refrain from making any statement, as I am only a layman in the matter, save for this brief comment.
We speak of a pact, an agreement, a treaty or a constitution which should be rethought or reviewed. Sometimes I wonder why? I believe that whatever agreement is arrived at, its implementation and success will depend entirely upon the honesty and the principles of the men who will carry it out.
It is men who must be reformed first of all and above everything else. Let us go back to the Christian principles that we should never have forgotten. It is useless to think of changing legislation, rules, agreements, if we do not accept to change ourselves and to come back to the principles of love for our neighbour and love of justice.

Hatred and discrimination brought about recently the tragic death of a statesman whom we all admired, Mr. John F. Kennedy. What are we waiting for to regain our senses? That our conscience be burdened with the death of innocent victims?
Mr. Speaker, I leave it up to the hon. members and to all Canadians who will read my thoughts to draw their own conclusions.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss other problems in which I am interested but I know the time of the house is valuable. Besides, most of those problems have been or will be dealt with by my colleagues.
I close my remarks with a word of thanks to the house for its kind attention.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: I should like first, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate my colleagues the mover and seconder of the address in reply upon the excellence of their speeches.
I was pleased to note that the speech from the throne contained a reference to amendments to improve the National Housing Act. I would have been even happier if those proposed amendments had been brought before this house during the last session as had been hoped, but unfortunately that did not prove possible.
The National Housing Act contains among its other provisions the legislation governing urban renewal and redevelopment in Canada, and it is in this field that I have a particular interest. First as an alderman in the city of Hamilton, and now as a member of this house, I have been privileged to represent a group of citizens, more than 8,000 in all, who are being directly affected by urban renewal. In addition, for the past three years I have been a member of the Hamilton urban renewal committee. This experience, sir, has given me what is almost a unique opportunity to acquaint myself with the strengths and weaknesses of our present legislation, from the viewpoint of both a municipal representative and a member of parliament.
From this close acquaintance I have arrived at a number of criticisms of the National Housing Act as it is now constituted, but these are, I hope, constructive criticisms; because I also have some proposals for amending the act in ways which would greatly benefit Canadian municipalities, while at the same time strengthening our national economy, providing expanded employment opportunities and helping to meet the housing needs of medium to low income families as well as many newly arrived Canadians from European countries.
These may appear to be rather broad claims to make for any revised legislation, but they can be backed up by facts, figures
The Address-Mr. Macaluso and actual experiences to what I am sure will be the satisfaction of every member of this house.
Let us first look at Hamilton's present urban renewal project, the city's second, in the north end. It is one of the largest ever to be undertaken in Canada, covering some 260 acres of primarily residential land in one of the oldest areas of the city. More to the point, this project is the first of its kind in this country, accenting as it does the preservation-and I emphasize the word "preservation"-of an area through rehabilitation and improvements rather than the bulldozing which has been practised until now. We happen to believe that this new approach to urban renewal is one which will have much wider application in cities and towns across Canada than the former total clearance technique. But, just because of this pioneering, the city and the residents of the area are being penalized by the legislation as it is now written. While paying lip service to the ideal of improving and maintaining our urban areas rather than demolishing them, the Act and the agency charged with administering it, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, are actually forcing cities into levelling homes and displacing families with great financial and social losses.
The north end project in Hamilton is going to cost more than $8 million. On the surface one might suppose that, the way the National Housing Act is written, the federal treasury would pick up $4 million of that bill and that the remainder would be split evenly between the city and the province, since that is what the Ontario legislation provides. If you were to reach such a conclusion, however, you would be very much mistaken, Mr. Speaker. Instead, Ottawa is paying only about $2 million, the province about $1 million, and the city is forced to carry the remainder of $5 million.
In other words, because Hamilton is making an honest, well planned and highly lauded effort to preserve valuable housing stock and prevent the break-up of families, it is being penalized to the tune of $3 million. Further, you can be sure that no other municipality is going to commit itself to a program of improvement as opposed to a program of destruction while the present situation exists.
How has this come about? Well, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the present Minister of National Revenue are empowered to participate to the extent of half the cost of buying and demolishing buildings in a declared redevelopment area, but they cannot contribute one cent to the improvement of such an area by providing the services and amenities required and helping area residents

The Address-Mr. Macaluso help themselves. All of this is left to the overburdened municipal taxpayer.
Therefore the first amendment I would suggest for the National Housing Act would be one to permit full participation-and I emphasize the word "full"-by federal authorities in well balanced urban renewal programs which provide not only for clearance but also for the general upgrading of a neighbourhood. This would mean financial participation in the provision of essential services-roads, schools, parks, sewers and so on-required to bring about lasting improvements.
Following directly from this point is the second amendment required to make urban renewal an effective tool for the over-all betterment of the older sections of our cities. It would provide aid, advice and active financial support to home owners in these declining areas who wish to maintain and improve their properties. For these people more liberal home improvement loans would be helpful, and National Housing Act mortgage loans on old houses would be an absolute boon.
The extension of National Housing Act loans to older properties would probably do as much as any other conceivable piece of legislation to halt the spread of decay and the growth of slums in our urban areas. It would make it possible for people to afford houses in the central areas of our cities instead of forcing them out to the suburbs. It would save thousands of Canadians from falling into the hands of unscrupulous speculators and mortgage firms who exact exorbitant interest rates plus bonuses and penalties from purchasers whose only wish is to live up to the great Canadian ideal of home ownership. Properly drafted, such an amendment would permit many of our low income families to own their own homes for the first time, because the National Housing Act mortgage would permit a low down payment they could meet, and would, I hope, make provision for the necessary house improvements to be covered by the mortgage payments.
Let me add that there is another hidden bonus in such a step. The making available of money to update or rehabilitate older houses could create many thousands of year round jobs in the building trades and allied industries. To go back for a moment to Hamilton's north end project, it has been estimated that private home improvements generated in that area of the city's urban renewal program will probably amount to more than $2 million. That sum, remember, is the amount expected to be spent in private home improvements in one area of one city because of a well balanced renewal program. I leave it to the members of this house to apply such projections to their own municipalities and to contemplate what that could

mean in terms of goods and services and particularly jobs across Canada.
Now I would like to suggest a third amendment to the National Housing Act which could, by itself, do as much to spur on the national economy as any other action which could be undertaken by this house. I am speaking of the extension of federal urban renewal legislation to cover commercial redevelopment, specifically the redevelopment of our downtown areas.
In support of this recommendation I would point out that two out of every three Canadians now live in an urban area, a city or town. Before 1980 it is fully expected that this will rise to three out of every four. This means that the problems which face our municipalities are of very real concern to every one of us here. We all know these problems; rapid growth in the suburbs coupled with decay in the core; traffic congestion; unprecedented demands for municipal services; and above all, skyrocketing municipal tax rates. These are not new problems, nor are they ones which are going to solve themselves. They will not go away if we ignore them.
There is probably no other body in the nation which has dug deeper into these municipal problems and spent more time and expert knowledge on finding solutions to them than the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. In recent years delegations from the federation have told this present government and earlier ones that the extension of urban renewal programs to the commercial core areas of our cities could be of inestimable benefit to our cities, that every dollar of public money spent in such programs would generate several dollars of private investment. Our Canadian mayors are not taking a wild stab in the dark when they make such a recommendation. They have seen what renewal activities in old, deteriorating downtown areas can mean in terms of new sources of municipal tax revenue, and consequent decreased tax demands on individual home owners. They know the record in the United States, where taxes from redeveloped downtown areas have jumped from six to ten times over previous levels, and city after city has the same success story to tell.
I sincerely trust, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments to the National Housing Act proposed by this government and promised in this house do take an enlightened approach to the problems of our urban citizens and taxpayers; that they do incorporate at least the few improvements which I have suggested here today: first, federal financial participation in improving a neighbourhood and providing services and amenities over and above

