1965-04-13

STATUS OF GOVERNMENT ORDER RESPECTING


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the government order referring to the recommendations contained in the report of the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration Commission of Inquiry is a nullity and must be struck oil the order paper.
I say that the only opportunity I have to appeal against the report of the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration Commission of Inquiry is today. Inasmuch as the motion does appear on page 210 of yesterday's Hansard as a government order under the heading "Agriculture", I repeat that this is my only opportunity to appeal because under our statutes there is no appeal against the findings of a statutory commission. No case can be found where a court of appeal has adjudicated upon a report or a recommendation of a commission or whether a commission has exceeded its terms of reference.
The commission in question is not-I repeat "not"-a judicial inquiry. Any reference to it as a judicial inquiry is a misuse of the word "judicial" because there is no legal appeal from its findings. I suggest and maintain that this is an executive or crown court without an appeal. It is the modern counterpart of the ill-famed star chamber or cabal. The Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in many respects and ignored clause 13 of the Inquiries Act. I shall read that one clause, Mr. Speaker:
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
No report shall be made against any person until reasonable notice has been given to him of the charge of misconduct alleged against him and he has been allowed full opportunity to be heard in person by counsel.
This was not done in this case. This is only one of the bases for my point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Commissioner did not carry out his terms of reference as laid down by the Inquiries Act in that he carried out his inquiry totally in the Swift Current area and1 did not follow the terms of reference which related to other parts of the country.
This government order, Mr. Speaker, would refer the recommendations of the report of the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration Commission of Inquiry to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization for such recommendation as it deems advisable. The Commission, under its constituting order in council and terms of reference, was not authorized or empowered to make recommendations.
The powers and authorities granted to a commission by order in council under the Inquiries Act are of two classes, investigative and advisory. An investigative commission inquires into facts, law, or mixed law and fact, and reports its findings to the Governor in Council. An advisory commission aids and advises the Governor in Council in somewhat the same way as the Privy Council aids and advises Her Majesty's Governor General under section 11 of the British North America Act. An advisory commission must, by its nature, be almost always an investigative commission as well. It first investigates and makes findings, and thereafter advises or recommends on the basis of its inquiry.
This distinction between the function of fact finding and the function of opinion gathering is referred to by J. E. Hodgetts in his article on "The Role of Royal Commission in Canadian Government", published in the proceedings of the third annual conference, 1951, of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, pages 351 to 367. The distinction between the delegation of the power to make a fact finding investigation and the delegation of the power to give an opinion or make a recommendation is clearly illustrated by the United Kingdom House of Commons procedure on select committees. May's fifteenth edition at page 614 states:
Reports of Select Committees Power of committees to report their opinion- By Standing Order No. 75, a select committee of the Commons which has been invested with power to send for persons, papers and records, may report its opinion and observations upon the matters referred to its consideration, even thought it is not expressly directed to do so by the order of reference.

April 13, 1965
Point of Order
The United Kingdom House of Commons Standing Order No. 75 is as follows:
Every select committee having power to send for persons, papers, and records, shall have leave to xeport their opinion and observations upon any -matters referred to their consideration, together with the minutes of the evidence taken before them, to the House, and also to make a special report of any matters which they may think fit to bring to the notice of the House.
This Standing Order clearly indicates the principle that in the absence of such a general term of reference then, unless there is a specific power to recommend contained in the special terms of reference, there is no power to recommend.
The operative words in an order in council constituting an investigative commission are "inquire into". These are words of limitation. The operative words with respect to an advisory commission are "inquire into and consider" or "inquire into and recommend". In any particular case, the words "and report upon" may or may not be added to the operative words. They are imported in any event. The Inquiries Act does not contain a general power to recommend.
In the present order in council No. 19631896, which established the P.F.A.A. Commission of Inquiry, the operative words are "inquire into and report". In the Order in Council which appointed the Commissioner the words are "inquire into". There are no words in either Order in Council to authorize or empower the Commissioner to advise or recommend.
The specific terms of reference confirm the negation of any power to recommend: they delegate the power to investigate and make findings of fact only. They authorize the Commissioner to inquire into and report upon:
fa) the circumstances leading to the dismissal of-
-etc. etc., and:
(b) irregularities alleged to have occurred in the processing of claims for benefits under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the payment of such claims, relative to the crop grown in the year 1962 in the province of Saskatchewan.
So much of the Commissioner's report, tabled as Sessional Paper No. 12A, as purport to be recommendations are in excess of the powers and authorities granted him by the Governor in Council. These recommendations are in breach of Order in Council 1963-1896, tabled in the House of Commons and affixed to the report. They are null and void and of no force and effect.
There is no remedy in the courts against these recommendations so improperly made.

They cannot be appealed; the Queen's prerogative writ of certiorari cannot run against the Commission of Inquiry or the Commissioner. There was no remedy in this House either so long as the report was merely tabled as Sessional Paper 12A. When, however, these recommendations are subsequently made the subject matter of an Order of this House and now appear on the Order Paper as government order No. 78, then this House is seized of them and can and must take cognizance of their impropriety. That order, in effect, brings in as Government business for consideration by this House and a standing committee of this House, matters that are a nullity and void ab initio.
This government order should be struck out as disclosing no business for this House to proceed upon; as frivolous, vexatious and scandalous matter, and as an abuse of the privilege of this House.
If Your Honour has any doubt about the validity of my argument I should like to reserve the right to be heard further.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to find any point of order in the argument advanced by the hon. Member. What he has in fact been doing is seeking to debate a resolution under the item "Government Orders." That item has not been called. Whether what he says about the report of the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration Commission of Inquiry is right or wrong is something to be debated when the resolution is before the House, but it is not before the House now and there is no order before the House. Indeed, there was no item before the Chair on which a point of order could be raised.
Therefore I can only ask you, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. Member is to be permitted to continue his debate, all other hon. Members be permitted to debate the matter as well.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I have heard quite a lot.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I don't think you have, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event the hon. Member certainly does not expect me to have grasped all the intricate legal points he has been advancing this morning, so what I will do is get a copy of the transcript and examine the matter and, if humanly possible, try to bring in a just decision this afternoon.
April 13, 1965


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I just say a few words in reply?


Mr. Speaker:: I don't think it is necessary at this point. The argument made by the hon. Member was very extensive.


