1965-04-09

THE SALVATION ARMY


Mr. Speaker:: In these days when we so frequently hear proposals for the establishment of armies of an international or multilateral character it is very easy to forget that there has been in existence for no less than 100 years a world army whose peaceful activities now extend to 70 nations of the world.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
I refer, of course, to the Salvation Army. Members will, I know, want to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's Gallery this morning of the Canadian Commander, Commissioner Edgar Grinsted, Mrs. Commissioner Grinsted and other senior officers of this great and vital organization which is this year celebrating a century of service to God and to man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It was just 100 years ago that its founder, William Booth, first stood on Mile End Waste in the east end of London, England, in the midst of the degradation and disorganization of the industrial revolution and proclaimed the age old message that gave birth to the Salvation Army.
In the intervening century the Army has extended its good work into all parts of the world. I am sure all hon. Members, particularly those who are war veterans, will be entirely familiar with the fine work of this organization in evangelical and social welfare endeavour, and will join with me in wishing them Godspeed as they continue their great work of mercy into a second century of service to their fellow men.
May I add that the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who is himself a leading member of the Salvation Army in Canada, has asked me to call attention to the special Service of Commemoration that is being held this evening in Christ Church Cathedral at 8 p.m. This service will take place in the immediate presence of their Excellencies the Governor General and Madame Vanier, and Commissioner Grinsted will be the guest speaker. The hon. Member for Brandon-Souris has reminded me that hon. Members of this House are cordially invited to attend and share in the fellowship of this important anniversary occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted to join you in the tribute you have so fittingly paid to the organization which we affectionately know as The Army, whose unselfish and untiring service and dedication to God and to man, as you yourself have said, Mr. Speaker, has left the whole world a better place.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will join with you and with the Prime Minister in a word of deep appreciation for the tremendous contribution that has been made to mankind by the activities of that unselfish band in all parts of the world in war and in peace in spreading God's message to the poor and the afflicted. Today as one looks back over the history of mankind, William Booth stands out as one of the great spiritual leaders of all time.
In 1963 I had the honour of receiving the freedom of the City of London, and among the 250 who have received that honour the name of William Booth naturally attracted my attention. I read the speech which he delivered in 1905, only a matter of 30 years after he started in the streets of London to carry the Master's message to the afflicted. In that speech he referred to the unusual nature of the freedom being given to him and those associated with him, the right to preach their religion as they would, a freedom that had been denied when he first started. May I say to the Commissioner and to the officers of the Salvation Army in Canada that I know all of us will join with the Prime Minister in the tribute he has paid.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, you spoke for all of us when you paid tribute to the work of the Salvation Army. Those of us who are familiar with
April 9. 1965

Tributes to Salvation Army their devoted and unselfish service to mankind are glad to support the tribute you have paid to this great organization. The members of this party trust that as the Salvation Army starts its second century of service to mankind it may continue to enjoy success in its very fine, humanitarian endeavours.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to associate our party with Your Honour, with the Prime Minister and all other members of the House in expressing our congratulations to the Salvation Army for their 100 years of service. It has been my privilege to work closely with the Army in different countries of the world, and certainly their work can be considered not only a work of faithful service but of service rich in faith to God and to man.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Viileneuve):: It is
indeed a privilege, Mr. Speaker, to join with the leaders of the various parties and especially with Your Honour and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in paying tribute to the Salvation Army.
We are all aware of the tremendous accomplishments of the Salvation Army in many fields and throughout this country of ours. It stands as an example of hard work and selflessness.
On behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste, I want to congratulate all members of the Salvation Army for the wonderful job they are doing, both from a social and Christian standpoint, thereby enabling men of good will to get along together and understand each other as much as possible.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted a brief word to express to you and the members of the House sincere appreciation for your kindly references this morning. I should also offer an explanation for my personal membership. William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, often used to repeat a slogan: "Go for souls and go for the worst". That explains my membership in the Salvation Army. I think too it is a sentiment in which all members of the House can concur. It is also interesting to note that those words have the "go-go" spirit of the space age and at the same time express the essence of the Christian message.
May I make one other brief reference. As a young man William Booth flirted with the idea of a career in politics through a group
[Mr. Douglas. [


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, would you grant me the privilege of saying just a few words? May I put it this way. In the many years during which I have had the honour and privilege of being a Member of Parliament, provincially and federally, there have been occasions when problems have been brought to my attention in which I have found it impossible, because of provincial or federal legislation or regulations, to be able to do anything of an official nature or to get assistance. Therefore, sir, I want to take this opportunity in the House of Commons of saying that, under those circumstances, when I thought the need was great and by reason of a law or regulation nothing could be done, for 32 years I have turned to the Salvation Army. May I say, sir, that at no time did they turn me down.



FINANCE


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I wish to table in English and in French copies of the report by the Tariff Board on Reference No. 136 which covers live turkeys. I am tabling also a transcript of the evidence presented to the Board at its public hearings. The Tariff Board has recommended that the duty on live turkeys be increased from 2 cents per pound under the British Preferential and Most Favoured Nation tariffs to 10 per cent but not less than 3 cents per pound. I can assure hon. Members that this recommendation will receive careful consideration by the Government.
The present rate of 2 cents per pound is bound under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Hon. Members will appreciate that negotiations would have to take place if the Board's recommendation is to be implemented. Interested parties who may wish to comment on this report should do so promptly.
April 9, 1965



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Air Lines. There is a reliable report that these two rival air lines, competing in our free enterprise system, are now going to charge the same fares on economy and first class flights on their Montreal-To-ronto-Winnipeg-Vancouver routes after April 25. Has this arrangement come about through the activities of the Minister, who met with the Presidents of the two air lines, and does he approve of the proposal?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the two air lines indicated to me some little time ago they were filing similar tariffs effective April 25. I noticed the same dispatch as the hon. gentleman did in the newspaper, and I would think this is correct.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does this meet with the Minister's approval, that these two competing air lines should now enter into what appears to be a combine to charge the same fares across the country?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a feeling, sir, that this is one area, the area of fares, that does not lend itself very much to competition, any more between the air lines than it does between the railways.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a question for the Minister of Finance relating to the cost of living index which has just been published for March, 1965 and which stands at 137.3 as compared with 134.6 a year ago, an increase of 2.7 percentage points.
In view of the fact that the Economic Council of Canada has recommended that we hold any increase in the cost of living to 2 percentage points, I want to ask the Minister is his Department taking any measures to counteract this increase in the cost of living?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showed that the cost of living in March was two tenths
Inquiries of the Ministry of one percentage point higher than in the previous month, which would mean an increase of substantially less than one fifth of one per cent from one month to the other. Over the year the increase was 2 per cent which, as I have said on other occasions, is the lowest increase in any industrialized country in the world with the exception of the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the increase in the commodity index is 2.7 percentage points I am asking the Minister, is his Department setting up any machinery or taking any measures to counteract this progressive increase?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The Government is doing its best to encourage everybody to keep down the cost of production. That is the way in which the objective of my hon. friend-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There seems to be a little noise at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I can assure my hon. friend that this objective will be kept very much in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: Remove the 11 per cent sales tax.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am asking the Minister, is any machinery being set up by his Department to ascertain whether these increases are fully justified?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: This is being watched carefully week by week.


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Poniiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I want to know if the Government is going to practice what it has just preached.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.



EXPO '67 REPORTED CALLING OF TENDERS FOR C.B.C. BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and is twofold in nature. Is it correct that tenders are being let at the present time for the $10 million C.B.C. project at Expo '67? Second, if that is so, on what basis is the C.B.C. able to make such a commitment when there has been no appropriation in this House for such an expenditure?

April 9, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secreiary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very happy to seek the information and reply later.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister has stated that he will look into this matter. I would ask him, did he not make a statement in Montreal in connection with this very peculiar proposition? Did he not make the following statement:
-it is possible to have at least part of the money available through the parliamentary process known as interim supply.
I am quoting from the Montreal Star of March 26, where it was further reported:
Technically, there will be no money available for construction purposes until the C.B.C. estimates are approved in the House of Commons; for practical purposes, however, according to Secretary of State Maurice Lamontagne ... it is possible-
I would ask the Minister to explain why he now has to look into the matter. When he spoke in Montreal he understood fully what was being done in the outrageous proposition advanced by Mr. Ouimet for spending $10 million without authorization by Parliament.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for Red Deer was about tenders, and I certainly did not say anything about tenders in Montreal.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. Will the Minister explain now what he meant when he said that the C.B.C. can go ahead and spend $10 million on a building for the purposes of the C.B.C., when no amount has been allotted by Parliament? What right has the head of the C.B.C. to make an announcement like that without consideration by Parliament?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, at that time we announced a proposal or project, but I certainly did not say we intended to go on with that project without the approval of Parliament.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


An hon. Member:: Who is "we"?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that a contract has been let for part of this work?


Maurice Lamontagne: I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would seek the information.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State that I intended to ask before. Would the minister consider recom-

mending that all Expo expenditures, past, present and particularly future, be referred to a special committee of the House so that we can all get the story on these mounting, astronomical expenditures?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. friend should direct his question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, as a matter of fact I will address my question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister consider recommending that all Expo expenditures, past, present and particularly future, be referred to a special committee of the House so that all members and particularly the Canadian people can get the full story with regard to these mounting, astronomical expenditures?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if that were done literally I think it would be very difficult indeed to have Expo ready for 1967.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. I wanted to direct it to the Minister of Finance, but since he is absent I will address it to the Prime Minister. Are expenditures on Expo '67 approved by Treasury Board in the same manner as normal expenditures, and are the regular rules to which he referred yesterday applicable?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Expo '67 is operating under legislation passed by this Parliament under the previous government, and the regular procedures are being followed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister mentions that fact does he not recall that he said that expenditures by the federal government should be limited to $20 million?


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the house at the same time what extraordinary amounts will Expo '67 inject into the economy of the country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Many millions, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: We are spending billions. [Translation]


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minis-
April 9. 1965

ter tell us what authority, what government is responsible for making of the Montreal world fair a reality?

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, this is under my jurisdiction, and if there are any questions I would be very happy to answer them.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE TAX REDUCTIONS On the orders of the day:
["Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I withdraw that adjective and concur in the Prime Minister's statement."]
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
On the occasion of his next budget, does the minister intend to lower some taxes so as to lessen the detrimental effect of the tax increase by the Quebec Liberal government? [Text]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would not wish me to announce in advance what would be in the Budget.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister say, in an effort to assist those who have to make plans, when we can expect the Budget? Will he narrow the time down, at least?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I hope to make an announcement in specific terms on Monday.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the pyramid of new taxes announced yesterday in the province of Quebec, can the minister tell us whether this is part of the federal-provincial joint programs? [Text]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, this Government has no control over or anything to say about the taxes levied by any of the Provinces.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary 22620-12
Inquiries of the Ministry of State for External Affairs. Can the Minister tell us what is the present situation with regard to the interference with and harassment of traffic into and out of West Berlin and what action, if any, the NATO Council has taken to try to bring an end to this potentially dangerous situation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend to allow me to take this question as notice.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. It is reported that Canadian hockey players, led by the incomparable Mr. Gordon Howe, are to be prevented from playing in Austria. Canada has made welcome Russian, Czech and other European teams in the past. Does the Government contemplate any action to enable this proposed tour of Canadian N.H.L. ambassadors to be carried out, in order that Europeans may at last have the opportunity of viewing the finest hockey players in the world, Canadians of the National Hockey League?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this question should have been addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I can tell my hon. friend that appropriate steps, through diplomatic channels, are being taken to remove, if possible, the obstacles in the way of this tour of N.H.L. hockey players led by, as my hon. friend designated him, the incomparable Gordon Howe. Mr. Speaker, there is one hockey player who is comparable to Mr. Gordon Howe, and that is the Member of this House for York West (Mr. Kelly), who last night in his 126th Stanley Cup game scored two goals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I withdraw that adjective and concur in the Prime Minister's statement.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the

April 9. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister tell us whether the various companies, Douglas, Northrop and Link-Temco-Vought, have made equivalent offers to the Canadian aircraft industry with regard to participation in the production of the aircraft they are now offering for consideration to the Minister and the Government?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would not be in a position to answer that question. There is a very real difficulty in describing what the hon. gentleman would mean by "equivalent". Also, in so far as the actual proposals made to the companies are concerned, I am not directly involved in that aspect of the negotiations. These negotiations are being carried on by the Department of Defence Production.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the Minister's intention to insist that Canadian aircraft component manufacturers have an equal chance to tender for the supply of parts for whatever aircraft is bought by the Department of Defence Production?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, whatever the ultimate decision is, it will be one which will be good for the Canadian areospace industry.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Sf. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government house leader, with regard to the suggestion I made last night.
Did he have the opportunity to meet with the representatives of the various parties this morning in order to decide if the vote to be taken at 5.30 this afternoon could not take place at 3.30 instead?
I made this suggestion in the hope that after the vote we could take advantage of the good will of the house and even carry the main motion, which would enable us to proceed with government business as early as next Monday?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, a meeting of the house leaders was held this morning. There was no agreement to change the hour for taking the vote. Consequently the vote will be taken, as provided in the rules, at 5.30 this afternoon.
fMr. Lambert.)


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES FOR DAM CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of national and considerable importance. It has to do with recognition of the Statutes of this land, passed by this Parliament. My question is based on the fact that clause 4 of the International River Improvements Act reads:
No person shall construct, operate or maintain an international river improvement unless he holds a valid licence therefor issued under this Act.
And clause 5 of the said Act states that every person who violates this Act or any regulation thereof is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to $5,000 or five years imprisonment. My question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is this. Would the Minister inform the House whether the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority have complied with the law by applying for a licence under this Act for the construction of the High Arrow Dam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is asking for a legal opinion or not, but it seems to me the question is not in order; and if it is in order, it certainly should be on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will have a go at ten o'clock on Monday, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I rise on a question of privilege, because I think there was a misunderstanding about my question. I was not seeking a legal opinion; I was just seeking information from the Minister which he must have as a result of his administrative duties. I understand that unfortunately he is not going to be here next week, and this matter is of great interest to this House and to the country. I beg your mercy, Mr. Speaker, and ask you to reconsider your former decision in respect of my question.


Mr. Speaker:: This being the Easter season I think the hon. Member should be given the benefit of the doubt.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker,
April 9, 1965

first of all I should like to thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of this question. This has enabled me to bring some details of this matter to the hon. Member's attention.
On January 11 I received a letter from Dr.
H.	L. Keenleyside, who is co-chairman of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority in which he asked me that the Authority, namely the entity which is charged with building the dams under the Canada-British Columbia agreement, be exempted from the provisions of the International River Improvements Act, which requires the entity to seek permits for the building of dams on the river. I can assure the House that we took some time to study this matter and I did not reply to Dr. Keenleyside until March
I,	at which time I wrote as follows:
The express covenant of Canada in paragraph (3) of that Section as confirmed by Section 6 of the Supplementary Agreement does not admit of an alternative to issuing a licence. We have, therefore, decided to issue the licences as required by the Statute
This decision to licence the projects has been confirmed by an Order-In-Council dated February 16, 1365, a copy of which is attached along with draft copies of the licences which I propose to issue.
I wrote this letter to Dr. Keenleyside on March 1 but to date I have not heard from him. I attach no more significance to that fact than that he and his officials are now studying the draft form licences which were sent to him at that time.