The Address-Mr. Crouse
total clearance; second, the extension of National Housing Act mortgage loans to cover older homes in redevelopment areas as a first step to extending this program to National Housing Act mortgages throughout cities for older homes; third, urban renewal aid to municipalities wishing to undertake downtown commercial redevelopment.
I trust, too, that these amendments will be introduced into this house at the earliest possible date so that, in company with the provinces and municipalities of Canada, we can clear blight, provide decent housing, boost the economy and cut unemployment, all things which improved urban renewal legislation can help us to achieve. This legislation which is proposed in the Speech from the Throne is of a type that certainly all of us in this house realize is of invaluable benefit to all citizens across this country. It is a piece of legislation which certainly should not be treated controversially or in a partisan manner on the part of any hon. member of this house.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the party leaders on both sides of the house to get together and arrange for the introduction of this legislation as soon as possible. The City of Hamilton has been waiting for one year for federal legislation such as this to proceed with their renewal program. I am sure there are many communities and cities across this country that are waiting for this legislation. I can name Halifax and Sault Ste. Marie. London, Ontario, is undergoing urban renewal and-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Longueuil.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: There is also Longueuil, which my hon. friend has mentioned. So I urge, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation be a matter of high priority and that the house leaders agree on setting a time for its introduction.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard for the capable manner in which they discharged their duties in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They were indeed given a difficult task. In Nova Scotia, when a fisherman hauls in his net and finds nothing in it, he calls it a water haul. This throne speech represented a water haul in so far as this administration is concerned, for it contained little to excite the daring, to test the strong, or give new promise to the timid, as stated by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) when he was made Prime Minister.
I will say this for the Grits, that they struck out boldly with the Prime Minister's high line of 60 days of decision, but the line must have snapped. They are now floundering desperately in water beyond their depth. They have found that election gimmicks are no substitute for policy, and their performances fall far short of their promises. The only thing sustaining the present Liberal government is the sound policies established by the former Conservative administration when in office.
The Prime Minister in his speech took comfort from the fact that unemployment in some regions was lower than when he took office, and that our trade with all countries last year exceeded $13,500 million, the highest ever recorded. I am sure he will be the first to agree that much of this trade expansion is due to the efforts of the previous administration to encourage more exports by Canadian manufacturers, along with the beneficial effects of the devalued dollar. Oh, how they ridiculed this move. Liberal speakers during the last two election campaigns when speaking in my riding said this act would bankrupt Canada. They also said that deficit financing should be discontinued and that Canadians should vote Liberal to get the economy rolling again; but they did not say which way.
That was the hue and cry that was spread across the length and breadth of this nation. And what was the result? We will still have budget deficits; the largest, this year, in Canada's peacetime history. And we have a minority Liberal government sitting on the treasury benches, elected on a chain of promises which they have not fulfilled and will not fulfil.
History can now record that our policies were correct; and the fact that the Liberals in office have adopted, or propose to adopt, many of them proves the soundness of our program. Here I refer to the extension of our program to build vocational schools to retrain our unemployed in new skills. They talk of the establishment of a national pension plan as though it were something new. When we were in office our leader initiated a study to establish a pension plan that would be acceptable to all the provinces. The reform of the Senate and measures to strengthen the position of periodicals published in Canada are two more Conservative proposals. They have continued the policy which we initiated to sell our surplus agricultural products, such as wheat, to communist China and other communist countries.
When the Conservative government started this program, what did the Liberals do? They started a rumour and raised suspicion right

The Address-Mr. Crouse across Canada that we were not going to be paid for this wheat. "It is a giveaway", they charged. But, in office, these stones which the builders rejected in opposition have now become the cornerstone of their policies. They have set their sails and are following, to some degree, the course we plotted when in office.
However, in my opinion Canada today is like a ship caught up in a hurricane. Its destiny depends more upon the skill of the men at the wheel than upon the driving force of its engines. The crew of the good ship Canada are today concerned, and rightly so, because since the April election they have seen that the men at the wheel are weak, confused and indecisive. How else can you explain legislation introduced and then withdrawn; programs announced and then amended; taxes levied and then changed, thereby creating a chaotic tax jungle and the most uncertain, perplexing, frustrating situations ever experienced by Canadian businessmen? There was never a time in Canada's history when decisive leadership was more required; and never in our history was there less leadership material available in government. Parliament, and the Canadian people in the briefs presented to this government, are calling out for a captain, a leader with a knowledge of our problems and a desire to act, not politically but decisively for the benefit of all Canada. Since it is evident that the government is not capable of supplying this leadership, it is therefore up to the official opposition to point out the way that should be followed by the present government.
Let us look at unemployment, for example. The present government prefers to look at existing unemployment, which exceeds over 500,000 people, as a regional rather than a national problem. We still have serious unemployment in Canada. I hold in my hand the dominion bureau of statistics bulletin dated February 21, in which is stated:
Claimants for unemployment insurance benefit numbered 532,300 on December 31, 1963.
This represented 7 per cent of our labour force. Unemployment in the Atlantic area is still an urgent matter; 12.6 per cent of the labour force were jobless last month in the Atlantic area, compared with the national level of 7 per cent.
While the trend has been toward a more vigorous economy, the continuing spectre of intolerably high unemployment still casts a sobering shadow over the regional scene. Two avenues are open to us. We must develop new and stronger measures which will aid the Atlantic provinces' economic growth, or strengthen existing legislation embodied in the Economic Council of Canada, the area

development agency within the new Department of Industry, the federal government's ARDA program and the Atlantic development board. Here I should like to endorse the remarks made last evening by the hon. member for Cumberland, when he referred to the Atlantic development board and stated that it required additional funds. I agree with him, because the present funds which have been made available to the Atlantic development board are certainly insufficient to cope with the problems in this vast area.
In my opinion the problems of our eastern farmers should be of immediate concern to the present government. According to recent statistics, over 10 per cent of our labour force is employed in Canadian agriculture. However, in Nova Scotia our farm population is dropping. We have little more than 4,000 full-time farmers out of a total of approximately 25,000 farm population and an over-all population nearing 800,000. Our agricultural industry is declining in relative importance. It is declining in terms of our over-all provincial income. We know that agriculture is going through revolutionary changes and endless adjustments, but we also know that practically the same degree of evolution has occurred in other primary industries. This is the age of automation, and farmers are not the only ones who have to come to grips with the realities of a changing world.
The future of our Nova Scotia farmers depends on much more specialization, more emphasis on know-how and management ability. It is in these fields that the federal government can provide more assistance, more research; for after all it is our farmers who, in the final analysis, must provide the greater portion of the food which will be required by a vastly expanding population. Ways must be found to make our marginal lands more productive. Tree farms must be encouraged to fill our future demands for timber and pulp. Fish ponds can be established to augment our farmers' incomes through the sale of trout to our expanding urban areas; and the breeding of partridge and pheasant should not be overlooked as a source of income, as there is a growing demand for these game birds in our present society.
In Nova Scotia today there is an undersupplied local market in most of our basic agricultural products. This applies to our dairy products, beef, hogs, some small fruits and greenhouse crops, and no real marketing problem exists in these areas of production. Our dairy herds have fallen off, and are only two thirds of their number 10 years ago; and though we have had hog promotional programs which resulted in 100,000 hogs being marketed in 1963, there is still a market for another