John (Jack) McIntosh: All I wish to state is that what the Minister said is wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are rules to be followed here.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. I do not want the house to be misled by what the Minister has said. If he will look at yesterday's Hansard he will see the House has made it an order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member must give the Chair time to consider all the different facets involved in this matter and try to bring in a reasoned decision which I hope will be a right decision, and which I hope will satisfy in the circumstances.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. House Leader. In view of the fact that we now know the budget will be coming down on the evening that the House resumes after the Easter recess, will the Minister assure the House that due time will be given between the delivery of the budget and the resumption of debate on it so that its details can receive consideration by all hon. members of the House?
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will look at the precedents in this matter, and I will certainly take the point raised by the hon. member under consideration. I take it that what he really wants is to be sure that he has sufficient opportunity to peruse the budget before being asked to debate it; but as I say, I will take the point under consideration.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Prime Minister a question regarding the report that
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian made cars were being sold in the United States at United States prices, which were considerably below the prices being paid by Canadian consumers. The Prime Minister promised to look into this matter, and I am wondering whether he is now ready to make a report to the House.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: April 13. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry allowed in carrying through the program that has been started.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Chrysler Corporation has already announced that it will sell 80,000 of its Valiants in the United States market at competitive prices this year, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government is making any investigation to see whether this means either that the United States is being charged less than the cost of production of the cars, or that the Canadian public is being charged a great deal more than the cost of production? I would like to ask the Prime Minister-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are examining that aspect of the problem carefully.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether the United States Government is collecting duty on Canadian cars entering the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the extremely important economic implications of this plan because of Government statements that it may foe extended to other industries, and in view of the many unforeseen difficulties and complications which appear to be arising, would the Prime Minister consider referring this agreement to a special Select Committee of the House so that witnesses from the unions and companies and economists can appear and a full examination of the agreement can be made, so the Committee can understand its implications and in particular ascertain whether or not Canadians are being overcharged for their automobiles?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I do not think I have ever stated that this plan may be extended to other industries. I have said that the automobile industry has certain special factors which made it possible to work out an agreement of this kind which I believe will increase production and employment, which is its main purpose and for which purpose it has been praised by unions, among others.
I have said that in the light of what happens in this particular arrangement, then naturally the Government will be glad to look into the whole application of an agreement of this

kind to other industries. That will be done in the light of the experience we have with this one. Whether it will be practical to do that I do not know. This agreement will be dealt with by the House of Commons; the House will be given an opportunity to express its views in regard to it.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, last Friday April 9, the Canadian government decided to hand over $20,000 to the Canadian Red Cross to meet immediate needs in Chile. At the same time the Canadian Red Cross decided to provide $5,000 of its own funds for the same purpose.']
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. On Friday last the Minister stated, in reply to a question I raised regarding the commitment of the C.B.C. to spend some $10 million for a building at Expo '67 for which no approval had been given by Parliament, that the Government did not intend to go on with this project without the approval of Parliament.
In view of reports in the press, as carried in the Globe and Mail of April 9, that a tender has already been let for $3.9 million for the initial construction of the project, would the Minister confirm that the Government is now going to allow this project to go ahead without Parliament giving approval for this rather large sum of money, $10 million?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to this question and to comments made in the House on Friday last with respect to the construction of a broadcasting centre for Expo '67, I believe it would be helpful for Members to have a brief outline of the project.
Some 200 broadcasting teams from many countries around the world are expected to cover the 1967 World Exhibition being held in Canada. They will require radio and television facilities to tell the story of Canada and Expo to the world. As the host country it is Canada's responsibility to provide the basic broadcasting facilities. As the national broadcasting agency, the C.B.C. was asked to co-ordinate this project.
The Corporation's studies indicated that Canadian and international broadcasters combined would require a centre containing not less than six radio studios and two television studios, together with the associated equipment. Estimates were made of costs and the time required for building the structure and installing the equipment. Total capital costs are estimated at $9.9 million, with the initial requirement in the present fiscal year of $2.9
April 13. 1965

million. Treasury Board has approved the expenditure for this year, which is now subject to the approval of Parliament through consideration of the estimates, and this amount of $2.9 million has been included in the main estimates. Where annual financing is concerned, the House will note that this is the only procedure which can be followed in approving projects for corporations such as the C.B.C. The necessary additional amount will be included in the Corporation's estimates for the 1966 and 1967 fiscal years.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State whether these studios are in addition to the planned facilities of the C.B.C. at Montreal, and what use will be made of the studios after the Exhibition is finished?


Maurice Lamontagne: They are in addition, Mr. Speaker, and it is expected that these studios will be used for some years after Expo.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the specific question has not been answered. Has the C.B.C. committed itself for $3.9 million under this original tender that has been let without the approval of Parliament?


Maurice Lamontagne: I understand that the usual procedure has been followed in this case, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If my memory is correct I believe that a certain brigadier who was in command of Canadian troops in Japan about ten years ago was fired from his position because he spent certain money without the necessary approval of Government. Does the Minister contemplate the dismissal of the President of the C.B.C. for a similar offence?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, this project has been approved by Treasury Board and the amounts to be spent this year have been included in the main estimates.


Mr. Roberl Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to those asked the Secretary of State concerning the C.B.C. expenditures. The Secretary of State said that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was asked to take part in this program. By whom was the C.B.C. asked to take part?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Lamontagne: The C.B.C. was asked to take part by Expo '67.


Robert Simpson: Were there no representations made by the Cabinet or the Government in this regard?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the project was approved by Cabinet and by the Treasury Board.


Robert Simpson: I should like to ask one more supplementary question. How can the Secretary of State reconcile his answers to my questions regarding the extension of service, in view of the fact that he said the Cabinet would not be considering any C.B.C. expenditures until the Fowler Commission had reported? That is what I understood the Minister to intimate.


Maurice Lamontagne: I certainly did give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker, but in respect of this case we must not forget that this Canadian National Exposition is to take place in 1967.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks we should forget the tens of thousands of people in Canada who are not now served by the C.B.C.


Maurice Lamontagne: I certainly do not agree with that, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will announce a program in due course following receipt of the Fowler Commission Report.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Can he tell us whether this television centre will come under the jurisdiction of Expo '67 or under the direct control of the C.B.C.?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I think the C.B.C. and Expo '67 will co-operate very closely.


Gilles Grégoire: Could the Secretary of State tell us who will be in charge, rather than co-operate, with regard to this television centre?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.