BICULTURALISM AND BILINGUALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and the previous day the right hon. Leader of the Opposition called my attention to two questions which had been previously asked by Members on the other side regarding certain questionnaires that had been submitted to Members of Parliament by the Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism Commission. I have received information from the Commission on this point which I would like to give to the House in answer to the questions.
The Royal Commission in question had among its terms of reference the obligation "to inquire into and report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada". In order to understand better how Canadians of different cultures and language
22620-12J
Inquiries of the Ministry groups work together, and in particular to study the possible effects of differing attitudes within the two principal linguistic groups of the country, the Commission has undertaken a number of studies of major Canadian institutions. It was felt by the Commission that no such study could be complete if it ignored Parliament, the preeminent political body in the country.
The purpose of this research project is to try to understand in what ways the role of the Canadian Member of Parliament and Senator is affected by Canada's bilingual and bicultural character and by the presence of other cultural groups. In particular, the relation of the Member of Parliament to his constituents, his Party and the Party Caucus in Parliament, is being explored as a means of assessing whether or how our bilingual character affects these matters. In carrying out the survey every precaution has been taken to assure that it will be impossible to identify any individual Member of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The individual replies will be used to build up statistics and non-attributable statements, and only these results will be available to the Commissioners. Approaches to this end are being made to Members individually. It is hoped by the Commission to interview all of them, but it is clearly understood that any Member may not wish to be interviewed and has no obligation to receive any representative of the Commission and answer any questions. If a Member agrees to be interviewed on this subject, he may decline to answer any specific questions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot deal with what the right hon. gentleman has said because it was not put forward at the time of motions. But I would ask him this. Has he read over the questions? Does he not agree with the view of a great national newspaper which says it is an affront to Parliament? I refer to a paper that I am sure the seat-mate of the Prime Minister will agree comes within that ambit, the Windsor Star.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
Does he not agree that this touches new heights of foolishness which cannot be dismissed as ordinary harmless foolishness; that it is insulting to Members of Parliament and to the voters who elect them? I would ask him whether he would review the questions

April 9, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry that are being asked. I cannot do this now, but I hope to have an opportunity very soon of dealing with this subject because these questions, with the exception of five or six, are simply snooping, I suggest to the Prime Minister, and have nothing to do with bicul-turalism.


Mr, Pearson:: I will be glad to examine the questions in the light of the right hon. gentleman's remarks.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquelie):: May I
address a question to the Prime Minister. I doubt that he will care to answer it. Does he by any stretch of imagination see any connection between bicultural and bilingual conditions in Canada and questions which ask a Member of Parliament about his relationship with a political party, how he was elected and whether politics is a dirty game?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. Member's doubts were well founded when he suggested I would not care to answer that question on the orders of the day. But I will be glad to look into it, as I am looking into the question asked by the right hon. gentleman.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I do so since he is one of our cabinet representatives from the city of Vancouver. My question is one of urgency and importance to the city of Vancouver. I should like to ask him, relative to any Government proposals now determined or under consideration, and relative to the transfer of lands at Kitsilano which were previously occupied for defence purposes-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: Oh, no; this is too damned important to Vancouver for the order paper.
I should like to ask whether a decision has been reached or is contemplated and, if so, what is the decision or what is the contemplation in view of the presentation made by the Vancouver parks board, by the city council and by Members of Parliament from Vancouver on this matter.


Arthur Laing: I think this

question might be better answered by the Secretary of State. There is a resolution of the city council with which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and I are dealing in consultation with the Secretary of State. This resolution of city council set forth certain conditions under which they would agree to accept responsibility for the Kitsilano area and at the same time satisfy the requirements of the C.B.C. These matters are now being discussed with the Secretary of State.


Harold Edward Winch: Can I now ask the Secretary of State what is the present status of the consideration of this matter, after almost two years; and what is going to happen on the Kitsilano reserve which during the last war went to the defence department on condition that it would be returned?


Maurice Lamontagne: All I can say is that we are planning to hold a meeting of Cabinet Ministers about this matter immediately after orders of the day.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with a question which was asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam the day before yesterday indicating that Canadian-made cars are now being sold in the United States at the same price as American cars. The Prime Minister said he would look into this and report at once.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. As I indicated to the hon. member who asked the question, I am looking into this. I am trying to get together all the information which deals with this matter. I have not got it yet, but I hope to be able to give an answer before long.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTED CONFLICT BETWEEN PRESENT LEGISLATION AND PROPOSED ASSISTANCE PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormisfon (Melville):: I, too, have a question I should like to ask the Prime Minister. In the light of the opting out legislation passed in the lest Session how can the right hon. gentleman reconcile this idea with
April 9, 1965

his proposal to establish a Canada Assistance Plan providing for Federal sharing in the cost of comprehensive programs which may be undertaken?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no difficulty in making that reconciliation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does strike me that if that is a question it is a most argumentative one. It is important in theory, but it is not the type of question which is in order at this stage of our proceedings.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is consideration being given by the hon. gentleman's Department to the removal of the ice control operations centre for the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic areas from Cape Breton to Halifax?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I think this is about the most nonsensical suggestion I have seen in a long time. It would be just about as sensible to consider moving it to Bermuda. Everybody knows that Halifax is an ice-free port and that the control headquarters at Sydney is doing a wonderful job.


Robert Muir: I am pleased to hear the Minister make that statement. It makes me very happy to have that statement on the record. Will he give an assurance that the ice operations control centre will not be moved from Cape Breton to any other area?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, there is no thought of doing anything of that kind.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to answer my question of yesterday regarding the application made on behalf of a Russian ship to use the St. Lawrence Seaway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs might be in a better position to reply.
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: The application is under consideration. Similar treatment has not up to the present I believe been accorded to Canadian ships by the Soviet Union. Nevertheless the application is being examined on its merits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I address a supplementary question to either of the two Ministers. Has their attention been called to a report on this matter in the Winnipeg Free Press written by Mr. Victor Mackie, to the effect that reciprocity and security are the matters being considered in relation to this application? Is this correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not seen the article, but knowing Mr. Mackie I am sure it is a very thoroughly written article.



REPORTED INCREASE IN IMPORTS OF JAPANESE TEXTILES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Can he tell the House what steps he intends to take to stop the flood of textile products and clothing from Japan whose exports to Canada in 1964 increased by 37.5 per cent over 1963, according to a statement made by Mr. Dan Rosenbloom, administrative director of the Canadian Association of Clothing and Textile Manufacturers?
Could he tell us what policy the government intends to follow to protect the Canadian Textile Industry?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am aware of the representations made by Mr. Rosenbloom. These are under consideration. If there are any changes to be made in our present policy they will be announced either by myself or by the Minister of Finance.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on the subject

April 9. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry of athletic prowess, discussed earlier today in the House.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Would the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources consider making available the athletic training facilities at Jasper National Park as an Olympic training centre, either under the auspices of the Canadian youth program about to be established or the physical fitness program which has been operating for several years?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I should certainly want to take this question as notice. My friend knows as well as I that we have certain facilities there which were acquired I think during his tenure of office, and which would appear to include all the requirements for such a training camp. We will certainly take this under advisement.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of a report which appeared in the Toronto Evening Star last evening. Can the Minister give this House any explanation today for the launching of a prosecution against a Chinese landed immigrant, Ngar Mye Lau?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is a strong element of urgency in this matter, and I thank the hon. Member for having raised it. I should like to assure the House that it was a somewhat disturbing article, that appeared in the newspaper, and it merits the consideration of every Member of the House and all those people, who are interested in the administration of the Immigration Act in this country. I want to say also that the prosecution out of which the decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario arose, the decision handed down the day before yesterday, was not the result of any charge that was instituted by the department of immigration or any of its officials.
This matter was first brought to my attention yesterday and I said I would look into it. My preliminary report indicates that this matter involves an offence which is not covered by the amnesty that was introduced
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
by the previous Government, nor is it covered by the extension that was announced by my predecessor, Mr. Tremblay, last August. However, the circumstances are special and I would ask the hon. Member's agreement to take his question as notice, so I can make a complete study and a statement at the beginning of next week.
I believe that this House, the people of Canada and particularly the Chinese Canadian communities are entitled to know that the assurances given with regard to the amnesty both by this Government and by the previous Government will be adhered to in spirit and to the letter. There have been some 8,300 people who have come forward and made adjustment statements since the amnesty was first instituted, who have not been prosecuted.
I understand that the circumstances are rather special in this case. I need a little time to obtain a further report and to confer with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, but I promise the House I will make a full statement at the beginning of next week.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned that this case did not come within the provisions of the general amnesty. Will the Minister indicate in what way it did not come within those provisions? I am sure he can do that immediately.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have only received a preliminary report and I require time to confirm the fact, but my information is that certain authorities-not of the immigration department-received a report to the effect that an offence had been committed and a charge was laid in early September of last year.


John George Diefenbaker: By whom was that
charge laid?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This is what I want to check, but my present information is that it was laid by the police on September 4, and a so-called adjustment statement was made subsequent to that time. I want to obtain all the facts so I can explain this situation clearly.
I should like to repeat, however, that nobody who has acted in good faith in coming forward to make an adjustment statement need worry about being prosecuted, unless he has been engaged in trafficking in immigration documents on a commercial basis or has committed illegal or fraudulent acts for personal gain.
April 9. 1965


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister whether he intends to withdraw, or has withdrawn, what I believe is form 1000 which has been used in respect of these cases, as he recently stated in Vancouver would be done.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The short answer to that question is yes, Mr. Speaker. I did not know that such a document was still in use, but in the early days when ships from the Orient were coming to the ports of Vancouver and Victoria in great numbers, form 1000 was in fairly common use to facilitate the return of people coming from China to this country. These people can enter the United States, then enter Canada from the United States or re-enter without such a form, and it seems absurd that a person of Chinese origin returning to Canada via the port of Seattle or San Francisco by air is not required to use this form, but those arriving in Canada direct must do so. Within 24 hours of the time I learned of its continued use, such use was abolished. I can assure the House that action was taken within a matter of hours of my learning of the continual existence of this form, and they are no longer required.



WATER LEVELS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the Minister make any favourable report in respect of water levels in the Great Lakes?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have read favourable weather reports and I know there have been reports made by various authorities that the low point has been reached and that precipitation has been higher, and that we are now entering upon a period during which the water levels in the Lakes will rise again in the next several years. This is dependent entirely upon nature, of course, but a great number of suggestions have been made in this regard and a great deal of attention is being paid to this subject.
I should like to pay a compliment to the House Committee which dealt with this matter and which presented an interim report of
Inquiries of the Ministry real value. A great number of other authorities are also making suggestions with regard to raising the water levels by means other than those provided by nature. In any event, it would now appear that nature is on our side.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of his answer a moment ago when he stated with regard to the Great Lakes water situation, if I understood him correctly, that nature is now on our side. Would the Minister not agree that if we had been a little more on nature's side we would not have had this problem in the first place?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Has the minister in the past few hours read a report to the effect that the Canadian fugitive, Lucien Rivard, had been seen in Peru in Latin America?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to this question I should like to say that, although my answer which I already have given in the house, is of a general character, as my predecessors were wont to do for that matter, it would not be in the interest of the administration of justice that the Attorney General should announce or divulge daily progress of the work done by the police in a given case.

e (12 noon)



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Cily):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. May I preface it by saying that I approve of the mission that took the Minister to Kitchener on April
7.	I should like to know when we are going to have a Citizenship Court established in the City of Regina?
April 9. 1965

The Address-Mr. Orlikow


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The matter is under study, Mr. Speaker.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cashin 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 amendment to the amendment of Mr. Marcoux.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: 
Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, even though my voice may not be too melodious today, I would be remiss if I did not at the outset join the chorus of praise directed towards the mover, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder, the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. If, on the day those gentlemen made
The Address-Mr. Favreau their speeches, John Cabot and Jacques Cartier had stepped out of the history books and sat in this house to listen to their respective posthumous proteges, if I may call them thus, they would surely have had a long discussion to determine which of those two young and brilliant members had been more eloquent and convincing. Being both great partisans of truth, I am sure they would have agreed as we all do here that both speeches were, each in its own way, as politically sincere and eloquent one as the other.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to belong to the team which has taken advantage of the speech from the throne to present to the Canadian people a truly remarkable legislative program.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud-and I thank God and my fellow citizens for giving me the opportunity, despite some difficulties and sometimes also, perhaps, the cruelty of politics, especially for a beginner, to work on this team with the group of Liberals which faithfully surround me, for the greatest prosperity and happiness of the Canadian people. And all this under the dynamic leadership of a man who will undoubtedly be remembered in history as one of the great prime ministers of our country and certainly also as one of our most genuine Canadian patriots, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson).
Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) engaged in a biting speech, the skilful looseness of which was only surpassed by the outrageous series of contradictions to be found in it.
In that speech, which was certainly not a model of logical arrangement, the Leader of the Opposition, saw fit to bravely blame the Government-these are not the very words he used, but their inner meaning-for gathering in the speech from the throne a series of pieces of legislation almost without any link, intended merely to blind us to the facts and to serve electoral purposes.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne as presented to the people of this country has not been written casually. It is a thoroughly thought out document, which contains a legislative program quite in accordance with the traditional thinking of the Liberal party in this country.
When one takes the trouble to analyse that speech from the throne, to study it objectively, one sees it, first of all, as the neces-

April 9. 1965

The Address-Mr. Favreau sary extension and the natural result of the mandate given to the Liberal party by the Canadian people at the general election of April 1963; second, it is the normal extension and natural result of the carrying out of the measures which this government succeeded in having passed by both houses and in putting into effect in a brief period of two years, despite the filibustering of an opposition which persisted in obstructing the work of parliament.

a (12:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Your statement of systematic obstruction is wrong.


An hon. Member:: Pipe down.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, even if the official opposition in particular is green-eyed with jealousy over the speech from the Throne it meets the interests and wishes of every Canadian to such an extent that if any citizen of this country, with a knowledge of Canadian politics and of the achievements of the present Government in the last two years, had endeavoured to draft it beforehand, he would necessarily have included therein all the social and other measures which it contains.
Indeed, the speech from the Throne embodies remarkably well at least three of the great ideals which, traditionally, Liberal governments have pursued and which they endeavour to apply in the best interests of the citizens of this country: in the first place, a genuine Canadian patriotism, second, an unflagging concern for our economic stability and development, a finally, the wish to see the triumph of social justice, in its broadest sense, in this country and for every individual.
If they examine every measure proposed in the speech from the Throne, the hon. members will realize that they all fit within the framework of one of those three great ideals.
In view of the short time at my disposal, I will discuss more particularly the three proposed measures which specially fall within the purview of the department I have the honour to direct. In my opinion, those three measures are desirable so that Canada can maintain and enrich its civilization.
They all come under the banner of justice in a liberal society, with a small "1".
Justice is the respect of the rights of everyone and, in a modern world such as ours, justice would and should reconcile the con-


current interests of every Canadian, as well as the interests of the individual with those of the state.
Such a synthesis was difficult to work out, to effect, but it will be found that the three measures in question will carry it into effect if they are passed. Their purpose is to ensure first of all, in all fairness, the freedom the individual and in this connection, I shall deal briefly with the "ombudsman". I shall then refer to the protection of society and say a few words also about our research in the correctional field. Finally, I shall deal with the Canadianization of our country and make a few brief remarks about the proposed amendment formula to the Canadian constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne raises the question as to whether it is advisable to institute in our country an ombudsman and if so, what will be the terms of reference of the royal commission to study and report on matters respecting the administrative courts.
The growth of government business and services has made it necessary, in the interests of the citizens in our modern world of 1965, to a tremendous administrative machinery and a large increase in the number of civil servants. This was necessary because nowadays, the state is of necessity required to provide a great number of services that individuals had to provide for themselves in the past. The state is now taking a great number of decisions which hitherto belonged exclusively to the private citizen himself.
It is a fact, as found in several countries of the world, that this administrative machinery actually stands between the individual and the state. The private citizen has often been scared and sometimes completely overwhelmed. We have reached a point where, in some cases and in certain ways, people feel their personality is being perhaps crushed by the growth of legislative services. They feel a bit awed by this machinery which, of necessity, bears a somewhat impersonal character. That is why I think we must make sure that the citizens of this country where, after all, every government service is meant for them and to serve their own interests, are not hit on the rebound, so to speak, by a reaction which could leave the impression that their security and personal interests are affected to any extent. I think the citizen's confidence in the administration and the civil service must be restored or at least maintained. At the same time, and quite properly, civil servants should also feel nearer the
April 9, 1965

people and have not only the impression but the assurance that they enjoy the respect and confidence of the citizenry.
Some countries have already tried, and the experience varied from one country to the other, to overcome such difficulties and dangers by appointing a most impartial and independent officer who looks first of all for simplicity in all procedures. This officer is responsible and reports to parliament; in some countries he is called a parliamentary commissioner and, in others, an ombudsman.
I do not intend to recall the history of the ombudsman, I will briefly outline his duties. In short, an ombudsman could be a parliamentary officer whose function is to receive and examine complaints from Canadian citizens who may feel that they have been wronged by the authorities or that their rights are being encroached upon by some civil servants or departmental officials through misuse of authority. The function of that parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman would be, therefore, to examine the complaint and, if he deems it unwarranted to convince the plaintiff that he has not in fact been ill treated or placed in an untenable position and that the state was not unfair toward him; on the other hand, if the complaint is warranted, he would make to the state or to its officials the necessary recommendations so that the situation may be remedied.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Mr. Woolliams:: Would the Minister answer a question at this stage? Does he propose doing this by a Constitutional amendment or, in the alternative, by working out an arrangement with the Provinces, since we have a Federal system and there is a difference between the Federal authorities and those which are Provincial?