200,000 hogs, which means a potential $9 million industry for Nova Scotia. Similar opportunities exist in the raising of beef cattle.
Questions may well be asked regarding our lack of progress in these fields. The answer, of course, lies in the profit margin. Our local prices are based on national prices plus the cost of transportation. Our only hope for making profits lies in reducing our production costs and increasing the efficiency of our farm operations. It is absolutely essential that our production costs be brought down to the level of our competitors if we are to expand the growth of eastern agriculture and provide a comparable standard of living to our Nova Scotian farmers in relation to the incomes derived from other industries. For years eastern farmers have provided an assured market for some of the grain grown in our prairie provinces. Recent sales to communist countries have lessened this dependency on eastern markets, but we cannot allow these sales to increase the price of our feed grains to Nova Scotia farmers.
The present grain marketing board in the west is without question functioning efficiently on behalf of the western farmers. In my opinion, we need a similar grain marketing agency for eastern farmers, and for Nova Scotia farmers in particular. Our present grain storage facilities at Halifax, for example, of approximately 4,100,000 bushels, covers only about two thirds of our yearly requirements. We use about six million bushels per year, and we need additional grain storage facilities in Nova Scotia so that we can take advantage of low cost water borne freight provided by the St. Lawrence seaway.
This is an absolute necessity if we are to receive any benefits from the seaway. Additional storage facilities in the east would ease the burden on our western farmers at harvest time and provide Nova Scotia farmers with low cost feed grains, which are absolutely essential if we are to maintain and expand our beef and hog production. The agency could also provide a stable price for our farmers who are planning a 12-month feeding program. Once the eastern grain marketing agency was established they could determine the proper location for additional storage facilities throughout the Atlantic area.
In my opinion, one of these storage elevators should be established in the town of Bridgewater in Lunenburg county. Situated on the beautiful La Have river, this fast growing shopping area serves as the hub of the farming area of Lunenburg and North Queens counties. Low cost water borne grain stored at Bridgewater would provide additional stimulus to the agricultural economy of both counties, and I hope the government will give 20220-16J
The Address-Mr. Crouse serious consideration to this suggestion when it introduces the measures referred to in the speech from the throne for the improvement of farm income.
I note with interest that the government plans to introduce a measure that will enable students to secure loans without interest during their years of university study. While I favour this measure, which will no doubt be of assistance to many students who through no fault of their own are otherwise unable to finance their education, I cannot help but wonder which is the more important, aid to students or aid to universities. In recent years we have seen a tremendous growth in all our universities, and there is a need for continued expansion if we are to accommodate all those desirous of a higher education.
Dalhousie University at Halifax, for example, has an enrolment at present of almost 3,000, and it is expected that the student body will double within the next ten years unless steps are taken to curtail registration. In fact if immediate steps are not taken to increase the present facilities and teaching staff, something along this line will have to be done. A similar situation exists at St. Francis Xavier, Acadia and other maritime institutions of learning, and funds must be found to provide the necessary facilities and professors.
At the present time we in Nova Scotia are labouring under a serious disability in connection with the federal university grants program. We have a high student enrolment in relation to our provincial population, and as a result we have received grants well below the national average. In fact Nova Scotia stands at the bottom of the list, receiving $214 per student last year as compared with $360 in Ontario. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald, in an editorial under date of February 13, commented on this situation as follows:
One of the several persuasive arguments for a federal university grants formula based on college enrolments, rather than provincial populations, rests, as far as Nova Scotia is concerned, on the fact that our institutions of higher learning attract many students from outside the province and indeed the country. This inflow of students combined with the eagerness of native Nova Scotians to attend college, contributes to the province's high student-general population ratio and thus to the correspondingly reduced federal grants which every provincial university receives.
This is a problem which successive governments at Ottawa have failed to rectify, and I cannot urge too strongly upon the present government the need for prompt action on this urgent matter.
I also note in the throne speech that the government plans to introduce proposals to reform the railway system. While I hope

The Address-Mr. Crouse these proposals will result in a reduction of freight rates for the Atlantic provinces, I cannot help but wonder why no consideration has been given to improving our air line services.
When the Prime Minister was speaking in Milford, Nova Scotia, during one of the recent election campaigns, he was deeply concerned with the West Indies trade and a policy calculated to make the Atlantic provinces full partners in confederation. In so far as West Indian trade is concerned he said:
The Liberals want to get that going again. This may require special Canadian aid to the West Indies, especially since the current $10 million aid program expires on March 31.
Whatever happened to this promise? There was no mention of it in last year's throne speech, and in this year's throne speech it is curiously absent again. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that we in the Atlantic provinces can well remember the economic benefits that accrued to our area when trade between Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and the West Indies was flourishing. I would urge him to do everything possible to expand the West Indies trade in keeping with the start made by the previous Conservative administration.
I suggest that a start can be made in keeping this promise by improving the air service between Halifax and the West Indies. At present Nova Scotians must fly from Halifax to Montreal in order to make connections by air to Bermuda and the West Indies. Since the Atlantic provinces are natural partners with the West Indies, air services between the two areas should be viewed as an economic necessity. So far as T.C.A. is concerned, we are still the forgotten mari-times.
To back up that statement I would like to quote from an article which appeared on February 24 in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, which reads:
Once more the Atlantic provinces have missed out in the promotion efforts of Trans-Canada Air Lines in the British press.
A two-page advertising colour spread it has run in The Sunday Times, described in advance as the beginning of the "biggest ever" U.K. campaign to make known the attractions of 'The Big Holiday Country', mentions every part of Canada except the maritimes.. .even though it takes one hour and $42...less to fly from London to Halifax than to Montreal, the city which gets the special mention as the Canadian gateway.
This cannot be tolerated, and I hope the government will give serious consideration to this problem so that closer air links between Nova Scotia and the Caribbean will become the national policy of Canada.
I also note with interest the government's intention to establish a 12 mile limit for the

Canadian fisheries. While all those who are engaged in the fishing industry will welcome this move, I would again point out the necessity of securing agreement to this proposal from the United States, which purchases approximately 70 per cent of Canada's entire fish production. In my opinion it would be a hollow victory for Canadian fishermen if present friendly relations between Canadian and American fishermen became strained over this measure, because we must depend upon the U.S. market to absorb almost three quarters of our yearly catch.
In the past year the landed value of Nova Scotia's fishing industry alone reached a record height of $35 million, and any restrictions placed upon our sales in the United States market, as a result of the unilateral action of this government in establishing a 12 mile limit, could have disastrous effects on our economy and our expanding fishing fleet. I hope the minister is prepared to give the house an assurance of American concurrence in his proposal when he introduces this legislation.
I also note the government plans to undertake a national fisheries development program, following consultation with the provinces. As the minister is aware, the greatest problem facing our east coast fishing industry at present is the large number of foreign trawlers and draggers operating on our fishing grounds. The Russian fishing fleet alone is estimated in excess of 400 ships, and these are operating very close to the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. This fleet is serviced by several mother ships, which are high powered floating fish factories of up to 3,000 gross tons. Using stern trawls, they are scooping up vast quantities of fish, and charges have been made in Canada and the United States that the Soviets are using nets with a mesh size smaller than allowed by international agreement. Samples of Russian nets have been picked up with a mesh so small even a sardine could not escape.
If our fisheries resources are to be maintained, the whole issue of fisheries conservation must be further discussed at the international level, and some agreement must be reached on international fisheries law enforcement. If an international inspection team is not set up there will be a gradual diminishing of returns of our fishermen due to overfishing, and a further drain on one of Nova Scotia's most valuable natural resources.
I am also concerned over the future of one of our biggest dollar earners, the lobster. Last year some 36 million pounds of lobsters were caught. These were sold in the United States and Canada, and under a new process many were flown to the European markets. They brought in almost $18 million to our Nova

Scotian fishermen. Over the years much has been learned about the habits of the lobster, and research scientists are constantly trying to throw more light on this finless delicacy of the deep. They claim that tests show lobsters do not travel very far in any given area. However, I believe one of the reasons they are plentiful along the south coast of Nova Scotia is due to the proximity of George's and Brown's banks, and the stocks of large lobsters in that area. I believe strong currents carry small lobsters from these banks close to the shores of Nova Scotia, thereby helping to reseed the grounds annually. Lobsters weighing 20 pounds or more have been brought to the surface by scallop draggers operating on George's and Brown's banks, ana some of these were covered with thousands of small eggs. Without some international agreement or conservation measure, these large seed lobsters may well be destroyed, thereby affecting the future of one of the largest sources of income for our inshore fishermen.
Now that the C.G.S. Hudson has been commissioned and Canada has one of the most modern oceanographic ships afloat, I would urge the government to make use of this ship to provide assistance to our fishing industry. This was part of our intention when the Conservative government established the oceanographic base at Halifax. Though our fishermen landed approximately 16 million pounds of scallops from a fleet of 40 ships last year, I would point out that the fleet is still growing as a result of the Conservative government's shipbuilding program, and new scallop beds must be found in order to meet the demand. Markets are also expanding for swordfish, porbeagle shark, whale and tuna, and it is hoped that the new oceanographic base will set up a research program to help explore untapped areas wherein these fish may be found.
When the Conservative government was in office we instituted strong measures for the advancement of the economy in the Atlantic provinces. Two of these measures were the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants and the implementation of a subsidized shipbuilding program. As a result our shipyards are booming with the construction of steel and wooden trawlers, and secondary industry is being established in Nova Scotia.
But, Mr. Speaker, our policies cannot be expected to carry the Liberals through their whole term in office. When are they going to do something to revive Canada's deep sea fleet? It is now down to three ships and is in danger of disappearing entirely unless changes are made in Canada's tax structure providing more incentive for risk capital. Such aid would be most valuable to our ship-
The Address-Mr. Rondeau yards and our mariners. Rather than continue subsidizing foreign ship owners by building icebreakers to keep the St. Lawrence open on a year round basis, lets use the money to build up our own merchant fleet.
When are they going to make a start on the 35 unfulfilled promises, as listed in the last election campaign and placed on the record last Friday by the hon. member for Yukon? Were these pledges meant to be kept or were they just words to win an election? I remind the government that this is no time for complacency. There is much to be done, and it is their responsibility to get on with the job.
There is little in the throne speech that will be beneficial to the Atlantic provinces, that will provide employment or serve as a brake against inflation and the rising cost of living. When he presented his budget last year-and many Canadians hoped it would be his last budget-the Minister of Finance said:
If we are afraid to face reality, if we are afraid to take the actions and the decisions that are called for. then the consequences cannot be long delayed.
At the present rate of progress in implementing their pledges, there can be little doubt what the consequences will be to the present administration when they must again face the electorate.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish, first of all, to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) and the seconder (Mr. Basford) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Last Tuesday we heard the speech read by His Excellency at the opening of the second session of the twenty sixth parliament of Canada. That speech, the second since the Liberal party came into power on April 8, namely ten months after the stable team of the Liberal government took office, enables us to realize that the Liberal team in Ottawa is, in fact, stability itself.
If we refer to the Larousse dictionary, the word "stability" is so defined: It can be said that a team is stable if it does not go forward nor backwards, neither to the right nor to the left. If we apply this definition to the Pearson team, this is the finest example of immobility itself.
We have learned at least one thing from the speech from the throne, that is that the government intends to establish a department of rural development.
An analysis of the agricultural problem in Canada shows that it is not limited only to the wheat problem of western Canada, but