April 13, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the articles written by Mr. Raymond Grenier, in the newspaper La Presse, about the tragic fate reserved for several French Canadians by the 1967 World Exhibition Corporation, does the Prime Minister intend to inquire into that very serious problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to examine the article in question before deciding what action, if any, is required by the Government, and I shall be glad to do so.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does he intend to formally recognize Quebec's right to sign international agreements in the field of education, as advocated by the Quebec minister of education? Does he plan to facilitate the Quebec minister of education's task in this area?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Quebec minister of education made a statement recently.
I answered that question, in principle, some ten days ago, but I am not aware of the statements the minister of education may have made recently.
However, I shall examine the question and answer it without fail.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister mentioned in his statement yesterday that Quebec had the right to enter into international agreements in the field of education.
Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs intend to acknowledge officially this right to the province of Quebec?
I do not believe this is the question put to him ten days ago.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I have just received Le Devoir of this morning, and I had not seen this article before. I shall have to consider the matter before being in a position to state my opinion.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning Canadian assistance to Chile. I am particularly interested in that matter since the diocese of St. John, in my riding, is twinned with that of Valparaiso, which was the district most affected by the recent earthquakes. Here is my question. Will Canada do its share to help Chile, part of whose territory was devastated by earthquakes recently?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, last Friday April 9, the Canadian government decided to hand over $20,000 to the Canadian Red Cross to meet immediate needs in Chile. At the same time the Canadian Red Cross decided to provide $5,000 of its own funds for the same purpose.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report on a speech made by the Canadian Ambassador to France, Mr. Jules Leger, in Paris on Friday last to the American Club in which the Ambassador is reported to have said that winds of change are blowing in Canada and that we are moving toward a loose federation? If that is so, does that statement represent the views of the Government in this regard, that Canada is moving toward a loose federation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will generally agree with me that in her Ambassador in Paris Canada has one of her most responsible heads of mission.


Mr. Grafftey:: For heaven's sake.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I take it that everyone is in agreement with what I have said. I have seen the report and I have also
April 13. 1965

examined the actual text. The Ambassador was incorrectly reported. He referred to looser affiliations in certain sectors, but the generality of the language employed in the speech as reported is not supported by the text itself.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister procure a transcript or copy of the speech and table it for the enlightenment of the Members of this House, particularly in view of the recognized senior position of the Ambassador in Paris?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I have already obtained the actual text and I will be glad to see that my hon. friend gets a copy of it today. I will also see that a copy is made available for the edification and instruction of the House in general.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I understood the Minister correctly he indicated that the Ambassador had said there was a looseness in certain sectors. Does the Minister assume that the Ambassador acted in a responsible way in making that kind of statement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend will agree that that is a correct statement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, is, does he assume that the Ambassador made a responsible statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is entering into an argument.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PROFESSOR SIBLEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the Minister aware of the presence in the gallery of Professor Mulford Sibley, and will the Minister join with us all in extending to Professor Sibley a formal welcome to the Parliament of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that we are all happy to have all visitors come and observe the results of the good undertakings which are carried on from time to time in this Chamber.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING SALARIES OF PENITENTIARY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Is the Minister in a position to report on the meeting he held yesterday with members of the Canadian Penitentiary Service regarding reclassifications and pay increases?
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can give much of a report on orders of the day. The Civil Service Association of Canada, along with representatives of the penitentiaries service, had a meeting with my colleague the Minister of National Revenue and myself at which the Association made representations concerning the pay conditions of employees of the penitentiaries service. It was quite an extensive meeting and the Association is putting its representations in writing. It has undertaken to do so within two weeks, and we have undertaken to reconsider the matter of pay increases very shortly thereafter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Since announcing his 1965 dairy policy is the minister aware it is projected that there will actually be a decrease of 30 cents a hundredweight in the price of cheese milk?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with
this.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Will the minister then assure the House that, as outlined in his dairy policy, the subsidy of 3.6 cents a pound will be paid on the production of cheese?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member has not studied closely the policy I announced in the House, because cheese will not be supported this year at 3.6 cents as it was last year. It will be supported on a basis whereby we will make up the difference between the factory price of between $3.10 to $3.15 and $3.30 by way of a deficiency

April 13, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry payment and a lump sum to bring it from $3.30 to $3.50, depending on the amount that each producer produced in the 1964 period.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Fronienac):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not reconsider his new dairy policy, because it will increase the price of cheese if the farmer is going to get the same returns as he did a year ago.


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe this is correct, and we are not going to reconsider the matter.



QUEBEC-ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture a question?
Can the minister inform us if he has taken into serious consideration the request for help made on behalf of the farmers of the Saguenay region in northwest Quebec whose crop was very poor last year?


Harry William Hays: This is still under consideration.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, who has been left alone so far this morning. What steps has the Government taken to ensure the continuance of a vessel run between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Saint John, New Brunswick, by the motor vessel Mohawk II, which service is due to terminate next week, I am advised, unless some action is taken?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to this vessel is being reviewed, but the review does indicate that the amount of traffic now using this vessel is so small and the subsidy per ton so high that there is some question whether the taxpayers should be asked to subsidize at that rate for that amount of traffic. However, a final decision has not yet been taken.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister designated the battleground for his war on poverty, and is he now prepared to answer the question put to him yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question was out of order then, and it would be out of order today.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, are we
establishing a precedent that the Prime Minister can get up and rule a question on the Cape Breton unemployed out of order? Is the Chair going to permit this?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Malcolm MacInnis: What about my point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I will tell the hon. member that these questions, of course, come to me first hand and I will have to review the record to see whether there is any substance in the allegation of the hon. member.


Malcolm MacInnis: Further on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is very evident that there is substance to my point when any member of the House takes it upon himself to rise and rule a question out of order, since this is the job of the Chair. I have continued to ask questions in the House on behalf of the unemployed of Cape Breton and if this Government-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raised a point of order and he is now out of order because he is attempting to bring something new into this argument, if I may put it that way. I suggest that he allow the Chair to review the remarks made and try to come to a right conclusion.