Guy Favreau: I have just said that the Government proposes to submit the question of the advisability of establishing this body to a Royal Commission. I was just coming to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bow River-
[ Translation]
-namely that, in the case of a country like ours, which has a federal constitution, it must be decided if, because there are two levels of government, federal and provincial, in short because the jurisdictions are divided, it would be really practical to appoint an ombudsman and if it could be done under

The Address-Mr. Favreau conditions in keeping with British parliamentary traditions.
Of course that commission will have an opportunity to study the matter thoroughly.
The last thing I want to say is that this is the first government since confederation which gives so much thought to the possibility of undertaking such a study which, if my wishes come true, will result in the government and its officers being subject to the close scrutiny of an officer of parliament; there is no doubt that this is quite extraordinary for a government which is charged with unfairness because it is allegedly trying to hide things, although it is expressly forbidden by law to produce certain documents.
This government, in the fullest sense of the word-


Mr. Brewin:: I wonder whether the Minister would permit a question.


Guy Favreau: I have only a few minutes left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister has the floor.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the Minister tell us-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister has indicated he does not wish to reply to a question at this time.


Guy Favreau: I would be pleased to reply to any questions at the end of my remarks, but I have only a few minutes left.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is true to one of the ideals of the Liberal party, the protection of society.
I believe and maintain that in a modern and civilized world, our penal system makes sense only if it tends mainly to the rehabilitation of prisoners. Looked upon in that light, it remains the best protection for the citizen. We are no longer in an era of punishment for vengeful purposes. Living as we do in an entirely civilized country, everyone must realize that the penalty itself and even detention are, as I often said, justified only if the physical detention of the prisoner can better contribute to the freeing of his mind.
Therefore the institutional and psychological methods leading to such a freeing have to be studied very carefully.
With this end in view, a resolution will be put on the order paper without delay, for the establishment of a parliamentary com-
April 9, 1965

The Address-Mr. Favreau mittee of the Senate and the House of Commons, the terms of reference of which will be to consider the physical and material conditions in Canadian penitentiaries.
The creation of a second committee was officially announced in the speech from the throne in these words, and I quote:
My government will appoint a special committee to study and make recommendations on a comprehensive policy for the correction and rehabilitation of prisoners.
I am pleased to announce to the house that the terms of reference of the committee have already been approved by the cabinet.
I have sent copies to the press because I do not have time to read it in full and, if the house agrees, I shall table two copies.
I am glad to say also that I am completing negotiations with the people whom I shall recommend to the government as members of the said special committee on our correctional system and of the secretariat which will be attached to it.
Those people will be on the list of experts and consultants in various fields, such as the information services dealing with parole, sociology, penology, psychology, psychiatry, and others who are interested in the rehabilitation of prisoners and the reform of our correctional system.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this matter will involve the Criminal Code at least incidentally. There is another matter announced in the speech from the throne which will affect the Criminal Code one way or the other.
I refer to the discussion on capital punishment in this house.
On that matter, I should like to make a brief announcement to the house. It will be a free vote, and not a vote along party lines. Since the matter touches the heart and reaches into the depth of the conscience of each and every Canadian, it is important that such a vote be completely enlightened. Consequently, I have given instructions to my department officials to prepare, for the information of hon. members and the general public, not a white paper, because it will not involve a matter of government policy, but an information pamphlet that will be made available to all hon. members. That pamphlet will contain statistics along with the pros and cons of the problems involved. Finally, there will be a historical record and the result of facts observed in various countries which, to a varying degree, have retained or abolished capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that the third aspect of a measure which I mentioned


gave evidence of the government's sense of a truly Canadian patriotism. In fact, imbued with a genuine Canadianism, this government expresses in the speech from the throne, its desire to have passed by both houses an Address to Her Majesty in order to give us once for all full control over our constitution.
This measure is part of the general policy which has caused the government to have the house pass, on that now historic day of last December, what has finally become the proud symbol of our unity, the red maple leaf flag.
Mr. Speaker, this address was inspired by that same spirit of love for our country which inspired the government's decision to propose now the adoption of "O Canada" as our national anthem.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition launched a violent attack, which I suggest is unthinkable, against the amending formula. He forgot the proverb which is indeed very true: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then watch out.


Guy Favreau: Indeed this formula was conceived by his own government, in its essential characteristics as well as in its final form. And yet the Leader of the Opposition says: This is a dreadful measure which is contrary to the interests of Canadians, a measure which will freeze our constitution- he even said something about it being a "strait-jacket"-and finally a measure which would balkanize our country forever.
Mr. Speaker, we argue that this measure will be beneficial to Canada, that it will give us, Canadians, once for all, control over our constitution; it will enable us to amend, repeal or replace it, here in our country, in Canada.
In a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, dated October 26 last, one of my predecessors, Hon. Davie Fulton, former minister of justice, reminded him that the present formula is identical, in its essentials, to the formula which his government had asked all the provinces to ratify following the federal-provincial conferences of 1960 and 1961.
Mr. Speaker, I have only one minute left to remind the house that this measure is not an obstacle to the amendment of the constitution. In fact, far from being an obstacle, it will enable Canadians to discuss their political future freely between themselves and in their own country. It will become the
April 9, 1965

technical instrument to adjust federal and provincial long-term interests, the co-ordination of the dual loyalty of Canadians to the cultural ideals of their province and the political ideals of Canada. In brief, it puts an end to a mortifying anachronism.
That is how, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal mind considers three of the major questions concerning our country. I ask all reasonable men, all people of good will, all patriots, to join with us in building a country which will be authentically Canadian, because it is a just and civilized country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise briefly on a point of order. The Minister has said he is going to give the terms of reference of which he has spoken to the Press, and it seems to me that they should be placed in Hansard.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I did ask leave of the House to table two copies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would ask the Minister to seek leave of the House to have them included as an appendix to Hansard or as part of the Minister's speech.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam for his very good suggestion. I should like to ask him to note carefully that I did ask for leave of the house to table two copies of these terms of reference at the same time as I give them to the Press. I have taken this course because the terms are too long to read at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would ask through you whether the House consents to have this included as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For terms of document referred to above, see appendix.1


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: It is one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We are now
faced with two difficulties. It is almost one o'clock, and the Minister's time has expired. Do hon. Members wish to allow the hon. Member to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister why, in view of what I consider is widespread support in this house,
The Address-Mr. Crouse certainly on this side, for the appointment of an ombudsman, legislation cannot be introduced rather than delaying this by the appointment of a Royal Commission. There are ombudsmen now in other countries, and I am wondering why a Royal Commission is necessary.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am personally convinced of the validity and value of such an institution, and I am aware of the fact that there is a great deal of support in many parts of this country and in many sectors of our population for the establishment of such an institution.
However, I hope the hon. gentleman will agree that many questions are being posed by people in many parts of the country as to whether, in view of our Federal constitution, in view of the fact that we have 11 governments, and in view of the division of jurisdiction within the provincial and federal fields, first it is advisable for Canada to establish such an institution; and second, whether certain precautions or certain modalities ought not to be adopted so as to make sure in the case of an affirmative report that the institution of an ombudsman will be both useful and effective in Canada. That is the only reason.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-La-fleche (Mr. Chretien) on the competent manner in which they moved and seconded the Address. Their speeches were well prepared and delivered in a manner that does credit to them and to the constituencies which elected them to this House. I listened with care to the last speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), and in the course of his remarks he had nothing to say concerning our amendment. Obviously, he must agree with it and will support us in condemning the Government for its failure to deal with wrongdoing in high and low places.
April 9, 1965

The Address-Mr. Crouse
I have read the Speech from the Throne in the hope I would find therein some special recognition of the social and economic ills that continue to plague the Atlantic Provinces. However, in this instance, the Liberals have run true to form and again ignored the Maritime area. The Throne Speech contains a mountain of proposed legislation, of which only a small part could vaguely be construed as applying to our area. Why was there no recognition given to the needs of our Maritime universities? Their financial plight should be of some concern to this Government. The university grants are still administered by the Federal authorities on the basis of the population of a province, divided into the size of the subsidy which the Federal Government makes available. The province then divides this sum by the number of university students within its borders, thereby determining the per student grant.
This method has resulted in a greater share going to the larger and growing provinces, while the Atlantic Provinces, especially Nova Scotia with its high student enrolment in its numerous universities, has received a smaller proportion of the grant than any province in Canada. The cost of maintaining and expanding Nova Scotia's universities is constantly increasing, mainly as a result of the actions of this Government and its 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. With costs spiraling, it may be necessary for economic reasons to restrict the enrolment of students from other regions of Canada. It would indeed be regrettable if this action became necessary. I think the Government should take another look at this matter immediately. A more equitable formula would be to make the total Federal subsidy available on a national basis with the grants to be provided to the various provinces based on the number of students attending universities in that province.
In the economic area surely this Government, which has 100 per cent support from the Province of Newfoundland-even if the Cabinet Minister's origin as a Newfoundlander is questionable-must give an answer to the Atlantic problems.


Mr. Cowan:: I should like to raise a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As one coming from the Province of Ontario, I was rather hurt to hear a Member of this House referred to as having questionable origin when he comes from Ontario. I think they are quite reputable.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On the question of privilege, why would not Ontario have him?
[Mr. Crouse.1


An hon. Member:: He came from Manitoba.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: We did not want him.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) will regret that he is not present at the moment to hear this enjoyable interplay upon his origin.
I feel that this Government must know that the answer to the problems of the Atlantic Provinces is Federal action which will give the people of the region the opportunity to establish economic equality with central Canada through their own efforts. This action would provide facilities for self-development, on the one hand, and ensure the maintenance of existing vital industry at least throughout the long transition period on the other. Quite frankly, the opportunity to obtain economic parity just does not now exist. Certainly, in some areas, especially in Nova Scotia there has been substantial economic growth in recent years. There are other areas still suffering from unemployment. However, the opportunity to put the Atlantic Provinces on their feet has never been better than it is today, provided this Government moves courageously and with imagination, in the full realization of the fact that what is involved is the economic health of the entire nation.
After reading the Throne Speech it is evident the Liberals are taking the same attitude toward the Maritimes that they took for 22 years, an attitude of waiting for an almost incurable crisis to occur. This is the typical Grit method of avoiding action, and a refusal on the part of the Government to assume full responsibility for this regional problem which is, in effect, a national problem.
9 (2:40 p.m.)
Perhaps this is due to the attitude of some of the Cabinet Ministers. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), whom I am glad to see in her seat, spoke in Montreal recently, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of April 5. She apparently was looking through her rose coloured glasses as she reviewed what was taking place in the Atlantic Provinces, with special reference to Nova Scotia. This, in part, is what she said:
Ottawa's assistance to the Atlantic Provinces is no longer regarded in Ottawa as "simply a form of federal hand-out-a means whereby Daddy can look after his shoeless cousin in Halifax," Health and Welfare Minister Judy LaMarsh told the Maritime Women's Club of Montreal Saturday.
"Instead," she said, "the Atlantic Provinces are moving ahead with a pride in their own identity.
April 9, 1965

There's an air of confidence in the Maritimes that was not in existence a few years ago."
The reason, she suggested, included a world trend toward freer trade which had made the area more attractive for the location of industry; a new expansion by foreign firms of their operations in Canada, often with a preference for coastal locations; and a greater confidence by Maritimers in their own potential___
Miss LaMarsh also attributed much of the region's economic improvement to the policies of the Pearson Government.
One of these, the "designated areas" program, she disclosed for the first time, had resulted in some 20 firms indicating to the Government interest in establishing new plants or new production facilities in the Atlantic provinces....
Not all of the companies considering new operations in the area had yet made public their plans.
Among those which had were Deuterium of Canada Limited, which is establishing a heavy water plant at Glace Bay.. .Scott Paper Limited and Canadian Motor Industries Limited, which is benefiting from a site at Point Edward Naval Base being made available to it by the federal Government.. ..
The Health Minister pointed out that the unemployment rate in the Atlantic Provinces now was down to 7.8 per cent, the lowest since 1956.
The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. First she told this group that the Atlantic Provinces are "moving ahead with a pride in their own identity" because of a "world trend toward freer trade." Then she got a little bit political and tried to attribute much of the improvement to the policies of the Federal Government.
If the Minister were less interested in gathering bouquets for herself and the Government, she would realize that much of the credit for the present industrial revolution taking place in Nova Scotia must go to Hon. Robert Stanfield and his hard working cabinet. This dedicated group of men are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to bring new employment opportunities to Nova Scotians. By studying local and regional possibilities, and refusing to listen to apostles of doom or gloom, they are bringing new industries and new prosperity to Nova Scotia.


Miss LaMarsh:: Are you taking credit for Premier Stanfield?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In pursuing their goals, however, they must not only endeavour to bring in new industries but must help provide an economic climate that will hold and expand existing primary industries.
The Minister asks if I am taking credit for Premier Stanfield. I am happy to tell her I cannot take credit for Premier Stanfield, but it has been my privilege in every Provincial election campaign to stand on the same plat-
The Address-Mr. Crouse form to assist him in whatever way I can to continue in the job he is doing so well.
As I have said, in pursuing their goals in Nova Scotia the Provincial Cabinet, led by Premier Stanfield, must not only endeavour to bring in new industries but they must help provide an economic climate that will help hold and expand existing primary industries.
In order to obtain these goals the Premier of Nova Scotia, along with other Atlantic Province Premiers, requires additional assistance from the federal treasury. I say this because unemployment in the Atlantic Provinces is not what the minister told that group in Montreal, but in fact is higher than in any other part of Canada. The Daily Gleaner in its editorial on March 18, pointed out the seriousness of the problem, and I quote:
The mid-February employment report contained bad news for the Atlantic region. Unemployment stood at 13 per cent, a jump of 2.2 per cent from the figure of a month earlier. ...
The Atlantic region's jobless totalled 78,000, as compared with 64,000 in mid-January... . This shows conclusively that whatever is maintaining relative prosperity in every other part of Canada is not functioning in the Maritimes.
In mid-winter the primary industries, vital to the Atlantic economy, are operating at low ebb, and the region has only made the first gestures at developing the network of secondary industries to take up the employment slack.
So we have this veritable army of the unemployed, who, with their families must be sustained by various forms of relief and social assistance.
The shame and the folly of this situation should spur everyone concerned to a sustained effort to end this situation of regional inequality once and for all.
I repeat that the unemployment figure is 13 per cent, not 7.8 per cent. Perhaps it is time we reconstituted the truth squad.
When you examine these figures and compare them with the total claims for unemployment insurance at the end of January, which numbered 547,800, it is easy to note the higher percentage of unemployment and unemployed in the Maritime Provinces in relation to the rest of Canada.
Under such circumstances it is not difficult to understand the anger and despair of Maritimers, who take exception to the tariff wall with which we have surrounded such industries as the assembly plants of United States automobile manufacturers in Ontario. We have been told repeatedly that the wall is there to safeguard the jobs of workers. As a result, Canadians pay approximately one third more for their cars than Americans
April 9, 1965