The Address-Mr. Rondeau includes also the agricultural problems of eastern Canada.
When considering this agricultural problem, we sometimes wonder why it is intended to establish a department of rural development, since a department of rural displacement would be much more suitable to the agricultural class in 1964.
When newspapers report that each week, in my district, the eastern townships, 25 to 50 farmers have to auction off their land because they are unable to meet their obligations and make a living with their income, I say to myself that the establishment of a rural displacement department would be quite indicative of the Liberals' agriculture policy.
I remember that 15 years ago, after the war, farmers in my district used to go and buy a new tractor or some other piece of farm machinery right after seeding time. They would pay $500 down and undertake to pay the balance in the fall.
In early November, after collecting their income from the crop of tobacco, sugar beets, string beans, peas and tomatoes, and from the dairy industry, they paid the balance owing on the tractor or some other farm implement.
There is no such thing today. You will find that farmers no longer buy or pay with their income, because it is non-existent. You will see, however, that goods are bought through mortgage loans which have swallowed up the farmers for the past ten years.
What solution is offered by the Liberal party that teems with economists who thought they could work wonders as soon as they came into office in Ottawa? What are the solutions advocated by the Liberal economists regarding the farming problem? They merely say to farmers: Produce more. You have butter spoiling in storage and $4 million are paid in taxes each year for the storage of unsold butter.
While the solution of economists is to produce more, that of the Creditistes is more logical and can be summarized as follows: Let us sell more goods by enabling consumers to have sufficient purchasing power to fulfil their requirements. Production exists, needs exist, but there is a lack of finance and the Creditistes want to make it available to the consumer.
I refer to an article which appeared last February 19 in La Patrie, a newspaper which is well known for its Liberal sympathy. The article, which is to be found on page 10, was written by Claude Lavergne and is accompanied by a picture showing what is going on in the metropolis of Canada. Here is the heading of the article:

The poverty-stricken people cry for help hut nobody hears them.. .Deprived of the soup kitchen and the shelter, all they can do now is wait.
The tramps and poor people of Montreal are definitely not in a period of luck. They were hit hard when the Meurling shelter was closed down, that place of refuge where the homeless were housed every night. Then came another crusher: the closing down of the soup kitchen. And now the authorities are slow in helping distressed families. So much so that one might wonder if people are not deliberately blind to misery in the metropolis.
People act exactly as if those who suffer, those who are hungry and those who are cold were able to indulge in the luxury of waiting-
As for immediate assistance, such as the "shelter" or the "soup kitchen", it seems that they are gone forever, they are things of the past.
Relief granted to families under the law by social welfare still exists but things there are going so slowly that one can question its efficiency.
And the author goes on to say:
Since then, tramps wander from one parish to another, in search of a hunk of bread, but everyone passes the buck-
Passing the buck is a well-known thing.
-on the pretext of not having the financial means and the responsibility to give assistance to passers-by.
These relief institutions being closed down, the unfortunate are merely left to their fate. They have been thrown in the gutter.
And those destitute people are consumers who are entitled to live and enjoy a minimum standard of living, more particularly in a rich country like ours, which has only 18 million people but could easily yield a living for 100 million.
Those paupers have no money, no shelter, they lack clothing, housing, and the Liberal party helped them get some accommodation in 1963 by imposing an 11 per cent tax on building materials. Those poverty stricken people are, however, entitled to a vital minimum, they all have a right to live.
Why not give those poverty stricken people a national dividend based on mechanized production, on automation, which brought about such distress for the workers which it replaced.
Machines and automation will continue pauperizing people day by day, because every day technical progress of various kinds replaces the labour of man, and in our present system, when machines put people out of jobs, paupers are mass produced.
Automation means mass production. On the other hand, it produces pauperism, indigence, and a great number of people who lack security. Why? Because we progressed in every field, but we failed to adopt a financial system in harmony and in accordance with automation and mechanized production.
The practical solution for the individual would be this:

First, place the Bank of Canada at the service of the parliament of Canada.
Second, let the Canadian parliament use the money of the Bank of Canada, the money of its own bank, to provide, for each citizen, a national dividend based on production resulting from machinery, automation and mechanization.
Third, increase family allowances according to the cost of living index, using not borrowed money but the money of the Bank of Canada.
In actual fact, for public bodies, the solution would be the following:
First, put at the service of the provinces the necessary credit (interest-free) allowing them to develop without having to borrow in the United States or in other countries of the world.
Second, place at the disposal of municipalities and school boards a municipal development bank, which would be a branch of the Bank of Canada. This bank would supply the necessary credit allowing municipalities and school boards to have interest-free money to build schools, sidewalks, water and sewage systems and to pursue other public capital expenditures.
Why should a municipality, a school board pay $300,000 as principal and interest for a school when the construction thereof amounts to $100,000? By building a school worth $100,000 and making the citizens pay $300,000 for it, we defraud the local taxpayers by an amount of $200,000. This means, therefore, that the citizens of the community have obtained a school actually worth $100,000, and paid an additional $200,000 to the financial system, that is, one school for themselves and two schools for the financial system.
The unhappy fact with modern economists clinging to the old theories is that they do not make any difference between private and public capital.
Private capital is invested in private businesses to produce goods, and through the sale of those goods, private businesses make a profit which allows them to pay their loan interest. Social Crediters have always recognized that when money is loaned to produce goods and when it brings profit to one individual or to a group of individuals, it is normal that this individual or this group of individuals should pay interest on the amounts borrowed.
But public capital is entirely different, and the economists do not seem to know that. When a municipality invests $100,000 in the building of sidewalks in 1964, and when that same municipality will have to pay $300,000 25 years later, that is in 1989, for these side-
The Address-Mr. Rondeau walks, the difference between $100,000 and $300,000, that is $200,000, is stolen money.
Sidewalks are public utilities, they are public capital, they are public property; ten miles of sidewalks in 1964 will not make thirty miles of sidewalks in 1989. Now, if ten miles of sidewalks built in 1964 do not make thirty miles of sidewalks in 1989, why will the amount of $100,000 invested in those sidewalks in 1964 make a debt of $300,000 in 1989? If ten miles of sidewalks in 1964 cannot make 30 miles of sidewalks in 1989, why should the amount of $100,000 invested in those sidewalks in 1964 be repaid by an amount of $300,000 in 1989?
That is the explanation of all our public debt expansion. Buildings and improvements of a public capital nature are made for an amount of $1 and the public is being asked to repay $3. Therefore, the public is robbed of $2, because the federal government, the sole responsible for making capital available to public utility services, is paralysed by the very ones to whom it gave away its birthright for the mess of pottage of electoral funds.
The result of such an economic system is a crippling condition in every field.
We have a crippled farm policy, a crippled labour policy, a crippled industrial policy, a crippled municipal policy and a crippled school policy. Crippled by whom? By those who control finance.
Mackenzie King said in 1935:
Let me control money and credit in a country, and I shall not have to worry about those who make the laws.
Social Crediters want to see the end of the state of slavery imposed upon politicians by the controllers of finance. That is why they ask the federal government to use its own bank, the Bank of Canada, to put public capital at the service of the various public bodies, so that these bodies do not have to get $3 worth of public goods out of taxpayers who have obtained only $1 in real value.
The cancer of finance will eat away our public institutions, and our public bodies will in turn break up private enterprise if the federal government does not decide to take action and cut its tentacles.
If we want to get the Canadian economy moving, it is clear that after reforming our monetary system, we will have to cut taxes, grant a tax exemption of $2,500 to single persons and $5,000 to married persons, so that the Canadian consumers, through their purchasing power, can finance production.
Production must not be financed through debts payable in 30 years but must be disposed of today with today's money.