Malcolm MacInnis: I give notice to debate this matter at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid there is nothing before the House to debate at ten o'clock.
April 13, 1965


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I wonder if I might be permitted to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Cape Breton North and Victoria of the Prime Minister concerning the Louisburg fortress. 1 am informed that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources will proceed with the reconstruction of Chateau St. Louis by contract this year. This major undertaking will use a large portion of the funds allotted to the Louisburg project in the current year's estimates, and the smaller projects now going on will be phased into the program at a later date.
Part of the lay-off arose from the completion of the winter works program, and the balance from deferment of smaller programs until the reconstruction of Chateau St. Louis is completed. When the contract is awarded for Chateau St. Louis it is anticipated that a far larger work force will be required by the contractor.


Robert Muir: I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply to the question that was asked and the one which was ruled out of order this morning. I have a supplementary question which is the result of a further telegram received from the same people who sent the telegram yesterday, the executive of the Fortress of Louisburg Employees Association. This telegram contains a number of accusations and allegations. I want to be kind to the Prime Minister and think that he does not realize what is happening down there. I shall not incur your wrath, sir, by reading the whole telegram. However, for the enlightenment of the Prime Minister I shall point out that it says-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. Member says he is not going to read the telegram I do not know why he proceeds to read it. Would he kindly ask his question so that we can get to the point, as it were?


Robert Muir: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to do so. Apparently the superintendent of construction says that no man on the project can be trusted. These people say that they hope this den of iniquity will be straightened out. May I ask the Prime Minister, in all fairness, if he would arrange to have someone investigate this apparently rather serious situation because of the allegations and accusations?
Inquiries of the Ministry Could he dispatch someone immediately to investigate that complaint; and I do hope he does not rule this question out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter referred to by my hon. friend is being looked into. He has tried to put again a question which was ruled out of order. May I, Mr. Speaker, remind him that if he asks a factual question in a reasonable way, naturally it is my duty to answer. He said yesterday, and I call attention to this:
Since the Prime Minister has at this late date personally become interested in poverty-
That is an objectionable preamble, and that part of the question certainly is out of order.


Robert Muir: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister suggesting this is out of order, no matter how true it is?


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is on the same point, I do ask the hon. Member to consider seriously whether it is helping the Chair or helping us with the progress of business before the House to raise these points, which may be important to him but which do seem to the Chair semi-serious.


Robert Muir: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should think that a question relating to the restriction of cigarette advertising in Canada would not be as important as having people thrown out on the street and this Government doing nothing about it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member is making allegations and statements. This is a question period, as he well knows.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Prime Minister this morning, and in answer he said it was out of order yesterday and it is out of order today.


Robert Muir: Which is absolutely incorrect.


Malcolm MacInnis: In order to base my question of privilege I should like to read the question that was put yesterday and the Prime Minister's answer.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Malcolm MacInnis: I quote:


Robert Muir: I have a question for the Prime Minister as the result of a telegram I received a few minutes ago. It says:

April 13, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
"Fifty eight employees to be laid off at Louis-burg project April 20. Are these men to be the first prisoners in the war on poverty or are there plans to place them in other jobs?
Executive The Fortress of Louisburg Employees Association."
Since the Prime Minister has at this late date personally become interested in poverty, would he be so kind as to investigate the contents of this telegram and report to the House?
The Prime Minister's answer was:
Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the preamble to this question, but the rest I shall be glad to look into.
This morning in the question I put to the Prime Minister I asked him if he would designate the battleground for his war on poverty, and further asked if he was prepared to answer the question of the hon. Member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. Again, Sir, the Prime Minister answered that question by saying "It was out of order yesterday; it is out of order today."
There is no indication in the records of yesterday's Hansard that this question was in any way ruled out of order either by yourself or, as the custom seems to be developing, by the Prime Minister, as he did today, misleading-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do think the Chair has heard enough of this most interesting point, and it does seem to me a most colossal waste of time. I must say I had already told the hon. Member I would investigate the matter and try and bring in a reasonable decision. It does seem to me a waste of time at this particular moment to continue argument on something that may interest the hon. Member but which I do not think deserves any more discussion at the moment.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am sorry, but I will have to continue to make my point on a question of privilege, and if you will allow me to reach my point of privilege I will co-operate to the fullest. When I indicated that I was not satisfied with the Prime Minister's answer and wished to debate the matter at ten o'clock you, Sir, said there was nothing before the House. In other words the opportunity for me to debate this further at ten o'clock seemed to be denied.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member, of course, is indulging in argument with the Chair, which breaks every standing order we have and a long line of precedents which, if the hon. Member does not know, I will tell him so. I have told the hon. Member I would investigate the matter and if in my opinion I

thought he had a question of privilege I would say so. Now, this is not the time to argue that statement, and until such time as the Chair has made up its mind on whether or not there is something before the House, the hon. Member obviously has nothing to argue at ten o'clock. I hope to come in this afternoon and clear up the matter.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Wait until you are recognized.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. Member rising on a question of privilege; because we had dealt with that matter? Is this a new matter of privilege?


Malcolm MacInnis: Sir, if you will return to your seat I will answer your question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is the same question-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the remark made by the hon. Member, that if you resume your seat he will bring up his question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. Courtesy, of course, demands that the Chair recognize the Prime Minister, but due to the noise in the Chamber I could not hear what the right hon. Prime Minister said.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, how could I answer a question by you, sir, if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not propose to get into an argument with the hon. Member. If he does not know it, I will tell him. The right hon. Prime Minister.


Malcolm MacInnis: On the question of privilege, Sir, another question of privilege-


Mr. Regan:: You were not recognized.


Malcolm MacInnis: I wish that childish member for Halifax would keep quiet for a while. My simple question of privilege is this. Am I not entitled to the opportunity to debate a question at ten o'clock when I am not satisfied with the answer, as is the custom developing under the new rules of the House; and I have not been satisfied with the answer?