The Address-Mr. Crouse do, and people in the Maritimes, as a result of greater distance from the assembly plants and the higher freight rates, must pay more for their cars than citizens of Quebec or Ontario. We are told in the Throne Speech that in this session we will be asked to approve a resolution concerning the important agreement on the automobile industry recently concluded with the United States. Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, I ask to whom is this agreement important? Since its terms have been announced, we have not seen or heard of any reduction in the price of automobiles to Canadian buyers, and since cars are no longer a luxury, but a necessity to the average Canadian, this should certainly be the objective of any change in the present legislation.
As I said earlier, we are told in the Maritimes we must pay more by way of tariffs on automobiles to protect the jobs of the workers. What about the workers in the Atlantic Provinces and their need for job protection? For some years, Maritimers enjoyed a preferred position on goods moving within the area and westbound from the Maritimes, but the disparity in present freight charges works a hardship on our primary and secondary industries, and when our products cannot be delivered competitively, our industries slacken or close down. It can truthfully be said that higher freight rates contribute to our unemployment condition.
Maritimers quite rightly ask, what can be done to improve the situation? Well, the Speech from the Throne promises comprehensive legislation to reform public regulation of the railways and to facilitate the adoption of the railway system to present and future needs. It seems to me that I have heard that song before.
For more than two years, transportation experts in the Department of Transport have worked out new railway legislation based on the MacPherson Commission's recommendations; but what happens? As soon as the public get an opportunity to look at these recommendations, and point out some of the faults in the proposals, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) does one of his well known flip-flops and says he was only flying a kite to gain public reaction. And all the while the Minister fiddles and fumbles, it is still possible for a stove manufacturer in Hamilton, Ontario, to ship his product to Montreal for approximately 75 cents per stove cheaper than a Nova Scotian producer in

Sackville can deliver a similar product over the same distance. Now this is not much per stove, but on volume business it soon runs into thousands of dollars. And this is only one side of the coin.
It must be remembered that Nova Scotian companies must pay considerably more freight charges on inbound raw materials. For example, the ship refitting yards in Lunenburg and Queens Counties, when fabricating equipment for ships or other industrial purposes, must pay over $1 more per 100 pounds of inbound freight charges on steel sheets as compared with a manufacturer in Hamilton. These extra freight costs price many of our Maritime manufacturers out of the market when competing for business in Central Canada, and I don't think we should allow anyone to fool us into thinking transportation costs are not the major key to our problems.
Now what is the answer? It of course lies in the fact that competitive freight rates have been set up as a result of producers being able to use water or highway transport in the Central Provinces as an alternative to the railroads. In my opinion, the economy and employment opportunities in the Atlantic Provinces, will always lag behind the rest of Canada, until the Federal Government recognizes the fact that improved transportation links are of prime importance, e (2:50 p.m.)
Lower cost freight charges on goods shipped westward is the key to survival of our primary and secondary industries in the Atlantic Provinces, and this can only be brought about by an improved highway system, with the Federal Government working in co-operation with the Provinces concerned. At present, the C.N.R. is the major hauler of freight, but it is endeavouring to cut down on its yearly deficit, and part of its program is to terminate service on what it considers uneconomical branch lines. These changes are proposed without too much consideration being given to the effect on the economy of these areas, but I ask the Government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) which bill they think will be the highest, the one for subsidizing the railroads or the cost of dissolving industry and finding new homes and jobs for the people involved?
Mr. Speaker, we cannot go on ignoring the social and economic problems of the Atlantic Provinces. Canada, and the provinces concerned, cannot permit emigration to occur- which was one of the suggestions put forth as a solution to our problems by the present
April 9, 1965

Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) in his 1956 Royal Commission report on Canada's Economic Prospects. No good purpose can be served by endeavouring to build up one part of Canada on the one hand, while tearing it down with the other. There is only one answer, and it is for all the Governments concerned, acting in unison, to come to terms now on the simple question, "What does it take in dollars to help you expand your economy so that you can remain in the Atlantic Provinces?" It is futile to argue that this will cost the country money, for this is a certainty. But the cost of establishing new industry, and enabling Maritimers to stand on their own two feet, will indeed be small when compared with the alternative. In short, the present key industries of the Atlantic Provinces must be maintained in health and expanded, at least during a lengthy transition period while new economic areas are under development.
You might rightly ask, "Where do we begin?" The Speech from the Throne calls for improved measures for regional development, and states, "We will be asked to approve measures to aid industrial expansion in those areas requiring improved employment opportunities". I am in agreement with this particular proposal, and I would suggest that the Government give consideration to starting immediately on a multipurpose causeway dam from the Annapolis Valley shore at Cape Split to Fox River Point on the Cumberland shore across Minas Basin. This would serve to develop tidal power, and provide a transportation link as well as recreational facilities in the area. The Atlantic Development Board has been asked to undertake a feasibility study of this project, and if this study indicates the proposal is practical we already have the endorsation of Premier Stanfield on this project.
Just what is involved? The length of the dam between Cape Split and Fox River Point would be four miles, and in places it would be 200 feet deep. Engineers have estimated there would be 5 million kilowatts of power generated annually by such a project. The generators of this power could be similar to the ones used on the River Ranee in Britanny, France, which is the first commercial tidal power development in the world. These generators are essentially like small submarines set in tunnels at the bottom of the dam, and they would catch the surge and flow of tidal waters both entering and emptying Minas Basin.
The Address-Mr. Crouse
The recent trend in cheaper transmission costs would enable the power produced from this dam to be exported to the power-hungry markets of the United States, especially to New England, after the immediate needs of an expanded industrial complex in this area of Nova Scotia were satisfied. This proposed development for Minas Basin would be the largest single source of power in the world, and the future possibilities for industrial development would be virtually unlimited. We must also remember that the only money required for this project is the amount expended on the original construction. Once the dam is built and the generators installed, the electrical output will continue to be produced by the tides in perpetuity. We therefore need long term cheap money, loaned by the Federal Government, which in turn will be reflected in cheap power that will guarantee economic development in the entire area.
In addition to these benefits, the highway crossing the causeway would end the transportation bottleneck in the western part of Nova Scotia. For example it would no longer be necessary for trucks serving the industries in Liverpool, Bridgewater, Lunenburg, Ma-hone Bay or Chester to travel all the way to Halifax when en route to central Canadian markets with produce or manufactured products. These trucks could cut across the Province from Chester Basin through New Ross to Kentville, and crossing over the new causeway to Parrsboro they could cut off an estimated 100 miles on the highway route from the South Shore of Nova Scotia to Fredericton, New Brunswick.
At this point, I would like to propose another change. The Speech from the Throne states:
My Ministers attach great importance to Canada's neighbourly relationship with the United States and to the development of practical, mutually beneficial arrangements within that relationship.
In keeping with that lofty concept, I would suggest that the present administration start negotiations immediately with American authorities in order to gain early acceptance of our proposal for a corridor road through the State of Maine. This would be an exercise of our good neighbour policy, and would shorten the distance from the trans-Canada highway at Fredericton, New Brunswick, to Sherbrooke, Quebec, by 150 miles. This would bring Montreal to within a comfortable five-hour run from the Maritime border. Surely the cost to the Federal treasury of building this corridor road could not be termed excessive by anyone, when weighed against the
April 9, 1965

The Address-Mr. Crouse benefits this shorter highway route would bring to our primary and secondary industries in the Atlantic Provinces.
Mr. Speaker, this type of proposal should not be too difficult to negotiate with the Americans. We have co-operated with the Americans in the sale of B.C. power, we cooperate with them in matters of national defence of this hemisphere, and we are their best customers. I believe that the question of a corridor road through Maine, if properly presented, will not only receive their blessing but also their financial assistance, as it will be opening up and improving a section of their country for further development. The proposals I have mentioned required a dynamic, national attitude on the part of the present administration in order for them to be carried to fruition. When completed, they would shorten the truckers' route for products from my constituency to Montreal by some 250 miles. This would provide an alternative shipping route for our industries on a more competitive basis than presently exists.
It is a known fact that our long established Maritime industries have acquired and retrained national markets primarily through freight rate assistance. It is equally clear that some of our industries face extreme economic hardship unless the present scale of freight rate assistance is basically increased or steps are taken, as suggested, to shorten the competitive highway route to our central Canadian markets. Canada and this Government have no choice but to find ways and means to take the Atlantic Provinces into economic as well as political Confederation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. When the C.B.C. was set up by the late R. B. Bennett during the mid-1930's it was felt that because of the large geographical area of Canada, with a very small population, only a publicly operated broadcasting system could adequately serve the Canadian people. In some ways the C.B.C. has performed a wonderful service to the Canadian people, and it will undoubtedly continue to do so. In order to ensure that political interference will not take place, the C.B.C. has been so organized that it is not responsible to the Government, but rather to Parliament as a whole. The result has been that the C.B.C. would appear to think that they are responsible to nobody at all, and literally does what it pleases. I object to that attitude. If M.P.'s make suggestions or criticisms in Parliament they seem to be regarded by the C.B.C. as some sort of ignorant heretics who are opposed
[Mr. Crouse.l
to free expression of opinion. There seems to be a firm resistance by the C.B.C. officials to accept any kind of criticism or suggestion. As a result, a small group runs the C.B.C. exactly as it pleases and any suggestions are regarded as interfering with free speech. Well, I have some news for the C.B.C. No one wishes to interfere with free speech or free opinion- but financially it is far from free. When you have a Government agency asking Parliament in the year 1965 for a grant of $99,444,000, which is an increase of $11,444,000 over last year, so that it can discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, surely the taxpaying public is entitled to some control over the operation and over the determination of these responsibilities by the organization.
What did ten C.B.C. staff announcers say in a recent brief to the Fowler Commission on Broadcasting as reported in the Chronicle-Herald on March 9? I quote:
* (3:00 p.m.)
Creativity in the Corporation is being stifled and it could turn into a fat, self-perpetuating, selfservicing bureaucratic Goliath.
This is strong talk, but despite these charges the President of the C.B.C. recently suggested the Corporation be granted long term financing up to ten years to keep it free from partisan political influence. Even at the present rates this would amount to $1 billion over a ten year period, and this request should give the Canadian taxpayer some idea of the greed for power of the present group controlling this bureaucratic giant. This is nothing but unmitigated gall, the most callous I have heard since I entered the House of Commons in 1957.
In my opinion, the C.B.C. should serve the Canadian people, not dominate them. For greater control of its activities I would suggest that a special Committee be set up composed of elected representatives of the people of Canada. Since Members of Parliament must answer for the money spent by the C.B.C., we should have some control over its policies and expenditures. With all parties being represented on the Committee there would be no danger of political interference in programming, and since the Speech from the Throne promises legislation dealing with broadcasting, I hope this suggestion will be given favourable consideration by the Government.
The C.B.C. likes to talk about the danger of partisan political influence. I do not think
April 9, 1965

the Canadian people need to worry too much about the partisan influence of the present Government-or of the Conservative Opposition, the N.D.P., Social Credit or Creditistes. We are exposed to this daily, and the electorate can deal with it at the proper time. The type of partisanship I object to is the bureaucratic partisanship practised by the officials within this Corporation, and I believe their activities could result in an abuse of public funds, unless provision is made for close supervision of this Corporation.


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


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Certainly.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I was interested in his remarks concerning low cost transportation to permit the products of the Eastern Provinces to reach Central and Western Canada. Would the hon. Member agree with me that the economic and social progress of the Atlantic Provinces could be helped by having an all-Canadian toll-free St. Lawrence Seaway to cut down the costs of inland water transportation to Central and Western Canada? This would allow these Maritime products to be shipped in.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is an interesting question. It involves the cost of the seaway and the regulations which were drawn up by the party which he supports, to deal with the amortization of those costs. We in the Atlantic Provinces had some doubts about the benefits which might accrue to our region when the seaway was built. It is now an accomplished fact, however, and it would appear there is a determination on the part of the Government to get back into the treasury some of the money which was expended on this project, before making any such change as the hon. Member has suggested.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Would the hon. Member not agree that low cost inland water transportation would help the Atlantic Provinces to ship their products into Western and Central Canada? One of the factors in reducing the cost would be the reduction of seaway tolls.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. Member has posed an involved question that would take more time to answer than I have available now. Certainly, we in the Atlantic Provinces are endeavouring to use every means at our disposal to get the goods we require for our use at the lowest cost, and we shall use every means at our disposal to ship our
The Address-Mr. M. Cote products into the markets of Central Canada at the lowest cost. But there are areas we are endeavouring to develop that are not adjacent to the seaway, and it is for this reason I propose that the present administration should study carefully the possibility of improving transport facilities by means of a highway from the Maritime production centres to the markets of Central Canada.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: The Address-Mr. M. Cote
In its October 8, 1964 edition, the newspaper Le Droit stated that about 2.5 million Canadians, that is over 13 per cent of the population, lived in extreme poverty and that another 1.5 million barely had enough to subsist.
In its April 1965 edition, Chatelaine magazine had an article entitled:
Poverty is the lot of over 4 million Canadians who lack the bare necessities of life. It read as follows: In 1965, a flourishing year if ever, over 4 million Canadians live in hardship, are ill-housed, ill-fed, ill-clothed and poorly educated. This state of affairs is to be found everywhere, in cities as in the country. However, the paradox is the same for all the underprivileged, regardless of where they live: the absurdity of suffering hardship in a land of plenty. Twenty-two per cent of the population barely has the strict minimum. In the province of Quebec, 25 per cent of rural families live in poverty and 45 per cent barely have enough to keep body and soul together.
So, now, the Government recognizes that our requests were quite reasonable and that those statistics, which put Canada in a bad light, were correct. And it seems willing to put an end to general poverty. In my opinion, that is the main point in the Speech from the Throne.
It was a pleasure for me to listen to the mover, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin), and the seconder, the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. While I am at it,
I should like to congratulate them most sincerely for having shown us the ill-effects of the lamentable state of the Canadian economy and the urgency of finding the remedies required.
All those testimonials were confirmed by the Prime Minister himself, who gave us an extremely lucid analysis of this chronic evil which brings shame upon our Christian democracies.
Of course, the plain truth is quite different from the wonderful statements made by the Minister of Finance in Toronto on February 1, 1965, as reported in Le Devoir:
As a matter of fact, stated the minister, 1964 was the best year in Canadian history. This is not the result of a mere chance. The policies of the Liberal government have directly contributed to those results.
I feel that the Minister of Finance, who is a chartered accountant, as everybody knows, has been deluded and misled by figures.
Naturally, the figures indicating the national product are steadily increasing, and this is quite normal because every year the population increases on the average by