The Address-Mr. Rondeau
Our present system does the reverse: we buy yesterday's production with tomorrow's money, and then we wonder what is going wrong.
Money should be an exact accounting of our production.
Our national production should be considered as our national debit and money, as our national credit. The people create the debit by producing in quality and in quantity, and the government should see to it that our credit is at the disposal of our debit to have our production disposed of.
We are Social Crediters because we want our national credit to be controlled by the Canadian parliament, which could, through its accounting agency, the Bank of Canada, have our country's economy operating debt free, as opposed to what is taking place now.
The Social Crediters want the credit, or the money supply, of a nation to be the exact representation of its debit, and that debit is the production.
The old-line parties are debitists, that is to say they let our national production, which is our national debit, go to waste, destroy itself, lose itself in every way, through unemployment, for instance, because they do not control, in accounting terms, the credit column which would allow the debit column (production) to expend itself.
Social Crediters want to place credit and money at the service of production, the Canadian credit at the service of the Canadian debit, the Canadian production.
And the old debit parties leave production, our debit, go to waste for lack of credit, money.
Social Credit means credit controlled by society, social credit controlled by the government through its bank, the Bank of Canada, so that it may give the people as much purchasing power as they produce.
The old debit parties, leave the control of credit in this country in the hands of financiers who are throttling private enterprise, farmers, workers and who keep social classes in misery, because they do not put in circulation the necessary money to dispose of the goods produced by the various social classes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks about the administration of the federal government, or more exactly about the debates in this house.
I propose that the debates held here in the house be broadcast on radio or television; that could be done two hours a day, which would be enough to enable the Canadian people to see and hear for themselves the staggering amount of stupidities and the endless speeches which offer no solution to the ills of our economy.

If our electors knew how much time and money are lost and that in the end no solution is found, if our electors could see what takes place in the house and hear the speeches which are made here, they would be shocked and that would certainly not be to the advantage of the two old parties which have administered Canada since confederation in 1867.
Canada is one of the few countries in the world which have not amended their constitution over the last 50 years-old parties take their time; and we proclaim that we are on the road to success.
We must amend our constitution, but we must repatriate it before we amend it; for it still rests in the hands of our mother-in-law, England. The Canadian daughter is not yet old enough to take care of her own business, according to the old parties.
We must repatriate our constitution, amend it and also our confederative pact of 1867. I do not believe that we shall be able to recapture the time lost since 1867 if we do not make better speed than the two old parties which have only two speeds: slow and stop.
We need a flag and a national anthem, and they should not be imported from abroad, but must be typically Canadian.
The time for speeches has lasted too long, since 1867. It is now time for action and for achievements before 1967, otherwise Canada will bring about its own downfall. The Creditistes will not be to blame; the responsibility will have to be shared entirely by the two old parties which, since confederation, have indulged in political sleep-walking and have given us as heritage the atmosphere of 1964, that is, a country threatened with the dislocation of the provinces, victims of the federal cancer.
The union of the two nations, in 1867, is on the verge of collapse and the problem will have to be settled, not by one party trying to fool the other, but through earnest and sincere efforts by everyone to make his share of sacrifices in order to prevent a national divorce, which would prove to the whole world that the two finest nations and the two most beautiful cultures on earth joined under the same skies in Canada have been unable to understand each other and to live on good terms in the most beautiful country on earth.
Will 1967 give the world the evidence of our incompatibility or will it be the beginning of a new harmonious existence between the two greatest cultures, the two finest races and languages united under the most beautiful skies of the world, Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I referred a few minutes ago to the 11 per cent tax and I would like to

introduce an amendment to the amendment of the Conservative party.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Megan tic (Mr. Langlois):
That the words "11 per cent" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
In order to replace it by an adjustment in family allowances according to the cost of living index.


Michael Starr: Before the amendment is put to the house, I rise on a question of privilege. I think these amendments, no matter by which party or group or individual they are submitted, should be set out both in French and in English. This particular amendment is before us in French only and I think it is not right that it should be so.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), I want to point out that never have the Conservatives sent us an amending motion in both French and English. Their motions were always in English only.
As far as we are concerned, we have introduced three motions since the beginning of the session; two of them were in both languages; if this one is in French only, it is because our English has been criticized. I repeat though that we never had from the Conservative party an amending motion written in French.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps for the assistance of hon. members I might attempt to translate the French version of the subamendment now proposed by the hon. member for Chapleau:
That the words after the words "11 per cent" be deleted and replaced by the following words: In order to replace it by an adjustment in family allowances according to the cost of living index.
I believe that is a fair translation. Would any hon. members care to comment at this point on the acceptability of the subamendment?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.

At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Have any hon. members comments to make in connection with the subamendment proposed by the hon.
The Address-Mr. Rondeau member for Shefford before the six o'clock adjournment? If not, I am prepared to make a ruling now.

Before the six o'clock recess, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) moved the following amendment:
That the words after "11 per cent sales tax" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"in order to replace it by an adjusment in family allowances according to the cost of living index."
If we relate this amendment to the subject presently under discussion, the proposal would read as follows:
But we respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the repeal of the 11 per cent sales tax in order to replace it by an adjustment in family allowances according to the cost of living index.
In my opinion, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shefford is essentially the same as the one moved yesterday in this house by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). Though both amendments are drafted differently, they make the same proposal, that is the adjustment or the increase of family allowances proportionate to the cost of living index. This new proposal does not seem to be relevant to the main amendment; it endeavours to introduce an altogether new matter.
Moreover, the new proposal, despite the use of the words "in order to" which comes before, has no logical connection with the proposal it is supposed to amend. The amendment suggests the withdrawal of a tax in order to increase certain disbursements of the state, or else to reduce the revenue of the state in order to increase expenditures.
In this way the proposal is contrary to usage which requires an amendment to an amendment shall be drafted in such a way that, if it is accepted, the proposal so amended remains understandable and logical.
For those reasons, and by virtue of the authorities quoted by the Chair when rejecting the two subamendments proposed by the hon. members for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and Beauce (Mr. Perron), I am sorry that I have to conclude that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Shefford is out of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I appeal from your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house has heard the decision of the Chair, from which the hon. member for Shefford has appealed to the house. All those in favour of sustaining the decision will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

Division


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed 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.
And the members having been called in:
Mr. Deputy Speaker put the question as follows:
"The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chair, which is as follows:
To the motion for an address in reply to His Excellency, the Leader of the Opposition proposed an amendment thereto as follows:


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In amendment to the amendment the hon. member for Shefford proposed the following:

That the words after "11 per cent tax" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"in order to replace it by an adjustment in family allowances according to the cost of living index."

The Chair ruled the said subamendment out of order on the grounds that it was not relevant to the subject matter of the main amendment, and also that it was in effect a contradiction of the principle that a subamendment should be so framed that if it were agreed to by the house, the amendment as amended would be intelligent and consistent with itself.
Whereupon the hon. member for Shefford appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. E. J. Benson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker,
I	join with all the preceding speakers in congratulating my good friends the hon. member for Longueuil and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard on the excellence of their speeches in moving and seconding the address. Their eloquence in performing this historic function is in itself a tribute to parliament and to the two founding races, both of which have contributed so much to the social and economic development of our great country. I am confident that this partnership will continue, aided, as in the past, by the strength and vigour introduced by many persons from other lands who have cast their lot with us in good faith as free men, in a desire, along with those of the two founding nations, to see Canada, vast, proud and free, providing the opportunities, the security and freedom which all of us seek for ourselves and our children.
While I am fully cognizant of the breadth of discussion which is permitted in a debate such as this, I intend to limit my remarks to the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, in these words:
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.
I am surprised at the narrowness of this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand why the right hon. gentleman did not simply advocate the abolition of all taxes in Canada. He went to great lengths to quote interested parties and their opposition to this particular tax. If he had taken the trouble to read the submissions to the Carter commission I am sure he could have extended his amendment to cover the reduction or abolition of almost all our present taxes except postage.
The Address-Mr. Benson


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman allow a question?


Edgar John Benson: I would prefer to answer questions when I am finished.


Some hon. Members:: Read on.


Edgar John Benson: I am sure he could have extended his amendment to cover the reduction or abolition of almost all our present taxes except postage, and he could have equally well documented himself from the submissions of interested parties.