Mr. Speaker:: The answer to the question raised by the hon. Member will be given this afternoon by the Speaker, and I have already
April 13, 1965

said so on the three separate occasions. I have to determine whether or not there is a question which can be debated. I am not satisfied that there is a question at this moment, and I need to refer to the record to find out.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether it is his intention to comply with the request of the Louisburg Employees Association to have an investigation on the spot carried out with reference to the many problems that apparently exist at this location?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is already looking into this matter.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister say when we may have a report on this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister will wish to do everything he can as quickly as he can to make certain that the maximum amount of employment is created on the island.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Spadina asked a question arising out of articles that appeared in the Toronto newspapers about a Chinese named Ngar Mye Lau, also known as Jack Mar, and I promised a full statement early this week. These are the facts. Early last September the Royal Canadian Mounted Police received information and had occasion to investigate the circumstances under which this man, known as Jack Mar, obtained a Canadian passport. He had been in Canada for some nine years prior to that date. As a result of these investigations the facts were laid before the Assistant Crown Attorney for the county of York on September 9, 1964, and he authorized the prosecution of the man in question under section 58 (1) of the Criminal Code for obtaining a passport by giving false information and he instructed that the man be charged on that same day. An information was laid on September 9 and a summons was served on that day.
Inquiries of the Ministry
On the following day, September 10, Jack Mar visited the immigration office in Toronto to say that he wished to make an adjustment statement. He did not say that he had been charged with an offence, and he did not ask for assistance of any kind. The immigration officials assumed he was but one of the many Chinese who were visiting the office to indicate a desire to make adjustment statements. Consequently his name was put on the lengthy list and no priority was given to it.
On September 11, he appeared in court pursuant to the charge and the case was finally heard on October 15. He was convicted of making a false statement resulting in his obtaining a passport, and he was fined $1,000 or four months in jail. An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeal. In the meantime he had paid the fine.
I should like to make it clear to interested members and the public generally that at no time, so far as I can discover, did Jack Mar or his counsel seek any assistance or advice from immigration officials in pleading his case before the courts on the grounds of the so-called Chinese amnesty program. In any event, after his conviction the Parliamentary Secretary to my colleague the Minister of Justice, on December 16 last, in reply to question No. 2,161 which had been placed on the order paper, stated that Ngar Mye Lau "did not qualify for the amnesty because it applied only to illegalities related to illegal entry and did not apply to subsequent illegalities not related thereto".
When this man applied for the passport he had been in Canada for nine years and had had a period of approximately three years in which to adjust his status and to become a resident in good standing. There is no record that he ever attempted to do this. He did not finally express a desire to adjust his status until he had been summoned to appear in the courts. Neither the original amnesty for Chinese who entered Canada illegally prior to July 1, 1960, nor the several extensions thereof granted by successive ministers were ever intended to give immunity to persons who have persisted in breaking the law after they have entered Canada.
May I say, however, that in spite of the conviction arrangements are being made for Jack Mar to adjust his status in Canada because he did come forward at a time while the assurance, that he could do so without facing deportation, still stands.

April 13. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry [DOT] (11:50 a.m.)



DOMINION OBSERVATORY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and ask him if the Dominion Observatory has the capability to listen to and evaluate radio emissions from outer space, which a Russian astronomer claims are transmitted by intelligent beings?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I too read the morning newspaper, and perhaps I should be cautious in this field. I want to assure my hon. friend that up to now the Observatory has not indicated to me it has such capabilities.


John Angus MacLean: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister consider providing the Dominion Observatory with such a capability, especially in the light of the fact that the Government apparently does not listen to intelligent beings elsewhere?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As reported in the newspapers this morning, he stated yesterday in Montreal that either today or tomorrow he would be conferring with the Secretary General of the United Nations with regard to the Viet Nam situation. In view of the fact that we will not be gathering together again in this House for some days, would the Minister care to make a statement concerning the Government's intention in relation to this discussion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope between now and the end of next week to have an opportunity of discussing some matters having to do with problems facing the United Nations and Canada's interest therein, as well as some other questions.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday the hon. Member for

Digby-Annapolis-Kings asked if any complaints had been received from western Nova Scotia with respect to United States aircraft breaking the sound barrier, in view of the fact that we are approaching the mink whelping season. I notice that in the Hansard report the hon. Member is quoted as having said that the female mink would prefer to eat their young rather than have them die of an atomic bomb. I think the hon. Member has been misquoted. I told the hon. Member that I would look into the matter.
I am now in a position to say that three complaints were received since April 5, 1965 from the Nova Scotia and Grand Manan Island, New Brunswick, areas. In addition, yesterday I received a communication from the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare including a petition signed by a number of mink ranchers of the Digby and Clare municipalities in Nova Scotia on the same subject.
The incidents referred to apparently occurred during a recent United States air force exercise which involved several supersonic flights. The area of the exercise extended from the centre of the Bay of Fundy to a location in northern Maine, and the only Canadian territory which was overflown was Grand Manan Island. The routes did not pass over Nova Scotia. That exercise has now ended.
Both the R.C.A.F. and the U.S.A.F. are well aware of the approaching mink breeding season, and I can assure the hon. member that every precaution will be taken to minimize any danger to this important industry.
In a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe asked if I had received any complaints from the Saguenay-Lake St. John area regarding R.C.A.F. Voodoo aircraft stationed at Bagotville breaking the sound barrier. I can inform him that one complaint was received on April 8, 1965 from the village of St. Prime on the west shore of Lake St. John approximately 65 miles west of Bagotville. It is not known when the sonic boom occurred, but an investigation is now under way.



MID-CANADA RADAR LINE-CESSATION OF OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the Minister say whether plans are under way to phase out some or all of the eastern section of the mid-Canada radar line?
April 13, 1965


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the balance of the mid-Canada radar line ceased operations on March 31.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-CONTINUATION OF RESPONSIBILITY OF DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, since this is probably the last day of this part of the session may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence and ask whether he is yet in a position to advise how many employees are going to be retained at the Point Edward naval base, or continued, as they are anxious to have this information.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be able to make a statement on that particular question in two or three days. From the information I have the prospects are for more employment at Point Edward naval base rather than less.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. Does the Minister suggest that the naval base is going to expand, in view of this extra employment which is going to take place?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I am not suggesting that, Mr. Speaker, but I know the hon. Member is aware that the Canadian motor industry is planning to take over some of the buildings which will be made available by the armed forces.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question I want to ask the Secretary of State. Two weeks ago the Minister undertook to check with the C.B.C. to ascertain whether it considered its promotion of cigarette consumption through television advertising was proper in view of the activity of the department of health in attempting to reduce sales of cigarettes. I wonder if he has any report from the C.B.C. at this time.