345,000 citizens, through births and immigration. Yet, this does not mean that the economy is thriving. It will thrive only when those 4 millions of destitute Canadians will be able to enjoy a better distribution rather than redistribution of the wealth of Canada.
Family allowances, which could have been a most powerful instrument to balance family income, have remained at the same level since 1958 although they should have been raised in keeping with the rise in the cost of living. At present, there are 4,800,000 families in this country; what steps have been taken to support Canada's, greatest asset, our children? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Such is the result of the administrative carelessness of our governments under the control of financial oligarchy.
To adjust our national economy and eradicate poverty and misery, the government proposes certain measures which seem to have a socialistic approach. I am convinced that the government does not intend to lead us to socialism which destroys human qualities. However, with the projected implementation of all those plans, the one being more complicated than the next, I wonder what they are driving at, because that will not provide any equitable solution to the problems of family heads or of Canadians who do not have enough purchasing power to live decently. On the contrary, I do say that such plans will increase our general difficulties because they are detrimental to the freedom of initiative and enterprise and an act of aggression against individuals.
Why, Mr. Speaker, should we be made to fall out of the frying pan into the fire when it would be possible, with some minor adjustments to the finance mechanism of the country, to enable the Bank of Canada to issue new credits or bank money at administrative costs according to strict standards in order to meet the social needs of the people and make the public investments required for the development of the country?
It is the only way to hold in check our ever increasing debt. During the year the national debt will exceed $26 billion. The interest charges on that debt of the Canadian government will reach $1,102 million. Who will foot the bill for those interest charges? Small wage earners and middle income employees, to a large extent, will have to deduct this amount from their purchasing power, while they do not have an income related to the inflationary costs of living.
April 9. 1965
It is also disturbing to see such figures and to know that the government will have to deduct such an amount of money from the national budget to enrich private or commercial banks. Instead of that amount being paid in interest, it should be added to the budget of the Department of Public Works, which has to manage with the ridiculous amount of $208 million to meet the capital expenditures of our large country. It is really a distribution in driblets.
As an illustration, let us take the county of Chicoutimi which I have the honour of representing. This year we -would need to spend at least $20 million in public works, because the sea wharves are falling to pieces; we need a bridge to cross the Saguenay river at Chicoutimi; retaining walls and embankments should be built to protect the properties along the Saguenay river; sea relays, post offices, wharves at various places, etc., should also be built. We have enough men, materials and machines to do it, but we lack bank credits, bank money.
Is there anything stranger than being so helpless because our governments lie at the mercy of an out of date financial system which prevents us from taking advantage of the huge wealth accumulated by our ancestors?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
By what means does the government intend to pay back that debt of $26 billion? When shall it be done? The speech from the throne says nothing about that calamity for the Canadian taxpayers.
Where are we going, Mr. Speaker, with that all-devouring usury which ruins our fellow citizens, undermines our economic foundations and is the underlying cause of that inflation which depreciates our money?
I wonder why the Liberals as well as the Conservatives are so afraid of talking about monetary reform, when Chancellor Ludwig Erhard, one of the most prominent statesmen in the world refers to it more than a hundred times in his essays on political economy, namely "Prosperity for everyone" and "A policy of affluence".
When Mr. Erhard came to Canada last June, the Prime Minister himself paid tribute to him, as reported in the July 1964 edition of External Affairs:
The part he played in the stupendous recovery of Germany is well-known and has gained our respect and our admiration.
It is difficult to imagine a higher praise. In addition to the elimination of poverty, the speech from the throne mentions amend-
The Address-Mr. M. Cdte ments to the Bank Act and the Bank of Canada Act.
I hope that this will mean that the issue of bank money or of credit will be nationalized and that the exclusive power of such an issue will be vested in the Bank of Canada alone. However, I think that the commercial banks and caisses populaires should keep the privilege of rediscounting bankable bills to the Bank of Canada at administrative cost, so as to meet industrial and commercial needs.
It is extremely important that this sovereign privilege of the state, that is the issuing of credit, be used for the common weal and not to the advantage of a few greedy people, actuated solely by their own benefit, ambitions and interests.
I also assume that the government does not wish the interest rates of the commercial banks to be increased, since those financial institutions are already reaping enough profits with a simple reserve of 8 per cent. The rate of interest on bank loans must be limited to 5 per cent, in order to stop this pernicious inflation which constantly sops the value of our currency. There should be limits to this devastating usury which, since the seventeenth century has spread throughout the whole world. A simple arithmetical calculation shows that if any new currency must return to the issuer with interest, there will come a day when all free economies will have been devoured by this usury and when the issuers of new credit-in this instance the commercial banks-will be the only holders and the absolute masters of money.
In days gone by, currency and credit were the sole prerogative of the king. The state reigned supreme. The mandate of the federal state is to provide for the welfare of every Canadian citizen. There cannot be two sovereigns at variance with one another: one reigning by natural right, stemming from the God-given power, and whose duty is to provide for the well-being of his subjects;-the other one reigning solely to exploit the Canadian citizens, to his own advantage, and actuated by the passion of his own interests.
Today, in Canada, there is only one real sovereign; it is neither the parliament nor the government, but the commercial banks, entitled every year to issue more than a billion dollars of new credit, whereas these regalities should be the exclusive right of the federal government, through the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if, within the next ten years the Christian democracies do not recover con-



April 9, 1965
The Address-Mr. Beer trol over their monetary system, and it the latter remains based on interest and profit, we will be subdued by the communist powers. This is the serious warning I am giving to the hon. members of this house.
We, in this house, are mostly Christian parliamentarians and we ought to give the world an example of an administration based on justice and equity in which the economic mechanisms operate harmoniously for the well-being of every Canadian.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the house that next September the Canadian section of the Interparliamentary Association will welcome in this Parliament building the delegates of 75 foreign countries who will be coming here to discuss problems of mutual interest. In our age of sociometry, it is easy to understand the interdependence of peoples and the significance of such a world conference.
A very elaborate program has been prepared to welcome those distinguished visitors. It will be a meeting of nations, prior to the marvellous gathering on the Land of Men, the 1987 World Fair in Montreal.
The Interparliamentary Union was formed in 1889 and it is the oldest and most important group of its kind. Since its inception, the two official languages of the Union have been French and English. This is worthy of note, for Canada may be the only country in the world to have both French and English as official languages. By that time, our federal services and indeed our civil servants should faithfully reflect the Canadian constitution. Special efforts and firm measures are essential to the correcting of those deficiencies which we observe practically every day at the various levels of our parliamentary system. I think my English speaking friends would also be fed up, and rightly so, if they came up daily against unilingual French speaking civil servants.
Therefore, we see what leading part our country will be able to play before those honoured guests who will come here to get ideas and means to improve the lot of their own fellow countrymen. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this parliament has such a heavy responsibility during the coming months and until 1967 for building an economic and social structure that will be on a par with men of ability and will arouse the admiration of the world.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I

am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of participating in this debate for two or three reasons. First of all, it provides me with an opportunity to extend my warm congratulations to the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) for their very excellent Addresses in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Then, because I represent one of the very rapidly growing areas in Canada, I thought that probably the 125,000 people who live in my riding might expect me to rise in my place and express some general approval of the very challenging and excellent Speech from the Throne which was caused to be laid before us by His Excellency the Governor General. Also, in these days when so much has been said about Government policies, I thought that probably the people of my riding would expect me to rise and extend general commendation to the Government for some of the policies that have resulted in improved conditions in the County of Peel. * (3:30 p.m.)
The level from which we now view the needs of the Canadian people is very different from the sodden flats into which we dug our heels in 1963. The climb has not been an easy one because there have been those who would tend to obstruct and confuse the measures that were presented by the Government. Even today there are those who would discredit the achievements, not only of the Government but of the Canadian people in opening up new frontiers. My only claim on behalf of the Government is that a new confidence, a new purpose and a new determination, have been established in the minds of our people which have made our recent achievements possible.
The hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) speaking in the House very recently made reference to the 60 days of decision. I do not back up from the reference made to the 60 days of decision. I do not believe there ever was a time in Canadian history when more decisions were needed than when this Government took office in 1963. The decisions are still being taken, and they are wise decisions. Those decisions are paying off for the Canadian people. If we had not taken these decisions in 1963, we would not have the increase in our gross national product of approximately 8 per cent in 1964. If we had talked about transferring trade from the United States to the United Kingdom in
April 9, 1965

1963, we would not have the trade expansion that took place in 1964. We would not have had a total export increase of 19 per cent, such as took place last year.
If the Government, and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), had sat around and thought about the integration of the armed services and the defence program, today we would not have an integrated system that is the envy of the world. The Government did not just rest on its oars in the mistaken idea that Canada was not a manufacturing country. If we had, we would not have a Minister and a Department of Industry which is giving such leadership to the industrial community. We would not have an over-all increase in our manufactured goods of some 8 per cent, and in our export commodities of some 18 per cent. If our Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) had been sensitive to opposition, obstruction and criticism, we would not have the Canada Pension Plan. If the Government had been content with 7 per cent of our people unemployed, we would not have been able to provide 198,000 new jobs last year. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) had been content to say to the producers, if you do not cut down we will cut off your supports, or if he had been satisfied with a decline in essential services that are available to farmers, as was the policy of the former administration-and we all recall the way the former administration undertook to cancel or cut down some of the essential services to farmers in order to have $250,000-


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I ask a question of the hon. Gentleman?


Bruce Silas Beer: -and if we had not had a Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) who was concerned about rural development, we would not now have the concern that is expressed by the Government for the revitalization of the character of the rural communities.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I wonder if the hon. Member for Peel, when he was speaking about decisions and his Department of Agriculture, would consider the removal of the turkey quota a good decision?


Bruce Silas Beer: There will be other opportunities when time is less urgent than it is today to deal with this important question.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You have no reply.


Bruce Silas Beer: I want to deal, for a minute-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.
The Address-Mr. Beer


Mr. Skoreyko:: I should like to ask a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Parliamentary
Secretary wants to allow a question at this time, I should like to remind him that all these questions are on his own time.


William Skoreyko: It is a very important question.


Bruce Silas Beer: I have a great deal of information to present to the House and I know I am going to be crowded for time. If the House wishes to grant special time after for a question period, I will be happy to entertain all the questions hon. Members opposite can offer.


William Skoreyko: Just one short one?


Bruce Silas Beer: Agriculture has undergone a very considerable technological change in the last ten years. We have moved into mechanized farming. This has had a very serious effect on agriculture as it is practised in Canada, because there have been areas which lent themselves to the use of mechanized equipment to a greater extent than some other areas of Canada. These areas were blessed with a tremendous production advantage. At the same time, there were areas in Canada which, because of their lack of adaptability to equipment and machinery, were placed at a tremendous production disadvantage. This brought about a great disparity in the income position of farmers in Canada.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: What about vertical integration?


Bruce Silas Beer: There is no doubt that vertical integration may have played some part in this particular problem that exists. Farmers are not now content to have a declining share of the consumer's dollar. This is one of the problems that has confronted agriculture in recent years. Farmers wish to participate in the affluent society which many of us enjoy to a greater extent than they have in the past.
What are some of the benchmarks that prevailed when this Government took office? Earlier I mentioned the decline or reduction in essential services to farmers. We all, of course, remember the premium on the production of quality hogs which was placed on an on-again-off-again-gone-again-Flanagan basis. Then, I mentioned earlier that farmers were simply told to cut down on their production or the supports would be cut off. No attempt was made to curtail or look after the mounting surplus of butter, which by the

April 9, 1965
The Address-Mr. Beer time this Government took office amounted to 239 million pounds.
This Government believes that the problems confronting agriculture fall into three or four main categories. We believe, first of all, that the use of money has become increasingly important to many of our Canadian farmers. We think that the efficient use of land and machinery is extremely important and that management is one of the key figures in a successful farm operation. Management, which may be regarded as purely or partially educational, would immediately fall into the jurisdiction of the Provinces, because they do look after educational matters. However, the other matter of making money available to establish a viable economic unit is a Federal responsibility, and this has been undertaken. I need only mention two or three of the measures which have been enacted or placed on the statute books by this Government in order to make more money available to farmers.
We recall, of course, that during the last session amendments were introduced to the Farm Credit Corporation Act which doubled or practically doubled the amount of money that was available to farmers, up to $55,000 on a supervised loan. This made available the kind of money farmers needed in order to integrate their operation and make it an economic unit. I know that Members opposite and on this side of the House as well will be interested in knowing the extent to which this measure has been beneficial to farmers, and the extent to which it has been used. At the moment, we have 47,427 loans to farmers in Canada for a total amount of $434,556,153.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Possibly of particular interest is one comparison I would like to present, namely the increase in the number of loans this year as compared with last year, and I shall give this by provinces. In British Columbia last year there were 112 loans, and this year there are 200. In Alberta last year there were 614, and this year there are 982; in Saskatchewan 486 last year, and 799 this year; in Manitoba 125 last year, 220 this year; in Ontario 397 last year, 570 this year; in Quebec 324 last year, 379 this year, and in the Atlantic area 24 last year as compared with 48 this year, a total increase from 2,082 to 3,198. This is an increase of 53 per cent over last year in the use of the money made available.
It goes to indicate that the Government was right in arriving at the decision that making
(Mr. Beer.]
more money available to farmers would enable them to increase the size of their units and make them more economical.
Another comparison which may be of interest to hon. Members is the number of loans approved this year as compared with last year. In 1963-64 there were 8,689 loans approved, while this year 10,142 were approved, a 17 per cent increase; but the more interesting fact is that the size of loans increased by 43 per cent, thus showing that the amendment to the Act, by which more money was made available to farmers, was a step in the right direction.
In addition, the Government amended the Farm Improvement Loans Act, raising the ceiling on loans from $7,500 to $15,000. Farmers can now obtain this amount of loan from their banks, and it will be backed by the country.
I mentioned earlier that the use of machinery was one of the major costs to farmers, and the Government felt something should be done in this particular area. During the last session of Parliament a measure was introduced, known as the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, and I know the House will be interested in a brief report on the extent to which that act is meeting the needs of farmers. During the debate on supplementary estimates a number of questions were asked, and I think this report may answer some of these questions.
It indicates that the number of loans made available to syndicates has been one in B.C., 10 in Alberta, seven in Saskatchewan, one in Manitoba, two in Ontario and one in Quebec. In other words 81 members are participating in 22 syndicates and the total amount of loans involved is $215,404. I believe the House will warmly receive the news that this measure has met with general acceptance across the country and is filling a great need. One application has been received for the maximum amount of $100,000. This syndicate is in Alberta where a number of potato farmers have proposed joining together to buy washing and grading equipment for potatoes in the hope that they may do a better job of marketing the product on their farms.
As has often been indicated by the Minister, another thing which affects farmers materially is the danger of crop loss, and in order to meet this contingency the Government brought in a measure to amend the Crop Insurance Act, whereby the Government of Canada can underwrite Provincial schemes
April 9, 1965
that may be introduced. All these measures have helped meet the needs of the farming community by way of providing capital and protecting farmers against some of their losses.
As the House well knows, improvements which affect farmers are introduced by legislation, some of which I have indicated, by Order in Council, or by administrative means. I have with me a list of all the Orders in Council affecting agriculture, passed by the Government since it took office in 1963, and I would ask the indulgence of the House to have this list included in my speech in Hansard because I believe the information contained in it would be helpful to hon. Members on all sides of the House.


William Skoreyko: Read it.


Bruce Silas Beer: There are 31 items. I would be happy to read them but it would seem to be an unwise use of the time of the House.


William Skoreyko: We don't want it on Hansard.


Bruce Silas Beer: Thank you. I will be happy to read the administrative changes which have taken place in the last year or so.
In April, 1964 we entered into a joint program with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec for the eradication of barberry in order to control cereal rust which has been causing considerable losses to grain crops, particularly oats.
We are establishing a research laboratory in association with Laval University in Quebec, and a horticultural research station at St. Jean, Quebec. We are building a new research laboratory at Harrow to serve better the needs of farmers in Southwestern Ontario.
We are establishing a maximum security quarantine station at Grosse lie, Quebec, for the importation of European livestock which holds promise of improving the efficiency of Canadian livestock production.
We are constructing a vehicle washing station at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, to guard against the possibility of potato wart disease, which could cause serious damage to potato crops, being introduced into the mainland. This has been requested for some time by the Atlantic Provinces.
We have eliminated waiting lists for R.O.P. dairy cattle inspection by providing adequate staff to take care of all applications.
We have provided assistance to the Provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, 22620-131
The Address-Mr. Skoreyko Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec in the movement of fodder to drought areas.
We have sponsored and are contributing financially to new livestock classes at agricultural fairs to stress economic qualities and to improve the efficiency of livestock production.
We have announced a new dairy policy to improve the economic position of dairy farmers, and have given notice of our intention to introduce legislation for the establishment of a Canadian Dairy Commission.
We have made significant improvements in the operations of feed grain assistance, including provision for the payment of winter storage charges on western feed grains in eastern elevators.
We have started ten new community pastures in the West, costing $1.5 million, and nine new large water construction projects at a cost of $1.7 million.
We have provided improved price support for sugar beets at a national average level of $14.35 per ton, and in total the Government has passed 31 Orders in Council, which I mentioned a moment ago.
We have provided an additional $2 million to the World Food Program, and entered into an arrangement with the Program to supply dried eggs. The purchase of eggs for this purpose had a significant effect in strengthening the price of eggs.
We have disposed of the huge butter surplus which had accumulated during the years 1958 to 1962.
We are doubling the capacity of the Canadian Government elevator at Prince Rupert.
These are some of the achievements of the Government in general, and with relation to agriculture in particular. There are certain areas where none of these programs actually apply, and in these areas of low productivity the Government proposes to extend the use of ARDA so that land may be used to better advantage, so that new life may be stimulated or injected into local communities and thus provide better standards of living in those areas.
Mr. Speaker, I notice my time has just expired, and I am grateful for the kind attention of the House.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. The last time I spoke in a similar debate was back in 1958, and I must admit

192	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Skoreyko that this was indeed a long time ago. At the outset of my remarks I want to congratulate the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) on the manner in which they discharged their responsibilities to this House as Mover and Seconder of the Speech from the Throne. As young Members,
I congratulate them, and I am sure their constituents will be proud of the responsibility they have shown.
Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I wish to say that rather than being critical for the sake of being critical, I want to offer some constructive criticism to which I hope the Government will pay some attention and will heed. I cannot help, of course, but refer for a moment to the speech made by the hon. Member for Peel (Mr. Beer). It has been a long time since I have listened to a dissertation so politically biased as the one completed just a moment ago. I dare say that even his constituents know that the hon. Member for Peel is not capable of writing such a document, and I might ask him where he got his information from.