An hon. Member:: You read that once.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the facts of life in this regard are that if we are to live in an industrialized western nation with a high standard of living, if we are to have a parliament, a national police force and armed forces, if we are to have a modicum of social security and if we are to have a federal government which recognizes its responsibilities in expanding this country and ridding it of unemployment, we must have a sufficient amount of taxation revenue at the federal level to support such a government.
The Minister of Labour pointed out yesterday the improvement in the employment picture since this government took office, so I need not repeat his words. Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that since August last Canadian unemployment has been lower as a percentage of the labour force than that of the United States, and it has been remaining lower than at any time since 1956.
When I read of the recent meetings of the Conservatives in Ottawa I felt that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), along with his Bay street colleague from the other place, had convinced that party of the need for financial responsibility.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Where does your minister come from?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this feeling has been completely dispelled by the amendment proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition which, if implemented, would deprive the federal government of some $290 million in a full year at the 11 per cent rate and increase our deficit by this amount. In his speech or in the amendment the Leader of the Opposition does not anywhere indicate how this revenue is to be recovered. In other words his speech and the ensuing amendment are completely devoid of financial responsibility. The alternatives expected from a responsible opposition are missing. With due respect, it seems to me that this represents destructive rather than constructive criticism. All of us, Mr. Speaker, recall that the present official opposition-

Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Webb Webster Weichel Whelan Willoughby Winch
Winkler-215.

The Address-Mr. Benson


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman goes on with his statement surely he will allow a question. I know he has not got the answer written down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary has the floor. I suggest he should not be interrupted unless he is prepared to answer a question, and he indicated a moment ago that he would rather do so at the end of his remarks.


Edgar John Benson: I have only 30 minutes, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who has unlimited time.


John George Diefenbaker: You are also afraid.


Edgar John Benson: If time permits when I have concluded my speech I will be pleased to deal with any question he may raise. All of us recall that the present official opposition continued in office for six years, during most of which time it enjoyed an overwhelming majority in the house. Yet no effective steps were taken to tackle the problem of huge recurring deficits. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, if the present government remains in office four years, that by the end of that time not only would the federal deficit disappear but it would be possible either to reduce the national debt through surpluses or to consider tax reductions. I would hope that such reductions would be in the income taxes of the average working man where they are most needed.
When the sales tax was expanded to include building materials and machinery and apparatus last year, the Minister of Finance pointed out that a tax increase was essential from the point of view of national financial responsibility and that several alternatives were considered. These alternatives included (a) a 4 per cent increase in the existing sales tax or (b) a 20 per cent to 25 per cent increase in personal income tax or (c) a 10 per cent increase in corporate income tax.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has not proposed that any of these alternatives be pursued, nor does he propose any new solution. If the right hon. gentleman has found the magic formula for solving Canada's financial problems without pain, I am sure everyone in the house would welcome his outlining it to us. Indeed in this matter, as in so many others, he offers no alternative in his speech but instead proposes that this house be entirely irresponsible in fiscal matters. In his amendment the Leader of the Opposition states that this tax is "detrimental to various segments of the economy". He does not support this with any facts and figures, but rather relies on quotations from such interested parties as the Canadian Construction Association and the Canadian Lumbermen's Association.


John George Diefenbaker: And Mr. Fowler.


Edgar John Benson: These groups indicate that they do not like the sales tax.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Did you just find that out?


Edgar John Benson: Well, Mr. Speaker, who does like taxes? I note that in his argument and amendment the right hon. gentleman does not advocate the removal of the sales tax on children's clothing, on bedding or on the many other necessities which are at present subject to the sales tax. No, Mr. Speaker; he is not speaking for the families who pay taxes on necessities. He is speaking for the large contractors, the large corporations and the special interests which this tax affects. In other words in this matter he is acting as the spokesman for the construction lobby which, in spite of an impending boom, got itself so well organized and brought such tremendous pressure upon members of the house that it was generally recognized last year that it was the best organized lobby in Canadian political history. This same pressure group was not satisfied with the concession that was made and is now saying, through the Leader of the Opposition, "Let us force a general election, and regardless of the welfare of Canadians generally we will get rid of these taxes which affect our particular interests". Last year, Mr. Speaker, when the sales tax exemption was lifted-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Who wrote the speech that you are having so much difficulty in reading?


Edgar John Benson: I accept responsibility for everything that I am saying, and I am also my own author.
Last year when the sales tax exemption was lifted it was widely stated that there would be a great slump in the construction industry. Government spokesmen pointed out that forecast did not bear out this pessimism. I am happy to say that 1963 proved to be a boom year. Construction improved in almost all categories, and the increase in winter built homes, due largely to the $500 government subsidy plan, has astounded even the severest critics of the government.
I maintain, as I did last fall, that the tax on production equipment and apparatus, when taken along with the incentives granted industry, has not materially affected production costs in this country. Indeed, Mr. George F. Plummer of Dunlop Canada Limited, who recently appeared before the Carter commission with a delegation representing the rubber association of Canada, correctly stated the case when he said that the sales tax on production machinery represented such a very small part of the over-all costs that it would

be unrealistic to claim this tax made a big difference in the cost of goods.
Let us look ahead. What are the 1964 prospects for the construction industry, now demanding a tax reduction, which would have to be made at the expense of all other Canadians? I quote from the February 22 edition of the Financial Post, page 49, where it is stated:
Canada's construction Industry is in for another good year in 1964, with over-all volume of business possibly reaching a record level of $8,000 million compared with an estimated $7,700 million in 1963.
I should like to refer to the same edition of the Financial Post to ascertain the position regionally with regard to the construction industry. On page 50 of the same paper, in respect of construction in Ontario, this newspaper says:
-the past president of the Toronto real estate board, R. W. Telford, has this to say. "There'li be a 3 per cent to 4 per cent increase in housing starts in 1964 compared with 1963". There were 148,600 starts last year compared with 130,029 in 1962.
This is an increase of some 18,600 houses. Let us look in the same edition of the Financial Post at the position of British Columbia. I quote from page 61:
Near record capital spending keeps business at a high level. Despite a slackening off in highway and bridge construction officials predict that the record level will continue through 1964 and may perhaps go even higher.
Let us move on to Alberta. On page 61 of the Financial Post I read:
Swelled by an estimated 12 per cent rise in industrial, commercial, institutional and engineering construction activity, Alberta's building industry became a billion dollar business in 1963. According to key indicators, 1964 promises an even greater percentage increase with over-all value of the industry reaching $1,200 million.
Let us look at Saskatchewan. On page 62 of the same issue of the Financial Post it is suggested that Saskatchewan's construction industry shows no signs of approaching a trough after recording a record year in 1963. New capital construction in 1963 totalled $344 million compared with $322 million in 1962, and the forecast for 1964 is $360 million.
Let us move on to Quebec. On page 63 of the same issue of the Financial Post it is stated that some of the biggest ever construction projects are under way in Quebec this year.
In so far as the maritimes are concerned, Mr. Speaker, page 63 of that newspaper suggests in respect of Nova Scotia that the value of contracts awarded in 1963 was $86.1 million, up nearly 15 per cent from 1962.
This is the picture across the whole country, Mr. Speaker, and I could supply similar quotations for every province. The construction
The Address-Mr. L. Watson industry is booming, and it will continue to thrive across the whole country next year. The quotations I have read were compiled by persons who know the industry and were reported in Canada's largest and most responsible financial newspaper. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have before us today an amendment proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the sales tax on building materials should be removed. These products, he says, should be exempted, with the inevitable result that either the taxes on personal incomes or on necessities such as clothing and household appliances would have to be increased or the government's deficit increased still further in the forthcoming year.
I believe this amendment, which would aid the few at the expense of the many, should be rejected as financially unsound. The one thing that pleases me about the amendment is that it was not seconded by the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: I should like to add my congratulations to those of other speakers to the mover and seconder of the address in reply. During the past year I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches of many members from many parts of this great Canada of ours. They referred, I believe, to every problem to which reference could be made in our various constituencies. I realize that many members from the same party have different ideas. This, I believe, is the proper way to bring out the best ideas from all across the Dominion of Canada.
Last year I enjoyed the descriptions of the various constituencies as each member gave a brief outline of his own riding and its problems. I am not going to follow this practice tonight, since I am sure that the name Assiniboia does not need any introduction in this House of Commons, but I will say it is one of the great agricultural areas of the province of Saskatchewan.
Since I am a farmer myself, I naturally wish to discuss some of the problems facing agriculture. The Saskatchewan farmer is a progressive man if given a chance. He knows exactly where he is heading. There is one thing which continuously plagues us in the west, and it is the uncertainty of the weather. Last year and again this year I listened with great interest to the speech from the throne. Think of the great promises which have been made. It was in my riding that the promise of $2 wheat was made at a time when wheat was already fetching $2 a bushel. This is where the promise of $3 wheat for a specified number of bushels was first heard. It was the hope of some people that one of the two