Maurice Lamontagne: No, I have not received anything as yet.
Inquiries of the Ministry [DOT] (12 noon)



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport andl ask him whether he has received a telegram from Leonard J. McLaughlin, president of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada, in which he points out that although the navigation season is only a few days old there have already been some five accidents involving one total loss and as I understand it, asking the Minister to have an investigation conducted to determine whether ships travelling the waterways of Canada, the harbours and the approaches thereto, are adequately and competently manned. I know the Minister indicated yesterday that there was to be an inquiry into one particular accident on the St. Lawrence. I am asking whether this inquiry is going to be broadened to cover the question of whether adequate, competent crews are required by the Government, under the Canada Shipping Act, on all Canadian ships travelling on Canadian waterways?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did receive this telegram last night, and I had such inquiries made as I could have made immediately in my Department. Because this is really quite an important subject I think perhaps I might be permitted to give a slightly more extended reply than is usual.
I may say in the first place that we intend to ask Mr. McLaughlin to give any substantiating evidence he is able to give for the generalization he has made, and that in fact the Department does carry out an investigation into every accident of this character; I refer particularly to the one in Lake St. Peter the other day.
It is true that this is the worst year for a number of years so far as ice conditions are concerned in the St. Lawrence, in the lakes and in the canals, and it is perhaps possible that on that account, because of the greater hazards, there may have been a somewhat higher accident rate than has been usual. But we are making a very careful investigation to see whether there is anything special about it, whether it is due to the ice hazards or whether there is any foundation for the allegation made by Mr. McLaughlin. I could not, of course, hope to give an answer to

April 13, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry them without the investigation being completed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, I notice that in the same wire Mr. McLaughlin suggests that the provisions under the Canada Shipping Act are of such a general nature as to be virtually unenforceable. Would the Minister undertake to look into this aspect of the matter and see whether some amendments to the Canada Shipping Act would be necessary in that regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad if Mr. McLaughlin or anyone else is able to furnish particulars in this regard, and I would be happy to look into them. We did, of course, have a very extensive revision of the Canada Shipping Act at the last session of Parliament, and we tried to put into that revision all the provisions that up to that time, it seemed to the Department, and to anyone who made representations to us, to be desirable. However, that does not mean it is perfect, and if there is any improvement that can be made, and if the House will give time for it, we will do our best.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Would the Minister not agree there would be less trouble if traders used the ice free ports of Saint John and Halifax?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, of course, that is a point of view, and the opposite point of view was expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton West yesterday in a very eloquent speech. This controversy is apt to go on for quite a few more years.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the $64 million surplus in the Old Age Security Fund will the Government consider an immediate increase in the Old Age Pension, or are they saving this for an election gimmick?



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister if the proposed amendment to the Northwest Territories Act, announced in the Speech

from the Throne, will have the effect of granting the franchise to all the residents of the eastern and central Arctic in the forthcoming territorial elections.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, it would be quite improper for me to indicate on orders of the day what is to be included in amendments to legislation.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: As a supplementary question, would the Prime Minister assure the House that this oversight is one that is close to his heart and will be attended to in the present session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can assure the House that the point of view mentioned by my hon. friend is very much in our minds.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. It relates to the Department of Forestry and the decision which was approved by the Minister of Forestry to transfer scientific forestry staff from Maple to Sault Ste. Marie.
The urgency of my question is this. From the information I have, large scale resignations, considering the number of personnel involved, are taking place, with people going to alternative employment in the United States and to universities. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could look into this matter and see whether the consequences are as serious as have been suggested. If he wanted some advice on the matter I think the Prime Minister could get some information from the hon. member for York North.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am already looking into the matter, and I am receiving a great deal of advice with regard to this, including representations from the hon. member who has been mentioned.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may
April 13, 1985

I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would it be possible some time today, before the house rises for the Easter recess, for a statement to be made by the Government on the conference which was held last week between the Federal Government and the Provinces with respect to the Canada assistance plan? The Prime Minister will recall that he indicated to the House that that was one of the purposes of the conference held last week. Does he not agree that it would be useful to have a statement on the conference made to members before we go home for Easter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that right away.



CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT ON REPRODUCTION OF &quot;HANSARD'' INDEX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I asked the President of the Privy Council whether it was the intention of the Government to take the initiative and bring forward a motion to debate the report of the privileges and elections committee which was brought down in the immediately preceding session. The Minister said the matter had not received consideration but that he would be very glad to take the question as notice. I merely want to pose this question again and see whether the Government has given that matter any consideration and has reached a conclusion.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the other day. I hope soon to have the answer, but now it will not be until after the Easter recess.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. I wonder whether in his leisure moments during the Easter recess the Minister might not be able to conclude this matter.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I hope to use some of these leisure moments for other purposes, but I will see that the question does receive consideration.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister
The Address-Mr. Brewin which I would have held until another day, but this being the last day before the recess I wonder whether he could give me an answer. In view of the action of the Manitoba legislature in overwhelmingly passing a resolution calling for legislation to expand divorce grounds in Canada, has the Prime Minister reached any decision on my question of March 16 regarding the setting up of a royal commission on divorce reform in Canada? If so, can he make a policy statement to the House at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to add anything to what I have said in regard to a matter of this importance. I said when the question was first asked that the matter was under consideration, but I should not like that reply to be interpreted as meaning that we would be shortly setting up a royal commission on this subject.


Robert William Prittie: May
I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he does not wish to proceed with that course, Bill No. C-68 will do the same thing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that bill.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 12, 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.
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock last night I had just started to outline what I conceived to be the threefold and dangerous effects of the so-called Fulton-Favreau formula for constitutional amendment which it is proposed be adopted by this House. First of all I should like to deal with its effects on a possible transfer of new jurisdiction to Parliament from the provincial legislatures. Even if the Parliament of Canada, the governments representing all but one of the provinces and the vast consensus of public opinion across Canada desired to have transferred to Parliament the power to enact a federal labour code setting up minimum standards across Canada, this could not be done if one provincial government refused consent. The same would be true in regard to effective farm marketing legislation national in scope,
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Brewin and in regard to many other transfers of jurisdictions.
To come to the transfer of jurisdiction from the federal to the provincial sphere, if the Federal Government, the government of Quebec and the governments of all other provinces but one agreed to a constitutional amendment which would transfer some aspect of federal jurisdiction to provincial legislatures, or would confer a special position upon, say, the Province of Quebec, this being thought necessary and advisable in order to preserve Confederation, then any one province could veto this proposal. It is not just the Province of Quebec, as Mr. Lesage seems to have thought, which has a veto; every province in Canada has a veto in regard to this formula. [DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
If this present formula were adopted it could prevent the definition within the constitution of Canada of the fundamental and inviolable rights of all Canadians as individuals if one province said no. In other words, if this formula is adopted we can say goodbye to any effective Bill of Rights for Canada. Indeed, if the formula is adopted we will have a Canadian amending formula but we might well have one which we will never be able to use. How ironic it would be if we were to free ourselves from a symbol of colonial bondage of the distant past only to fix upon ourselves and our descendants very real and perpetual constitutional fetters for the future. Only those who accept a static laissez faire view of Canada's government and Canada's future would knowingly accept such a formula. It is not surprising that there are united in opposition not only those who see a dynamic role for the Government of Canada, of which we in this party believe ourselves to be spokesmen, but also those in the Provinces-Quebec, for example-who desire a dynamic role for provincial governments. Both alike recognize the prospect of frustration if the formula is adopted. The program for which this party stands, for example, would be impossible if a rigid formula prevented any adjustment of jurisdiction between the Provinces and the Federal authorities.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote a few authorities on this subject. The late Professor Norman Rogers of Queen's, later Minister of Defence-and in case there are some younger Members who do not know about Professor Norman Rogers, he was a distinguished Liberal statesman-said this of the unanimity rule embodied in the formula, and it is