Bruce Silas Beer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. Member to know that I was using all my own material, except the figures which I quoted. I composed my own address.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. Member who has the floor knows that it is against the rules or procedure of this House to suggest that another hon. Member did not originate the speech he made in the House.


William Skoreyko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not mean to transgress any rule; I was just making an observation. The reason I made it, of course, was that when the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) rose and asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who should be able to come up with the answers immediately, "Does the hon. Member believe that it was a good idea to remove the quota on turkeys?", he said, "There will be another opportunity to answer these questions". This is what we have heard since this Government took office: There will be an opportunity at a later date.
I became involved in a debate last Friday over the very same thing. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) stood on his feet and said that we should not be talking about the estimates of the Department of Labour, when we were in fact dealing with

DEBATES	April 9, 1965
that very Department at the time, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) said there would be ample opportunity subsequently to answer these questions. Then I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture whether he thought that the legislation which removed the capital grants from fairs was good legislation, and whether he thought the 11 per cent sales tax was good legislation. I believe that if he wanted to be honest with the House he would rise in his place and say, "No, it was not good legislation; but I was not responsible for it".
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the many items in the Speech from the Throne, and I hope to review later the proposed legislation item by item, if time permits. But I want to offer something constructive to the Government. I suppose that because I have a number of items with which I wish to deal this afternoon, the first thing I should start with is the question of amnesty in so far as the Chinese in Canada are concerned. I have before me a clipping from the Montreal Gazette which states, in part, that when the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the hon. Member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) was asked whether the amnesty covered all the cases in which the Chinese might be involved, he said that illegal passport cases were not covered, and being smuggled into the country was not covered.
I agree that in a good many cases people who were smuggled into Canada or entered this country illegally should not be covered by the amnesty; but I think it is entirely wrong to search out Chinese who have lived in Canada for eight or ten years after entering this country on an illegal passport. In many cases these people who entered Canada were not even aware of the seriousness of this infraction of the law. However, these people have lived in this country for eight or ten years, we are now searching them out and they are still under the impression that they will be prosecuted. I suggest to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson) that the proper action for him to take would be to search out those culprits who issued or were responsible for the issuance of the fake passports in the first instance. The Minister should immediately issue a press release clarifying the Government's position in respect of this matter and let those people- there are undoubtedly hundreds of them- still remaining in Canada, who are afraid of
April 9. 1965

the consequences, come forward and make a declaration so that they may become honest, law-abiding citizens of Canada.
I have here a clipping from the Calgary Albertan of September, 1964, which is very interesting. This was written shortly after the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration advised the House that the deadline, in so far as he was concerned, for amnesty would be September 1. I say it is a fortunate thing for those Chinese who have since sworn declarations as to their true identity that the House of Commons was in session at that time, otherwise the amnesty may have been cancelled.
Mr. Speaker, I say that there are inadequacies within this amnesty program of ours. For instance, as I pointed out a moment ago, the people who came into the country on illegal passports are not covered by it. The article in the Calgary Albertan says:
L. C. Hawkins, regional immigration director, says about 1,100 illegal immigrants have come forward to claim amnesty since the program was started.
He estimates another 2,000 remain in hiding. Some 500 are the forged-passport cases.
Ingrown fear of police action, prosecution and deportation keeps some from coming forward, he believes.
"This, coupled with the fact that the amnestry does not cover the illegal passport cases, is a real problem", he said.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I have heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in recent days-as a matter of fact, today-make it clear to the House, or at least I understood it to be a clear statement, that the Chinese people in the country who have not as yet made a declaration have nothing to fear, excepting those persons who could be charged with smuggling or offences in connection with narcotics. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in most cases the Chinese who are in this country today by reason of having entered on illegal passports do not realize the seriousness of the offence. The Minister should make a statement forthwith to the press which would enable these people to come forward and clear their names. In a statement which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of August 14, released under an Ottawa dateline, the former Minister of Immigration is reported to have said:
Henceforth from September 1, 1964, the R.C.M.P. and immigration officers are being instructed to apply the law to Chinese in exactly the same way as to other residents of Canada.
He also said-and this puzzles me somewhat-that he was having some difficulty about recent cases where people had been smuggled into Canada. I say there should be no problem at all in this respect. As I
The Address-Mr. Skoreyko understand it, the amnesty covered those Chinese who entered this country prior to the amnesty program. Anyone who entered this country after that time was fully aware of the law and of the consequences of breaking the law. As I say, I hope the Minister will consider a press release defining clearly, once and for all, the limitations and the extent of the amnesty program.
I notice with interest that the Speech from the Throne contains another promise that the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act will be revised. I wonder when these revisions will take place. I want to quote from page 24 of the report or memorandum submitted to the Government on March 10, 1965 by the Canadian Labour Congress. Maybe I do not agree with everything the Canadian Labour Congress enunciates but I certainly do in this case. They say:
We have consistently criticized the Immigration Act and the administrative procedures under it. We have done so for many years and find a growing number in Canada who share our concern over the legislation and the way in which it is administered. As we have said before, we consider the Immigration Act clearly discriminatory in tone in so far as the selection of immigrants is concerned. Past practice has made this all too clear. The greatest preference has been given to immigrants from the countries of Northwestern Europe. Different criteria seem to be employed with regard to prospective immigrants from other parts of Europe and elsewhere. Although the regulations have been amended in a way which would seem to mitigate the effect of the provisions of the Act, we are not altogether satisfied that this is so. It is still possible for immigration officers to select immigrants not on the basis of the contribution they can make to the life of the country, but on the basis of their pigmentation or some such reason.
I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations which are contained further on in this memorandum. Though I will not take the time of the house by putting them all on record I advise the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to peruse this particular document carefully.
It may be suggested that the Canadian Labour Congress has not made a thorough study of the Immigration Act and does not therefore fully understand the subject with which it is dealing. For my part I have made an extensive study of the act and of the regulations since I arrived here in 1958. The former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Mrs. Ellen Fairclough, who is unfortunately no longer a Member of this House, did somewhat broaden the regulations affecting admission to Canada. Notwithstanding these efforts, discrimination has not been com-
April 9, 1965

The Address-Mr. Skoreyko pletely eliminated from the regulations. Somehow, in some way, it persists. Although the old section 20 of the Act, with its paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), are supposedly no longer in existence, it is still being applied by immigration officials. I thought the new regulations of January 19, 1962 constituted a wonderful improvement. Part I dealt with admissions and part II with the jurisdiction of the appeal board. The hon. Lady said at that time:
The most important provision of the new regulations is section 31 which is in fact the core of Canada's immigration policy. The new regulation 31, replacing section 20 of the former regulations, lays primary stress on education, training and skills as the main condition of admissibility, regardless of the country of origin of the applicant.
I have just said, and I say it again, that although section 20 is no longer in existence it is still being applied.
One of the things I do not understand about the Immigration Act is why I can sponsor relatives, no matter what their qualifications may be, from countries such as Great Britain and the United States while I cannot sponsor them from countries in Asia and certain parts of Europe. I realize there are difficulties surrounding migration facilities in Europe. On the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration I asked the Minister whether he would consider staffing our embassies, in countries which do not allow us immigration facilities, with competent people from the Department of Immigration who could assist our embassy staffs in processing applications approval of which would unify families in Canada. I have not yet had any response to this suggestion but I hope the Minister has it under consideration and that it will be mentioned in the white paper which the hon. Gentleman said he will be introducing before long.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The requirements under section 31 are simply these, as I understand them: first, an immigrant has either a profession or a trade; second, he has either sufficient financial capital to establish himself in Canada or he has relatives in Canada willing to guarantee his maintenance. In so far as I am concerned those are the two things which can be taken to be the criteria of acceptance and admission into Canada. Although these criteria apply to many other countries, they do not apply to several countries, and I take exception to the continued use of this old section 20. I should like to know why the Immigration Department has the right to

deny individuals of Asiatic origin or with skins of different colour the right to apply for and obtain permission to bring relatives to Canada under the existing regulations.
I hope the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson) will change his attitude and do some of the things we have asked him to do in order that this situation can be changed. I suggest that he should look at these regulations in a broad sense and realize the many hardships which are being imposed on people of many ethnic origins in Canada. These people originally were quite happy with the immigration laws as they exist, but many have found after visiting immigration offices in different towns and cities that certain of their relatives cannot qualify for entry into Canada.
I should like to ask one question for the purposes of clarification, Mr. Speaker; but before doing so, in order to give a clear picture of the situation to which I refer, I should like to quote from page 12324 of Hansard where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Badanai) quoted from a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) at a press conference on December 31 of last year. This quotation reads as follows:
I have asked the minister to prepare a white paper on immigration policy, immigration administration and immigration procedures, telling what has been done and what is in process, and to have that available if at all possible-and it is possible, I think-by the beginning of the next session of Parliament.
This is that next session of Parliament referred to by the Prime Minister, and even if the white paper was tabled this afternoon, so far as I am concerned, it would not only be days overdue, but years overdue. I do not criticize only this administration in this regard, but all administrations for not having taken action to eliminate the discriminatory sections of the Immigration Act. I should like to know now when this white paper which was promised is to be brought forward.
I have dealt with these promised changes because of the many statements which have been made in the Press regarding this unfortunate state of affairs. I should like to quote the headline of an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on September 24, 1963, which is: "Favreau Promises Change in Chinese Immigration". I need not remind the House of the fact that there has not been any change made in respect of Chinese immigration.
I should like to quote also from an article which appeared in the June 25, 1964, edition
April 9, 1965

of the Toronto Globe and Mail under the heading "Chinese Offer Tremblay Food for Thought". According to this article Mr. Tremblay said there would be a general overhaul of immigration policy. The article states:
He hinted also at a coming general overhaul of immigration policy and announced that he will go on a tour of Canadian immigration offices in other countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Greece.
"I shall go on the journey at the recess of Parliament-if we have a recess," he told a reporter.
We did not have a recess so I assume he did not make that trip.
The article then states:
Improvements in immigration procedures that were made as a result cut down the waiting period for sponsored relatives from nine months to three, Mr. Tremblay said.
I remember that not many years ago there was a list of some 250,000 people in Italy who wished admission to Canada. That was indeed a long list. Those individuals have conducted themselves in a manner that is acceptable to the Canadian way of life and we should do something that will assist in expediting the processing of these applications.
The Minister also dealt with changes in the Hong Kong immigration office. He suggested that they were going to expand the facilities there in order to take care of the backlog of applications from that area of China for entry to Canada. On January 18, 1965, only a short time ago, a headline appeared in the Montreal Gazette which read, "Canada Establishes Long Term Policy for Immigration". I suggest that all hon. Members should read the article under that headline. I read it and experienced some anticipation in respect of new policy on the part of the Department of Immigration. The article in part stated:
The reorganization of the department also includes steps to:
Make immigration posts abroad more effective.
Improve the pay of immigration officers abroad.
Give officers at home and abroad more responsibility to make decisions on their own initiative, a step to speed the handling of immigration applications.
Improve the morale of Immigration Department employees by giving them the prestige accorded career diplomats.
I might say that this whole article dealt with the reorganization of the Immigration Department policy, and these are the changes which were announced. I suggest it is not enough to make changes of this kind while at the same time leaving the impression with the public that new immigration policy is being established. These four recommended changes relate only to internal matters and

The Address-Mr. Bechard have nothing to do with the processing of immigration applications.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is straight propaganda.


William Skoreyko: Someone suggested that this was straight propaganda, and I must say that I agree.
In concluding my remarks in respect of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration let me say that I hope the promised white paper will be produced soon and will contain revisions similar to those recommended.
At this time I want to make one or two comments regarding the work of the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission which has done nothing more than conduct uncertain studies across this great country of ours. I use the term "uncertain" because up to this time that Commission has confined its studies to how English and French speaking Canadians fit into the Canadian way of life.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
No one seems to be particularly concerned about the other one third of the population of this country comprising the other ethnic groups. I am not going to dwell on the B and B Commission at any length, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that any massive concession by any government to any minority group in Canada would just be the beginning of many problems. I say this only because there are some one million Germans in this country, some 750,000 people of my national origin, some 450,000 to 500,000 Italians, and so on down the line. I do not think that you can build a united Canada by recognizing one or two races as the only races in this country. They must all be recognized as they have been in the past. I simply say that it will be very interesting to see the final report of this Commission, because I think it has done nothing more than to sow the seed of uncertainty in this country, which we could have very well done without.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. Member, but the time allowed to him has expired.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my observations, I should like to congratulate very sincerely my colleagues from St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) for the ability, the mastery and the dignity with which they have performed the important duty that was bestowed upon them. By means of carefully prepared
April 9. 1965

The Address-Mr. Bechard
speeches, they have proven that maturity and youthfulness are not inconsistent with one another nowadays, and those who trusted these two young Canadian citizens should be proud of having brought into the limelight of Canadian politics two of their best brains, who are typical of the vigorous defenders Canada needs so much in the troubled times it is going through.
In order to bring back to earth the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who in a recent speech chastised the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, displaying the Quadragesimo Anno encyclical letter of Pope Pius XI, I would like to remind him that since Rerum Novarum and that encyclical letter and Pius XI, there was another document entitled Mater et Magistra which was written by someone who is not behind times like the hon. member, but by a very dignified pope called John XXIII.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member?


Albert Béchard: When I have completed my remarks.


Gérard Laprise: You may as well wait.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, since I have not sufficient time at my disposal to sum up Mater et Magistra, I would suggest that the hon. member read the chapter which deals with socialization.
It is comforting to find that no aspect of the social and economic life of this country has been neglected and that nobody seems to have been forgotten in the speech from the throne submitted to our examination.
The government's desire to keep on following the course it set itself is clearly reflected in this legislative program, which shows us to what extent the government is conscious of the needs and fondest aspirations of the Canadian people and how it can take into account, in its legislation, the problems facing us now.
Thus, we find the government quite intent on waging war on poverty, through programs and policies designed to provide every Canadian, no matter which area and province he comes from, with a decent income. I refer to grants to workers forced to move to new jobs, to the training of workers for industry, etc.
As regards administrative reforms, there are proposals to overhaul the Bankruptcy Act, the Bank Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Citizenship and Immigration Act.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the third phase of the program worked out only two years ago yesterday by the party to which I have the honour to belong and which was ratified by the Canadian people. Already, after only two years of administration-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yesterday.