The Address-Mr. L. Watson ministers of agriculture might come from that constituency.
One of our problems has always been the storage of grain on the farm. This is a very serious matter. Most people do not realize that when the west has a good crop it must all be stored on the farms since the country and terminal elevators are usually filled at harvest time by the carryover from the crop of the previous year. The farmer is unfairly placed in the position of having to supply all this storage space to accommodate between 900 million and 950 million bushels of wheat, it is estimated, at peak periods. On the other hand, the grain companies can build elevators and annexes to a capacity of 700 million bushels, and as soon as the farmers deliver their grain the companies can begin to collect storage payments as well as write off their investment in depreciation.
I intend to suggest that the government should give considerable thought to making payments to farmers for the storage of grain on the farms. I know that arguments can be advanced' both for and against this proposition. I remember back in the election campaign of 1957 asking the Liberal candidate where he stood on this question. He gave all kinds of reasons why such payments could not possibly be made. He was not elected. However, in the 1958 election campaign he came back to the same hall and on this occasion he said "If you vote for me you will find we are in favour of making storage payments for farm stored grain". That was a complete reversal of his stand in 1957. The people of Saskatchewan realized that it was another political promise and treated it as such.
Another suggestion is this, that the rate of depreciation should be increased from the present rate of 5 per cent to 20 per cent on any building built on the farm to store grain. This would give the producer a chance to recover his money within a reasonable period of time, since these buildings are of no use when empty. This plan would not cost the government any money in payments. On the other hand it would bring in a great deal of revenue to the federal treasury through the collection of this 11 per cent tax monster with which we have to deal at the present time whenever we buy building supplies. We in the farming industry are not like those who can stockpile building material for future use. The time when we gather a crop is the time we have to buy in order to enlarge our storage facilities. It is only then that we can do some repairs and renovations to other buildings.
I should like to remind hon. members that it was the Conservative government which

got rid of the wheat surplus through the efforts of my hon. friend the member for Qu'Appelle and his aggressive plans for selling grain in world markets. We in Saskatchewan have been fortunate in harvesting good crops in 1962 and 1963 due to ideal moisture conditions. But, contrary to what the public believes, the grain situation is not good. More than 50 per cent of the delivery points are still on three and four bushel quotas. The Department of Trade and Commerce still has a big job to do on the 1963 crop, and it must be the responsibility of this government to get out and look for new markets in the future since the west is capable of producing even more grain, and will do so as, each year, more and more farmers become aware of the advantages of fertilizing and modern farming practice.
It was the Conservative government which showed the Liberals how to sell wheat. The attitude of the former government was very different from the attitude taken by the previous Liberal administration, which felt that if the customers wanted the wheat they could come and get it.
The cattle market all across Canada is declining. The price of choice steers at Calgary declined between December 1962 and December 1963 from $25.98 to $20.98 per cwt. Prices on the Toronto market have also fallen from $28.27 to $23.74 in the same period of time. This means that the decline in cattle prices at Toronto between December 1962 and December 1963 amounted to 16 per cent. In the same period of time, between January 1963 and January 1964, the fall in prices amounted to 11 per cent. Cattle exports in Canada have declined by 44 per cent since 1962, according to the dominion bureau of statistics. I could give hon. members the figures but I will not do so at this time.
It would not be fair to the new Minister of Transport not to mention rail line abandonment. The former minister, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mellraith), spent some time as a guest in the Assiniboia constituency a couple of weeks ago. I do not know whether it was as a result of this visit or not, but I noticed in the paper that it was the intention of the government to put the matter of rail line abandonment under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. This I do not understand. After all, who should know the railway problem better than the Minister of Transport? I appreciate, of course, that the problems involved are altogether different from those he encountered in his former post, and that they could be just as difficult.
This matter of rail line abandonment is a major problem in the west. I suggest that no rails should ever be lifted. If a line is not

paying-and I realize there could be many in this category, the way the railways operate -then regular runs might possibly be discontinued. As a last resort they should be maintained to haul grain, because the only sensible and economic way of transporting grain in Canada is by rail. The 5,220 elevators along these lines which helped to open up the west are just as important today, in keeping it open, as they were 50 years ago. The railway companies must realize that we produced approximately 550 million bushels of wheat in 1962, and that the 1963 crop of 723 million bushels is theirs to haul, with no competition from any quarter whatsoever since the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. are not in competition when it comes to gathering and hauling grain. They can threaten to remove the lines in the hope that the rates can be raised on grain so they can lower the rates on other commodities in order to compete against trucks, which can compete in other fields because the customers do get a more personalized and better service from trucking companies or individual truckers, who realize the need for service if they are to survive in the private enterprise field. This is quite different from the attitude of the railways.
As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to produce grain, and' the government must look for new markets. This traffic is assured for the rail lines, which can surely find a means of handling it economically today, with large trains and modern facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I come from the province of Saskatchewan, where some may think we are indifferent to the bicultural problems in Canada. I would like to inform this house that I have in my riding 600 French families who do not speak English. I am not here to be concerned only with the problems of my own province; I am here to take an interest in the affairs of the whole country, regardless of these differences. I would like to read an article that appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of October 18, 1963, entitled "French Canadian Actors Speak Out". The article says, "West treats us like humans". This was a statement made by a group of French Canadian actors from Quebec. They went on to say, "The people of western Canada are open, friendly. They do not resist us because we are French Canadian. They treat us as humans".
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave with you the quotation "Be Canadians and the future is yours", which is credited to Louis Honore Frechette, member of parliament for Levis at that time. It appeared in a publication released by the Canadian
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin speech from the throne on February 5, 1875, the hon. member's closing words were:
We will no longer be French, English, Scotch or Irish. We will be Canadians. We will form but one great nation with deep rooted patriotism and noble aspirations, working as one to common prosperity, and advancing together towards a great and productive future.
In my opinion these words apply as much today as they did in 1875. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that I feel it a great privilege and honour to be associated with all hon. members of all parties in the House of Commons.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, during the last session of parliament, the first session of the present government, a lot of people throughout the country told me they thought it was rather unfair to judge this government on that particular session. They thought it was not fair to judge them because they were, in effect, just inheriting the mess that the previous government left them. Therefore they were perfectly willing to bide their time and see just what this government could do once the old mess was cleaned up and they were able to launch out on their own. As a result there has been tremendous interest across the country in just what this government was going to do in this session of parliament. Of course, to get some indication of this we have to look at the throne speech.
I intend, Mr. Speaker, to very briefly go over some of the things contained in the throne speech and some of the things that are very obviously missing from it. I would like to list a few of them, not necessarily in their order of importance but in the order in which they are listed in the throne speech. We see that the first item mentioned has to do with the Columbia river development. A great deal has been said recently about maitre chez nous, being masters in our own house. I would like to ask this government how they ever intend to be masters in their own house if they give their house away to a foreign country; because this is exactly what appears to be happening in regard to this particular project. However, Mr. Speaker, there will be an opportunity on a future occasion during this session-if this session continues-to deal with this matter.
The next item mentioned in the throne speech is a new deal in the field of defence; we are going to have a new deal here. I am sure that will be very welcome, and we are waiting with bated breath to see what this new deal is to be. If it is anything like what we have seen happening recently, and the answers we have been given by ministers in this house, it is a new deal that will not make
club of New York in 1887. In reply to the us too happy. However, one thing was ver

The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin noticeably missing with regard to defence, and that was any mention of a renegotiation of Canada's nuclear role, which was promised by the Prime Minister. We had the spectacle, as was mentioned by other hon. members, of warheads being sneaked on to Canadian soil on New Year's eve, allegedly to carry out some commitment that had been made by the previous government, which I notice this government has not produced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Murdo William Martin: We are waiting to see when this renegotiation to get out of the position in which we find ourselves will come about. Then there was some mention with regard to measures to overcome the problem of unemployment. I wonder whether these are going to be real measures or are merely going to be frills such as we had had in the past, such as the winter works program and a few other little frills like that which really just skirt around the edges and do not tackle the problem, in fact do not recognize that such a problem exists.


An hon. Member:: Did you vote against winter works?