exactly the same as that in the present formula:
There would be no more effective brake on the development of our national institutions. No adequate means would exist to give effect to the national will. Our constitution would tend to become rigid at a time when changing currents of social and economic thought call for serious reconsideration of the distribution of powers and the limitation of fields of taxation as laid down at Confederation. The purpose of unanimous consent is security through stability. But political societies are not static, but progressive. If their needs and aspirations grow with the times, stability of constitutional arrangements will produce friction instead of security.
If this was true-and I think it was-in the 1930's when Professor Rogers was speaking, how much more true is it in 1965, at the time of our "greatest crisis"? I would now like to refer to a recent pronouncement by a very eminent Canadian who might perhaps disclaim the title of a constitutional expert if he had not just gone out of the chamber. The present Prime Minister is quoted in an interview with Mr. Robertson, printed in Weekend Magazine just a few days ago, as saying this, and I call this to the attention of those of his supporters who are in the House:
A charter or constitution which cannot be adapted to changing conditions is likely to be inadequate for survival. Consequently the constitution is insecure.
True, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was referring to the UN Charter, not the Constitution of Canada. Apparently he has not yet been adequately advised on the application of his statement to the amending formula which his Government is putting forward. I repeat that the present amending formula, if adopted, would operate to prevent adaptation of our constitution to changing conditions. If the Prime Minister does not choose to accept my statement I refer him back to the statement to the same effect by that eminent scholar and prominent Liberal statesman whom I have just quoted, Professor Norman Rogers. Indeed, I could furnish him with the words of many experts on our Constitution which are precisely to the same effect. If I may adopt the Prime Minister's own language, such a Constitution is likely to be inadequate for survival. Canada's Constitution will be insecure.
I would like to refer to another statement in the White Paper itself which has been put out on this subject. It says:
The problem of framing federal Constitutions and the procedure for amending them, always has been to strike the proper balance between the requirements of stability and of adaptability. Excessive flexibility and excessive inflexibility are equally destructive to the federal structure.
April 13, 1965

I ask the House to note those words "equally destructive". How true. The formula which the White Paper contains strikes no balance between flexibility and inflexibility. By section 2 it transfers to the realm of inflexibility every part of our Constitution that counts, whether fundamental or not. This wholesale acceptance of inflexibility will, if adopted, in the words of the White Paper itself be destructive of our Federal structure. Surely this is not what Canada wants. Surely this is not what this Parliament wants. And as surely, if this Parliament were free to examine this formula carefully and vote on it without the coercion of Party ties, this is now what Parliament would ever accept.
Why, then, it may be asked, have the Federal and Provincial Governments accepted this formula? I cannot do better than give as my answer the words of Professor E. R. Alexander of Ottawa University. Professor Alexander has prepared an article entitled "A Constitutional Strait-Jacket for Canada" for the Canadian Bar Review, which is to be published shortly. I strongly recommend that anyone who wishes to have detailed and scholarly information on this important subject should read this article which I believe will be in the May issue of Canadian Bar Review. Professor Alexander has authorized me to quote the following paragraphs:
On October 14th, 1964 22 men meeting behind closed doors in Ottawa performed a disservice for this country whose repercussions will be felt by generations of yet unborn Canadians. By unanimously agreeing on a domestic amending formula these men took the first step in bringing the Canadian Constitution home. Under this formula the unanimous consent of Parliament and the Legislatures will be required for most significant amendments to our Constitution.
This is the most important constitutional step taken in Canada since Confederation. Canada deserved statesmanship-
These are not my words; they are Professor Alexander's:
-Canada got provincial partisanship. There was political advantage in arriving at a Canadian amending formula; there was political advantage in giving every province a veto over important amendments; there was no political advantage in preserving the integrity of Canada as a nation.
Yes, we will have a Canadian amending formula, but in many important matters we will never be able to use it. Canada will indeed be in a constitutional strait jacket.
Mr. Speaker, if this is a fair assessment, and I think it is, what is the way out? I suggest that the Government should set up a Parliamentary Committee charged with the task not only of examining the amending formula, but also with consideration of what form the new Constitution, "the bold fresh
The Address-Mr. Brewin start", the "much more comprehensive undertaking" referred to by Mr. Fowler and Mr. Faribault, whom I mentioned yesterday, should take. In this connection I should like to quote and adopt as my own the words of R. A. Walker, then the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, at the opening of the Constitutional Conference in October, 1960, when he said:
We also believe that when this constitution is being developed, the people of Canada should be given an opportunity to present opinions and submissions on this matter. In our view the constitution does not belong to the federal and provincial governments of the country. It belongs to the Canadian people. They all have an interest in the form of structure of this fundamental law...I suggest in a matter of this importance we should hear what interested citizens and organizations have to say.
Again in the Review of Saskatchewan's Position, January, 1962, the following:
An opportunity should be given to all interested organizations, associations, constitutional experts and private citizens to participate in the formulation of an amending procedure to our constitution.
A Parliamentary Committee could be a focus for a stimulating, exciting Canadian discussion out of which a true Canadian unity might emerge and the strong, vital and respected Constitution which, to quote Mr. Fowler and Mr. Faribault again, "is essential if we are to have a strong nation".
There is, as is well known, some delay being experienced in at least two key Provinces in dealing with the formula, Quebec and Saskatchewan. How long this delay is likely to last, I do not know; but the Prime Minister the other day in answer to a question I put to him-and I think it was repeated in reply to a question put by my leader yesterday- said the Government had no intention of indicating what was to be the procedure in the House with regard to this amending formula until after the Provinces had completed dealing with the matter.
If Parliament is eventually to be invited to deal with this formula, why should it not examine it in committee now? I suggest there is no time for delay. We have not got that much time left. Let us, in Parliament, get on with this task. As my leader said, it seems an absurd anomaly that the one group of people not invited to study the matters pertaining to the crisis of Canada-that is what the B and B Commission described it as- are the elected Members in this House of Commons.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this delay in dealing with this matter is not based upon
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Brewin
the fact that the Government hopes that with the assistance of my friend the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and some of his followers it can shove this most important constitutional step ever to be taken in Canada since Confederation through this House without the sort of examination that only a committee with power to call qualified witnesses could provide. I call upon the Prime Minister on behalf of this party and I believe with the concurrence of many other Members of this House, to set up such a committee as a necessary preliminary for a constitutional conference which could evolve a new constitution as a basis for Canada to move forward in unity into the second century of her history.
Messrs. Faribault and Fowler in their book, to which I have referred, not only speak of the need for a new constitution but put forward in draft form their ideas of what that constitution might be. They said their book was only for the purpose of provoking informed discussion. I will not be so bold as to emulate Messrs. Faribault and Fowler, but I want to follow their example to a limited extent. I should like to suggest a preamble to a new constitution which I hope is in the spirit in which Canada's new constitution should be approached, and I do so with the thought that many other people will put their hands to this task.
Perhaps I should say that this is my own idea, and I do not in this regard speak for the party which I represent. I put this suggestion forward for consideration and discussion. This would be a preamble to a new constitution replacing what are called the dull and unimaginative words of our present constitution, the British North America Act. Some might think these words are also dull and unimaginative, but I will suggest this preamble:
We the people of Canada, speaking through our elected representatives in the Parliament and Legislatures of the Provinces of Canada.
Hereby assert our determination to continue together as an independent and sovereign nation within the interdependent world community of nations.
We accept and adopt a federal system as best fitted to the needs of Canada.
We believe that such a federal system must be based upon the equal partnership between the two founding races and we acknowledge the valued contribution made in the past and to be made in the future by Canadians of other origins.
We affirm that the continuing compact of Confederation is based upon respect for individual human rights and upon parliamentary democracy.
We acknowledge the special position occupied by the Province of Quebec as the guardian of a distinctive language and culture.