Albert Béchard: -in spite of the numerous difficulties peculiar to any minority government, in spite of the obstruction and sometimes the filibustering by a large section of the opposition, the Canadian people appreciate today the tremendous job accomplished under those circumstances by the government which has enacted through legislation more than half of its program.
One only has to read the comments of many newspapers of the last week end to find out.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote an editorial from the newspaper he Droit of April 3, 1965. It is entitled "End of a session", under the signature of Marcel Gingras:
In spite of filibustering which marked its proceedings, the session now coming to an end was much more fruitful than would seem at first glance. There is no intention to give a list here of the 95 pieces of legislation passed since February 18, 1964, but we cannot ignore some facts as important as the adoption of the flag, the adoption of a national pension plan, the enactment of the labour code, the agreement on the opting out formula concerning shared cost programs or the integration of the armed forces.
Mr. Speaker, representing as I do a district which has greatly suffered in the past from its remoteness from the great centres on which our governments focused all their attention-I might add that it also suffered from the indifference of our various administrations and the inertia of some of our representatives-I can only welcome the fine program outlined in the speech from the throne to improve the standard of living of underprivileged Canadians. The Gaspe area, I do not hesitate to say it here, really became economically active only when a dynamic and progressive government took office in Quebec in 1960. That government restored its true meaning to the autonomy behind which its predecessor had hidden for 16 long years, thus depriving the people of the province and those of the Gaspe area in particular, of major sources of capital which were indispensable to the economic recovery of those underprivileged and depressed areas and
April 9. 1965

The Address-Mr. Bechard
which the federal government was offering under various programs.
The numerous efforts of this federal government since 1963 to restore the economy of areas like mine, by enticing industries to settle there, have given a shot in the arm to the Canadian economy and some hope to the people. To mention only one, that of designated areas, I can say that this policy has been a determining factor of the establishment in New Richmond, in my riding, by the Bathurst Power and Paper Company, at a cost of almost $50 million, of a wood processing factory which will be in operation in August 1965. The construction itself, since last April, has been giving work to about 900 people. When it is in operation, this industry will provide steady and well paid jobs to almost 1,000 Gaspe people and to several Canadian experts, not to mention the many opportunities which the increase in the population of this town will bring to businessmen, farmers, workmen and professionals in my area.
At the same time the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), in co-operation with the said company, is also making, at a cost of almost $1 million, very important improvements in port facilities which will assist the shipping of the products of this new factory to the domestic and exportation markets. Without the strong measures initiated by this government, jointly with the equally strong efforts of the Quebec government and of the Bathurst Power and Paper Company, the latter would not have made such a decision and our area would still be waiting impatiently to take its place under the sun.
It is encouraging to see that the speech from the throne mentions the intention of the government to extend to other areas of the country this policy of special conditions to designated areas. To do that, he should alter the criteria on which this measure was based, criteria which I criticized in a constructive way at that time.
I believe that the data obtained from the unemployment insurance offices, though quite valuable for the government in the assessment of underdeveloped areas, do not do justice to those areas in our country where there is practically no industry. Though far from large centres, the Gaspe peninsula, for instance, and the county of Bonaventure especially, offer many facilities and opportunities which should attract industries: their proximity to the sea, inexpensive means of transportation and available manpower which 22620-14
will be soon skilled and ready to work. These factors, combined with an urgent need for industry and a high rate of unemployment, should be taken into consideration by the experts during the review of designated areas.
Canadian unity, which English speaking as well as French speaking extremists contribute, knowingly or unknowingly, to weaken, the first by their rigid and vexatious attitude, who persist in not recognizing the equality between the two founding races of our nation, in denying French Canadians the right to work in their mother tongue; the second by their unbending attitude, who see no possible solution and who refuse all dialogue, has never been the object of all the consideration it has received under the present administration. No prime minister and no political party in the country has ever been so dedicated to the cause of unity between our two peoples, as have been the present Prime Minister and the Liberal party.
Positive and efficient steps have been taken to that end and we are already noting a greater understanding of French Canadians by English Canadians. The Prime Minister and his government were criticized for setting up the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, but I feel that this action taken by the government, due to the initiative of the Prime Minister, will prove its efficiency and its validity to those prophets of doom. I should like to quote the words spoken by Mr. Maurice Egan, an Ottawa alderman, last Monday night at a city council meeting, as reported in Le Droit of April 6:
All men are prejudiced in some way and we are no exception to this rule. The matter now under consideration is very serious. As a matter of fact, our country is going through the most serious crisis in its history.
I do not believe that the commission divided our country. This is the first time that we, English Canadians, are forced to engage in soul searching. And we are already beginning to understand.
And later on, Mr. Egan goes on to say:
French Canadians have rights which were granted to them by the constitution. Let the commission do its work. I am proud to be a member of this council and I would not like it to be divided on such an important issue. The commission is seeking solutions to a major problem. We, English speaking Canadians, hold that solution. Let us not forget it.
Being very anxious to help unite our two main peoples, the present government had parliament adopt a distinctive national flag, a symbol that was asked for so long and under which all Canadians can rally proudly and proclaim themselves, from sea to sea,
April 9, 1965

farm. But, to expand, the farmer must have the money required.
True, the government has taken certain steps to make it easier for farmers to get loans, but that is not enough. A real farm policy is needed, and I am glad to find that, in co-operation with the provinces, such a policy is being developed. It would be easy to deal temporarily with the situation by continuing the stopgap policies that have been used for so long. That is why, even if farmers are getting impatient-and justifiably so-I think it is to their own advantage and that of agriculture in general that a real and responsible farm policy be established in Canada. I am convinced that the work now being done by ARDA will bring the solution that the farm people have been awaiting for so long.
In this case again, many will have to give up their old habits and ways but the expected result for the future of our agriculture is worth while.
When we realize that 75 per cent of our Quebec farmers are responsible in fact for 25 per cent of the total production, when 25 per cent of the rural labour force is, alone, responsible for 75 per cent of the total production, we may wonder whether our eastern agriculture, in Quebec in particular, plays its intended role in our economy.
Our forest industry which is the most important industry in my riding is, I believe, faring quite well. Some producers might play a more efficient part if they could take advantage of access roads to the forest which are a basic requirement for a rational and economic operation.
Incentives will have to be found if we want not only to preserve but to develop the tourist industry, one of the main sources of income in the Gasp6 area. Nothing is more marvellous and more refreshing for Canadian and foreign tourists than to make what is called the tour of the Gaspe peninsula. That is why that magnificent district should be made more readily accessible to tourists.
I am thinking, for instance, of the establishment of a regular air route to Gaspe. Besides tourists, the planes could transport the mail so that news would not be outdated when it reaches us. As I pointed out very often here to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), that would require the improvement of existing private landing strips by the government. I will confine myself to my riding of Bonaventure and mention those of Carleton and Bonaventure. Apart from the new standards announced recently and the 22620-14i
The Address-Mr. Bechard substantial increase of federal aid toward the establishment of small airports, the burden which our small municipalities and public bodies will still have to bear is too heavy, and they cannot afford it. This is a vital, very important and urgent matter for my riding, the Gaspe peninsula and the county of Bonaventure.
Therefore, I ask that the government pay all costs of establishing and administering airports in that district of the Gaspd peninsula. In my opinion, only the government can afford such expenditures. That would be an appropriate way of assisting the development of isolated and economically underprivileged districts which, furthermore, are totally deprived of air transport.
In view of the time at my disposal, I must omit a number of important points, but I should like, however, to stress the importance of developing the seaport of Gascon. This parish has the greatest number of fishermen in the county and little or no other sources of income. Therefore, I hope that the special conditions granted to designated areas will apply in this case and enable those fine people to establish a fish processing plant so as to process locally and to their profit the fish they wrest at the cost of hard work from the sea.
Our municipalities and seaside residents suffer also from the policy of the Department of Public Works with regard to erosion damage caused to private properties by the sea. Private individuals and municipalities are financially unable to build those costly retaining walls which have become necessary. Such an emergency should prompt the government to revise its present vexatious policy.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make in this debate, Mr. Speaker. The Speech from the Throne is for hon. members a program in which they could find something to keep them busy during the whole session, if they really want to work for our country's social and economic development. Some are afraid of it because of its length and the many bills it proposes, but if each of us forgets himself and thinks first and foremost about the people he represents, he will first tackle the job of amending our obsolete rules to expedite the passing of measures that the people of Canada are awaiting impatiently.
To conclude, I will say just a few words to remove any fear which can be found in
200	COMMONS DEBATES	April 9, 1965
The Address-Mr, Stenson
the minds of our friends from the Social Credit party-r


Mr. Chretien:: Of the Ralliement Creditiste.


Albert Béchard: Yes, Social Credit. I should like to tell them the Liberal government that has been the originator of and has given all the social security measures the Canadian people are enjoying today will in due course increase family allowances. That is what they advocate in their subamendment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on the Throne Speech and I would be remiss if, at the start, I did not congratulate the Mover and the Seconder of the Address in Reply on the fine job they did last Tuesday.
The Throne Speech did not make mention of any proposed attempt to increase our export trade and we in this Party are very concerned about our imbalance of trade with the United States. I believe we should examine the reasons why we are not securing more of the United States market, and in this connection I would like to put the figures for the last eight years on record.
In 1956, under the then Liberal government, our imbalance of trade with the United States was $1,167 million. This was reduced in 1957, the first year the Conservative government came into power, to $996 million. By 1958 we had reduced this another $400 million, to $564 million, or by $550 million since the last year of Liberal government. In 1959 it was further cut to $527 million and in 1962, the last year the Conservatives were in power, it was $544 million.
The projected figure for 1964 is close to $728 million, representing an increase of over $200 million during the short time since the Liberals returned to power, and present policies indicate they are driving for a figure of over $1 billion to be soon achieved in our trade imbalance with the United States.
Canada is losing ground in trade. The Canadian economic report has stated Canada's share of world trade is declining. The bulk of our exports is still resource material, although the big boom in world trade has been in manufactured goods. The lion's share of Canada's exports is still going to the United States and Britain, but everywhere Canada is losing ground to other countries and other exporters. These disquieting facts emerge from the Economic Council of Canada. Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council
[Mr. Bechard.1
stated that the aim for better economic products is to win better access to foreign markets for Canadian manufactured products and highly-processed raw materials, instead of concentrating, as in the past, on tariff breaks for raw materials. Elsewhere in the report the Council noted that manufacturing will have to supply most of those 1,500,000 jobs needed in Canada between 1964 and 1970. They also pointed out that future Canadian prices and costs must be kept in line with any given exchange rate and with world prices and costs for goods entering into the international trade. What has the Liberal Government done about this?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The Council also said the private institutional psychological barriers to higher exports of manufactured goods must be reduced. Steps recommended in this direction are broader development within Canadian industry of modern and aggressive marketing techniques; adequate, competitive, export financing facilities; removal of arbitrary restraints, where they exist, on the competitive export capabilities of foreign-controlled firms; vigorous trade promotion for industrial goods. It is a known fact that world markets for manufactured goods are increasing, and we must share in these markets if we are to maintain existing standards of living and to provide employment that will be needed in future years. Every effort should be directed to the expansion of secondary manufacturing.
I	have asked questions regarding the 11 per cent sales tax of the Finance Minister (Mr. Gordon), the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) and in every case the Ministers' replies are very vague, sometimes pointing out that exports are increasing or that economy is good; but they are afraid to face up to the issues. They will not admit that this tax is hurting our Canadian exports. These figures that I have given today show that the imbalance of trade with the U.S. is going to be over $700 million this year. While the Conservative Party when it was in power cut this drastically, this Liberal Government is letting it slip right back to where it was- over $1 billion in 1956. The point is that these increased costs on building materials, on processing machines, on industrial machinery, must be borne by the Canadian citizen. The loss of export business, the loss of Canadian jobs, the high cost of Canadian goods and higher operational costs mean high finished goods selling prices. High finished goods
April 9, 1965

prices mean limited sales, and limited sales naturally impose limits on production not only for food processors but for all those industries serving this country.
This environment limits the Canadian labour force and the amount of money this force can pay to the Government in the form of income tax. Certainly the high cost of production curtails drastically the number of foreign markets. As a matter of fact, the primary reason a great percentage of our total exports have been on the increase is that we receive preferential treatment from our best customer, the Commonwealth. Collectively the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries account for our exports being as healthy as they are. Canada has been warned about the imbalance of trade which they have with the United Kingdom. Harold Wilson has warned countries that they are going to be very firm regarding imports.
In the January issue of the Canadian Food magazine they had this to say: "Is the Canadian politician against us? Canadian and U.S. tariff comparisons are not fair. The 11 per cent sales tax legislates against competitive, domestic and export pricing". They also stated that a probe should be conducted on assistance by foreign Governments on export pricing. They pointed out that Canadian industry should be watching very carefully the negotiations that will be going on at GATT this year. This is where general agreements on trade policies will be set up for the future. The late President Kennedy recommended a cross-the-border cut on all present tariff structures.
I feel our Canadian export delegation at GATT should be very careful with these tariff reductions until this Government sees fit to reduce taxes that are hurting our export trade. We must also consider the standard of living in this country as compared to other countries that we will be asked to trade with; and we must in addition consider our climate conditions in Canada, which is a factor in our costs of production.
However, as if these natural factors were not enough to retard the efficiency of Canada's food processors in both domestic and foreign markets, the present Government has further compounded the problem through the additional burden of an 11 per cent tax on new building and machinery. What this artificial burden does to our building and equipping costs is quite staggering. Some examples cited in their brief are as follows: A food processing machine in the U.S. costs about
The Address-Mr. Stenson $12,000; the same machine in Canada costs over $16,000. A labelling machine costing $59,000 in the U.S. costs the Canadian user $75,000. A case packer going for $11,730 in the U.S., in Canada calls for an investment of $15,000; and a case unloader going in the U.S. for $8,000 goes for $11,295 in Canada.
On everything the Canadian processor touches, from agricultural products through to packaging, from new machinery to building bricks, he is faced with much heavier costs than his U.S. counterpart. Yet he is expected to sell efficiently against his U.S. opposite in foreign markets, and also defend his domestic position-all in spite of the present obvious tariff imbalance.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from an article that appeared in the Peterborough Examiner regarding the Fisher Gauge Company. You have heard of this in the House before; it is the company that has gone to the United States because of the 11 per cent sales tax. This article says:
New York state governor Nelson Rockefeller is scheduled to tour the Watertown operations April 1.
The Fisher brothers, Chester and company president William, still seem somewhat awed by the rapid growth and potential of their operation.
"We are now working on developmental projects with several major U.S. manufacturers," Chester said, "and if our ideas are accepted it may mean substantial growth in the near future.
The potentialities are staggering."
But both men are disgusted and discouraged by the Dominion governments' attitude toward Canadian manufacturers.
William Fisher said the Dominion government gives special consideration to the raw materials industries (mining, pulp and paper) but is persecuting the manufacturers whose employment is much greater.
The climate for manufacturers is good in Europe, even better in the U.S. and Fisher expects business soon from Australia.
But Canadian government policies, Mr. Fisher stated, are driving manufacturers from this country.
"While our growth is most encouraging," William Fisher said, "it is certainly not nearly as rapid as woul dbe possible if the climate for industrial growth was more favorable."
The 11 per cent tax on production machinery led to the founding of the Fisher plant in Watertown last year and the tax is still a big headache for the company.
The complexity, the red tape, the import duties and the duplication of taxes between both senior governments has necessitated increased office staff and hours of work for senior company officials.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In New York State, Mr. Fisher explained there is no sales tax on industrial equipment.
Here, he said, there is tax on purchase and tax on harbour, both governed by a complex set of rules.
Chester Fisher said the growth of the Watertown operation was unexpected, partly because
April 9. 1965

The Address-Mr. Stenson
Americans would rather buy products made in their own country than those imported.
Sometimes we wonder whether this Government would like to see everything imported for our use.
We have heard from several hon. Members with regard to the car parts industry. I, too, feel I should bring to the attention of the government the fact that all across Canada people are becoming alarmed about the trade agreement which has been set up. I refer particularly to the car industry agreement. What effect will these agreements have on our car parts industry? The Minister has told the manufacturers that they must cut their costs. It is a known fact that this agreement was reached down on President Johnson's ranch. I think this is a very queer place to be signing an agreement which will affect many of our workers in Canada, especially those engaged directly in the car parts industry.
Canadian-owned industry will suffer. This is one industry we should be trying to promote and help at the present time. Other manufacturers affected are those who are trying to operate in this country with United States capital. Canadian industries have been told to cut their costs or they will be deprived of this business. This is what the minister told us in this House. How can these industries cut their costs when every time this Government turns around it raises taxes?
I would like to ask the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) why he has tied the Canadian Government to this free trade policy when the United States government has not given approval to the plan. I know the Minister is aware of the statements which have been made on this subject and the attacks which many of the auto parts makers have levelled at this Government with respect to its trade policy. A firm in Ingersoll has made a statement through its president that the plan signed on January 16 by the Prime Minister and President Johnson means his company will have to pull out of the auto parts manufacturing business if the agreement is not revised. A questionnaire mailed to members of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association of Canada indicated that most of them are unhappy about the provisions of this scheme. Evidence has been placed before the minister that manufacturers of auto parts are being denied the privilege of bidding on business transacted with the Chrysler plant in Windsor.