Murdo William Martin: For all the good that winter works program does in my part of the country I could vote against it very happily, because it is not designed in any way, shape or form to provide one hour's employment for the area I represent. I wonder whether there is any realization by this government of just what our unemployment problem is becoming; whether there is any realization that in certain skilled trades, and so on, there is a shortage of manpower in Canada today. We could employ many more people with skills; in fact skilled tradesmen are able to work all kinds of overtime. At the same time we have a large group of people who are rapidly approaching the stage of being practically unemployable in our society, and who are going to become permanent wards of the welfare system of this country unless this problem is tackled very rapidly and vigorously.
We see that some measures are to be brought in to deal with the railway problem, as they call it. But there is still no hint of the realization that we will not solve our transportation problems by putting a patch on the railway act, the highways act, the water act or some other act. If we are to tackle this problem properly we have to approach it as a universal Canadian railway transportation problem, and not put a patch here and there on the present rickety transportation problems.
Next we have an item dealing with minimum wages and maximum hours. Certainly

this is welcome. I think they should be a little shamefaced, after the 50 odd years they have governed the country out of the 97 years we have been in existence, that only now are they bringing in some measures in this field.
I think they are long overdue, and the government should hurry things up.
The next item mentions pensions, and what do we have? A very pale image of what was brought in last year. I wonder whether this government think, after being given a year of grace, that they are now going to be judged with great enthusiasm for bringing in a poor carbon copy of what they brought in last year and did not proceed with.
Then we have a very interesting item, Mr. Speaker. The government are going to embark on a project of student loans. Not only is this a poor substitute for the 10,000 scholarships which were promised so vigorously across the country, but I should like to examine for a moment what an empty facade this student loans business is. Surely it is a good and wonderful idea for students to be able to obtain loans interest free from the government until after they have completed their education and are able to go to work. But how many people are going to be able to take advantage of such loans? I do not know what the situation is across the country, but in the province of Ontario alone, according to the Ontario university presidents' report to the advisory committee on university affairs, at the present time our technological institutes have a capacity of 6,000 and have a need for a capacity of 18,000. Our universities, according to the report, are going to be about 6,000 short of that need in 1965, which is next year, and under present plans they will be from 20,000 to 30,000 short by 1970. I wonder how much good a loan will be to a student who has no university to which he can go. As I say, this is just an empty facade. It is making a big gesture which will not mean a single thing in meeting the problem in the educational field.
The next item, Mr. Speaker, makes some reference to legislation, or some measures to be brought in, in the field of housing. I hope these measures will bear some resemblance to the speeches which were made over the years by the Minister of National Revenue when he was the housing critic of the opposition. The minister is a very genial fellow, but I was wondering how long it is going to take him to influence the rest of the members of the cabinet and persuade them to go along with some of the ideas which he expressed when he was on this side of the house. We will not know until these measures are before us, but as I say I hope there are some better measures in this field than has been the case in the past.

Then we have a measure to deal with redistribution. That is an excellent thing; the only problem is it is about three years late. According to our constitution we are supposed to have a redistribution after every census, and I believe the last census was taken three years ago.
Then we have a measure which deals with Senate retirement. I believe there is some indication that the government are going to set an age limit of 75 years. I am wondering whether this is the type of Senate reform which is really going to be of benefit to the country, or whether it will just merely provide a few hiding places for politically embarrassing people.
Then we have a measure dealing with the equality of citizens' rights. Here again there seems to be a funny thing. We had the much heralded bill of rights passed here a few years ago, and as I mentioned before we have had 97 years of Liberal and Tory rule in this country. It seems rather strange that at this late date we have to bring in a measure to grant equality of rights to Canadian citizens.
These are not all the measures, Mr. Speaker. There are a few more which can be taken as measures, but I should like to deal briefly with some of the things which are not contained in the speech from the throne. One of them was mentioned the other day; in fact there was a vote in regard to it. I am referring to the glaring lack of any measure in the throne speech to provide medicare. Someone remarked to me the other day, Mr. Speaker, "One thing about you New Democrats in your fight for medicare; sometimes you have the Tories with you and sometimes you have the Liberals with you, but you never win a vote''. That seems to be the unhappy history of medicare in this house.
There is also no measure in the throne speech to bring family allowances up to what they should be if they are going to mean anything, or indeed to extend family allowances beyond the present age of 16. It seems rather strange that the government should talk, and not only talk but advertise the proposition extensively across the country, of urging people to remain at school, while at the same time cutting off their family allowance when they reach the age of 16. I have no children who have reached that age yet, but I am told by others who have that a child of 16, 17 or 18 years who is still going to school is just as expensive as one of 13, 14 or 15, if not more so. In fact, very recently when I brought the problem to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I received a reply from her which gave a very strong indication that that
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin thought was in the mind of the government, in line with their previous commitments and promises, and that this particular matter should be dealt with and an extension made to family allowances as long as the child was still at school. However, such a proposal is missing.
There is no measure forecast in the throne speech to deal with the sad and sorry state of the unemployment insurance fund. Unfortunately I have seen some examples of what I believe are measures which this government has taken to tighten up this fund. However, if these measures are intended to cure the problems of the fund, I can assure the government that they are raising more problems than they are solving. Apparently the government have now embarked on a plan whereby they send out a form to applicants which consists of a group of questions which, in effect, are nothing more nor less than bear traps, as a result of which the unsuspecting automatically disqualify themselves. In fact I have had an admission from one of the staff at the local employment office, a quite frank and rather rueful admission, that the situation at present is that if a person who is a very good liar comes in he can qualify for unemployment insurance, but if a person comes in and tells the truth he is almost automatically disqualified.
There is no hint in the throne speech as to what this government plans to do to meet the problem of automation which is dislodging so many people across the country. There is nothing in this throne speech, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the exorbitant interest rates which are being charged across the country, eating away the purchasing power of the consumers like a cancer and becoming more and more prevalent and virulent every day. There is not a single measure, after the unhappy measures they embarked on last year, to deal with the problem of foreign ownership in this country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Another American bank.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, another American bank, not to mention another Canadian brewery gone. There is nothing in the throne speech to deal with the problem of tax relief for the small income earner. The exemptions are left at the same amounts they were at some 10 or 15 years ago. I am not sure when the present exemptions of $1,000 per person and $2,000 per couple were put into effect, but it was a long time ago, and the cost of living and other expenses have risen by a great extent since then.
Last, but far from least, there is no mention in the throne speech of any corrective measure for one of the biggest mistakes made last
246	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin session. Hon. members have been wondering just what I have here on my desk in this pile of documents, and whether they were notes for my speech that I intended to read into Hansard. I would point out these are just a few of the copies that came back in reply to sessional paper No. 108 of July 3, 1963, showing, and I quote, "Copies of all letters addressed to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance protesting the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials."
These were returned to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but being of a rather frail physique he was unable to transport them down to the chamber, so I volunteered to do it on his behalf. I have had no opportunity to read all of them; in fact I have not even had an opportunity to count them. I did weigh them, however, and they weigh somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100 pounds. They are a pretty good illustration that this amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, contrary to what is said by some of my hon. friends on the left, was not a frivolous amendment. In fact I would say that this amendment did have a pretty solid base.
I have talked to many people in the construction industry since that ill fated measure was passed last year, introducing this tax. They tell me that it has created a state of confusion and chaos throughout the whole construction industry. They have never known from one day to the next just where they stood. One day there was an 11 per cent tax; the next day, it was removed. The following day they had a 4 per cent tax back on, with 4 per cent more to come on April 1 and 3 per cent more to come on January 1 of next year.
We have had a discourse by the hon. parliamentary secretary, talking about the great number of starts that have been made over the winter months. I imagine this was to try to show that that was a good measure which the government passed last year; but better reasons for the good number of starts were (1) we had a very mild winter; (2) the fact that they introduced a nice little gimmick, so that spending an extra $1,000 to build in winter you could get a bonus of $500; and (3) it was an out and out attempt to beat the tax which will be coming into effect on April 1.
There are no illusions in the minds of the people in this industry. One after another they have told me that the unexpected business they are getting now is nothing more or less than the business they would be getting in the spring, and it was merely transferred back from spring in order to avoid paying the extra 4 per cent tax.


My remarks tonight are brief, Mr. Speaker, but I think the country, and even this house, have given members of the government an opportunity to show what they are made of and what they intend to do to meet the problems of the country. If the throne speech they brought down two weeks ago is the best they can do, then I am afraid they certainly will not have much confidence across the country, and I do not think they should have the confidence of this house. We certainly intend to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Girouard:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn).


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Speaker, I have not voted because I was paired.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Beer). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment moved by the opposition. [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 26, 1964