The Minister has stated in this House that manufacturers of car parts must become more efficient. However, as one auto parts manufacturer pointed out to him, if one is not given a chance to participate in this large United States market, how is one to become more efficient? Every car parts manufacturer in Canada is worried about this trade agreement the government has made. The manufacturers feel the Canadian Government must give serious attention to the situation in which this industry finds itself, and reconsider this trade agreement.
Under the automobile plan set up by this government, $50 million of Canadian taxes or money which would normally have gone to the Department of National Revenue will be given to the large car manufacturers as a subsidy. The Minister of Industry has not seen fit to make any attempt to help our car parts manufacturers, with the result that many will be forced out of business. That will be the result of this agreement, the result of this policy adopted by the Liberal Government. Instead of decentralizing large industries, hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have a policy of centralizing them.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal I have outlined the fears of industry and labour in connection with our export markets and I would urge this Government to seriously consider the removal of these detrimental roadblocks.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo South):: should like to pay my compliments to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) on her lovely speech the other day. We have a community of interest, since we were elected at the same time and I was very pleased to hear her excellent speech. She graciously acknowledged that the image of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) played a leading role in her election. For my part I should like to point out that the image in Canada of the hon. Member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) played a leading role in mine.
We in the New Democratic Party take some satisfaction in the Speech from the Throne, in the sense that after so many years of prodding from this side of the house the Liberal party has finally taken the first hesitant steps toward a program of manpower utilization.
The manpower policies set out in the Speech from the Throne are not, as has been said, a challenge to the bold; rather, they are little more than a sop to the timid.
April 9, 1965	COMMONS
The Government could have opened a new chapter in Canadian history, it could have provided the solid confidence needed to usher in the scientific age of automation and cybernetics. Instead it has given us warmed-over old hat. The Government could have given this country confidence for the future by the use of a simple clearcut statement in the Speech from the Throne such as: This Government commits itself to the proposition that policies will be designated to guarantee full employment in Canada. There can be no real gain in the economy of the nation until a Government dedicates itself to this basic fundamental proposition.
The greatest concern of Canadians today is the fear of unemployment and the related problem of economic growth. Until this fear is allayed, economic development will lag. Until Government makes a commitment to full employment, the economy will fluctuate from uncertainty to uncertainty. The Government had this opportunity. They either did not recognize it, or they muffed it. Canadians had been waiting for a clarion call, but got instead sour notes.
There probably was a time when government could say that such an objective as full employment was impossible. They do not dare say that today, because we know better. We know, and there are people at the disposal of the nation who know, that these objectives are obtainable, if only the proper course of action is taken. It needs only a determination on the part of Government to make full employment a policy. The people of Canada would do the rest.
This commitment would not have cost the Government a cent; yet such a commitment to the people of Canada would have been of the greatest psychological effect. Confidence in the future would spur spending on both consumer and capital goods. We hoped for this clarion call but got the Speech from the Throne instead.
Much has been said and written about the progress made in Canada's manpower programs during the last few years, especially since the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act came into effect in 1961. At first observation, one is likely to be impressed by the number of new training schools built, the students accommodated, the placements of workers, etc. But we have been impressed, not because it has been done well, but because anything has been done at all.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
There seem to be two schools of thought about the nature and causes of Canadian un-
DEBATES	203
The Address-Mr. Saltsman employment. Most economists tend to blame inadequate demand, particularly inadequate consumer demand. When purchasing power and willingness to buy is not keeping pace with our country's capacity to produce goods and services, cut-backs develop in production, workers are laid off. These further reduce demand. They are followed by more cut-backs and lay-offs, not only in the consumer goods industries but also in those producing heavy machinery and equipment. So came high unemployment and sluggish economic growth. The gap between our ability to produce goods and services and the ability of people to buy those goods and services is reflected in unemployment. The solutions proposed are designed to raise and maintain aggregate demand. They may range all the way from modest proposals regarding the interest rate, to a whole constellation of programs including large scale Government expenditure on social capital, lower taxes for middle and low income groups, and greatly expanded social security programs. These are solutions that we propose, but not the solutions that are seen in the Speech from the Throne.
The second school of thought senses that unemployment takes the form, not of an absolute gap between the supply of and demand for labour, but rather, a mismatching between the labour demanded and the labour supplied. They feel that there are enough jobs to go around but not enough Canadian workers possessing the necessary skills, or in the right places, to fill all these jobs. Thus, job vacancies on a large scale may co-exist with unemployment on a large scale. This mismatching or imbalance in the labour market is produced by structural changes in our economy, due mainly to rapid technological change and to new trade and tariff policies. Technological change, it is said, creates new jobs while destroying old ones, but the new jobs require a higher level of education and technical know-how. Both technological change and new tariff policies may cause the location of job opportunities to change by producing a rise in new industries and a decline in old ones, or by encouraging greater concentration of production facilities.
The New Democratic Party feels that the fundamental cause of Canadian unemployment has been due mainly to inadequate demand. In the past we have proposed a wide range of policies designed to build up purchasing power and to keep it growing in balance with
April 9, 1965

The Address-Mr. Saltsman
productive capacity. We shall continue to advocate these measures in the future because, in spite of the improvement in economic conditions since 1961-62, there are still no long-run forces in our economy which can guarantee a continuing state of buoyant demand. Wheat sales to Iron Curtain countries, and devaluation of the dollar cannot be relied upon indefinitely. Deliberate Government policies of an expansionary nature-particularly large scale Government expenditures on social capital and reduced taxes on low income groups-are essential.
However, it also seems to us that over the next decade or two the mismatching kind of unemployment will grow in importance as technological change accelerates. To cope with the problem we will require an active, co-ordinated, manpower policy; it will lie with the monetary and fiscal authorities and will be a collective responsibility of Government. The objective of manpower policy will be to achieve balance in the labour market and maximum utilization of manpower resources under given conditions of demand.
There are many weaknesses in Canada's present manpower policy. Three of them have overriding importance. First, it lacks coordination. Second, there is no continuation of analysis of changes in the composition of demand for labour. Third, there is no satisfactory program to aid and encourage the geographic mobility of workers.
Mr. Speaker, no manpower policy can hope to succeed without co-ordination of the various programs of which it consists. Canada's manpower policy is scattered among a variety of agencies and branches, even among a variety of Government departments. The Economic Council of Canada has called attention to the fact, charging that "lack of coordination of manpower services is a basic weakness of labour market policy in Canada", and warns that, "to distribute such tasks to separate branches and agencies will only succeed in rendering impossible an integrated labour market program".
First, all manpower programs ought to be in one department-logically the Department of Labour. Those departments such as Citizenship and Immigration that now operate placement and other manpower services ought to transfer these to the Department of Labour. But even within the Department of Labour, co-ordination has been lacking. There are now at least five agencies in the Department engaged in manpower policies.
[Mr. Saltsman.1
Mr. Speaker, we do not suggest that these agencies should lose their identity but that their functions should be clearly defined and co-ordinated. With regard to the Manpower Consultative Service, the Economic Council has said:
It is hard to escape the impression that it is a disembodied branch, and not at all integrated into an over-all labour market program.
Mr. Speaker, to achieve the necessary coordination and direction in manpower policy, one of the manpower agencies should build their activities around it. The logical agency for this role is the National Employment Service, because of its continuous contact through its 200 or more local offices with local labour markets. The Economic Council of Canada has made exactly this point. They have said:
The N.E.S. must become the key operational agency for implementing manpower policies. It must also become the sole co-ordinating agency of all programs and policies related to the labour market.
In announcing the transfer of N.E.S. to the Department of Labour on March 31, the Minister made some encouraging remarks in this regard, stating that steps would be taken to ensure that the Employment Service would become the key operational agency in the manpower field.
The Minister has wandered hither and yon on manpower policy since he took office. One hopes that he is now on the right path, to stay. On January 26 in St. John's he said that he was delighted with the part of the Economic Council's report dealing with manpower policy. Then on March 8 in this House he unleashed an attack on the same section of the same report. Now he is back giving cautious endorsation to part of the manpower policy advocated by the Council. We can only hope that his confidence in the Council's recommendations will grow, and that the foundations for a solid manpower policy in Canada will be developed. I hope that the Liberal Government makes a better job of this than some of the agencies have done, where very often their efforts have seemed to be much like a Wagnerian death wish. If this Government wants a good manpower policy for Canada and wants the N.E.S. to be successful, it should be prepared to go out and hire the proper people at good salaries to make sure that this will occur in Canada.
The most incredible thing about Canada's so-called manpower policy is that it is
April 9. 1965

operated in a vacuum of labour market information. There is no agency of Government that carries out a continuous and detailed analysis of changes in the composition of demand for labour. The N.E.S. is structurally equipped for this job on the basis of its local offices. But it has been starved for funds and professional staff. It has been unable to carry out this function. For example, there is provision for only one economist in the N.E.S. and even this position has gone vacant for five of the last eight years because the salary offered is too low to attract a professional person.
When Ministers talk glibly about changing
the supply structure of the labour force in accordance with changes in labour demand, one gets the impression they know what types of labour are going to be needed. But they do not know. Nor is there any agency of Government which is carrying out the kind of continuous analysis and forecasting that would enable us to know.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
How can we possibly discuss the courses to set out for our vocational schools if we have no notion of the kind of labour market that these students are likely to face? How can we devise training courses to upgrade the adult labour force or to train the unemployed if we do not have a clear picture of the kind of labour services currently demanded by industry, or likely to be demanded over the next several years? Technical training that takes place in a vacuum of labour market information is an exercise in futility. The same is true of programs designed to assist the moving of workers. It is a classic case of the blind leading the blind.
Training and mobility programs, to be effective, must be integrated into an active, national, labour market policy. An essential foundation for such a policy is a continuing analysis and forecasting of labour market demand.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we feel that this could be carried out through the National Employment Service, possibly in conjunction with the Economics and Research Branch of the Department of Labour. Through its local offices throughout the country the N.E.S. could get advance information from most of the country's employers of expected changes in the level and composition of their demand for labour. This information should then be analysed by a professional staff. When certain trends are discovered the information should then be fed to the training schools so that
The Address-Mr. Saltsman they would be able to arrange their curricula in accordance with labour market trends. There should also be assessment as to the utility of questions. In other words, let us not ask pointless questions, as has so frequently been done in the past. Let businessmen who are going to be asked these questions know why the questions are needed, and let them understand the value and merit. There would be a lot less opposition to the answering of questions.
Structural change in our economy will require a high degree of geographic mobility of the labour force to adjust to the changing location of job opportunities. In a country of Canada's size financial considerations may pose a serious obstacle to a worker who considers a move. A comprehensive program to provide financial assistance for worker mobility is therefore urgently required. There is only a smidgen of such assistance in Canada at the present time. The programs that we have had in the past have fallen dismally short of what has been done for many years in most of the countries of Western and Northern Europe.
The New Democratic Party proposes that a national labour mobility program be launched based on the following principles:
(a)	That it include not only assistance for the travelling expenses of the worker, but also a removal allowance to help him in the moving of his family and belongings and a settling in allowance to help him get established in the new region. It should also include a second residence allowance for workers attending a training school away from home.
(b)	Assistance should not be based on a means test.
(c)	It should be truly comprehensive in scope. In other words, its provisions should not be confined to disadvantaged workers in depressed areas but should be available to all workers in any part of the economy, including workers moving on a temporary basis.
(d)	The assistance should be administered and co-ordinated by the National Employment Service which, through its local offices across the country and its constant contact with local labour markets, is the only agency in a position to carry out this function.
The New Democratic Party manpower policy embraces the following: A co-ordinated set of manpower services built around the National Employment Service and performing the functions of a labour market
April 9. 1965

The Address-Mr. Saltsman board. This co-ordinated group of services might be called the national manpower services. It also includes a nation-wide network of adult training centres under the direction of the national manpower services. Allowances would be paid to unemployed trainees on a wage related basis. The federal government would pay 100 per cent of the cost of allowances and would set the levels.
Our policies are designed to move Canada into the scientific age while still preserving and heightening the human values upon which our society is founded. For the first time in human history the prospect of plenty for all is possible, plenty not only for Canadians but for all humanity. Automation and cybernation can be that avenue, that road, that highway to plenty for all people. But to take advantage of the fruits of science the Government must commit itself to a manpower policy designed to ensure full employment. Otherwise fear will put roadblocks in the way of progress. Only if full employment is assured will the workingman lose his fear of change. It is easy enough to tell the workingman he has nothing to fear, but when he knows he has a wife and children to look after or if he is contemplating marriage or is concerned about his future, fear is a very important factor. If the Government is really concerned about those factors that go toward making for slowdowns and featherbedding in industry, then it will move to remove the fear of unemployment from the mind of the workingman. The workingman functions best when he is not afraid of the future, and a Government proposal to maintain full employment would remove that fear from his mind.
Only a worth-while manpower and investment program can ensure that the change into the scientific age will take place with ease among those in industry and will not meet with resistance from industry. People who have worked all their lives to build and maintain a business are justifiably afraid of the kind of changes that are taking place in society. I think they are quite willing to change and quite willing to meet the new challenges, but the opportunity to rationalize their business operations should be available to them through an increased amount of capital machinery so they can compete with others in the same market. If the Government accepts this challenge, this land can be free from fear and ready for the scientific age.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 5.30 p.m. it is my duty pursuant to section 4 of Standing Order 38 to interrupt these proceedings and put the question forthwith on any amendments now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment? All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment to the amendment lost, on division.
Amendment to the amendment negatived, on division.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please
say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. Member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cooper). Had I voted, 1 would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Frenetle:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote because I was paired.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. [Translation]


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak, on behalf of my group, during the debate on the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock. [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I understand the hon. Member rightly, he is calling it six o'clock. It being just six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

April 9, 1965



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
The Minister of Justice, the Honourable Guy Favreau, today announced to the House of Commons details of two measures foreseen in last Monday's Speech from the Throne. Both measures concern correctional reform and are part of the Government's plans to modernize Canada's entire treatment of offenders. Speaking in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Minister outlined the Government's intentions on:
(1) The Special Committee on Corrections: a group of specialists to be named shortly in addition to the joint Parliamentary committee on corrections already proposed on the Order Paper.
(a) Terms of Reference: as now approved by Cabinet, the Terms of Reference of the Special Committee on Corrections are as follows: "To study the broad field of corrections, in its widest sense, from the initial investigation of an offence through to the final discharge of a prisoner from imprisonment or parole, including such steps and measures as arrest, summonsing, bail, representation in Court, conviction, probation, sentencing, training, medical and psychiatric attention, release, parole, pardon, post release supervision and guidance and rehabilitation; to recommend
as conclusions are reached, what changes, if any, should be made in the law and practice relating to these matters ih order better to assure the protection of the individual and, where possible, his rehabilitation, having in mind always adequate protection for the community; and to consider and recommend upon any matters necessarily ancillary to the foregoing and such related matters as may later be referred to the Committee; but excluding consideration of specific offences except where such consideration bears directly upon any of the above mentioned matters." (2) The Free Vote on Capital Punishment: In order that Members of both Houses of Parliament may have at their disposal all the elements necessary to make a truly free and informed decision on the possible abolition of capital punishment, the Government will publish an Information Paper on this subject. The Paper will present objectively, without taking any determined position, all significant facts and arguments advanced by both defenders and opponents of abolition. It will contain notably a brief history of capital punishment, statistics showing its apparent value or irrelevance as a deterrent, and notes on the experience of other countries.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 12, 1965