We hereby provide for the distribution of all legislative judicial and executive power within Canada between the federal and provincial authorities, so as to create a strong federal government able to deal with economic and social objectives affecting the whole of Canada and its relations with the rest of the world, and strong provincial governments endowed with the powers and resources required to express fully and adequately local and regional cultural and historic aspirations of the different provinces and regions of Canada.
We further embody herein the means necessary for continuing co-operation between the different levels of government.
We therefore enact and adopt as the fundamental law of Canada amendable only in Canada in the manner hereinafter set out the following constitution:
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is easy to draft preambles, but I shall leave the rest of the constitution for another day, shall I say, or at least until others have made some effort in this regard. Perhaps we shall even have to wait until after a constitutional conference has been held.


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have only one or two minutes left, but perhaps I should allow the question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If other hon. Members of this House agree to give the hon. Member time, will he set out now the precise and practical details of a new constitution which would constitute the real meat of the constitution to follow the gravy which he has just given us in the form of an exhortation?


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the whole idea, you goof.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Will all hon. Members give unanimous consent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
An hen. Member: No.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would remind the hon. Member that if he had done me the courtesy of listening to what I said he would know that I suggested this is a tremendous task to which all Canadians must set their hands. It might involve the creation of a Committee of this House which would have the power to call expert witnesses on the subject. The draft of the preamble which I have made sets out just the general framework and tenor of what might become a new Canadian constitution. My friend can call it gravy if he likes, but I think this is something that we feel is part of a task which can only be performed by all the people of Canada working together, and by all the Members of this House giving their
April 13, 1965



best efforts. This will require the setting up of a committee and, as has been suggested by Messrs. Faribault and Fowler, among other things, at some stage a constitutional conference will have to be held. If the hon. Member would like to hear my preliminary views on the subject I shall be very glad to discuss them with him. However, I have not more than a minute or two in which to finish my speech, and I shall do so now.
I hope many other Members of the House and many other Canadians will try their hand at expressing what they believe to be the foundation of our existence as a nation. No doubt there are many Canadian poets and philosophers, some of them in this House, who will improve tremendously on the version I have put forward. I suggest that only out of real striving will grow a truly Canadian constitution, repatriated not in name only but springing from the basic thoughts and feelings of the people of Canada. Such a constitution will only grow out of real striving and consideration. If this can take place we will obtain a constitution which will be a source of inspiration to future generations of Canadians.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Does the hon. Member not consider that the present Canadian constitution, which was worked out by Canadians here in Canada, is a truly Canadian constitution?


Francis Andrew Brewin: What the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre has said is certainly true in part, but this constitution was worked out nearly 100 years ago in a community which was colonial in its basic essence, which is totally different to the sort of community we have today. That is why we are discussing an amending formula and full repatriation to Canada. The constitution is still in its form as a British North America Act, an Act of the Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom. I want to make it Canadian, modern and up to date to meet the needs of Canada in this age and in this generation. Then only will it be truly Canadian.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in presenting to this House another of his command performances at the beginning of this debate the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said he wanted to know about the position of agriculture across this country. He also used that occasion to give me a few swift verbal kicks in the overalls, claiming among other things that
The Address-Mr. Hays I had told Quebec farmers that they do not know how to look after things, and that their solution is six cows and two sows.
I have nothing but admiration for his mastery of grade school mockery. I have less appreciation for his ability to distort without quite fabricating. I do not know what one can do about evil insinuations which apparently have no purpose except to play on cheap regional prejudices. It seems to me that our new dairy program-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cote, Longueuil):: Order. The Minister of Agriculture has the floor.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Minister be prohibited from reading his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cote, Longueuil):: Order. I can see that the Minister looks quite often at his notes, but he is allowed to do so.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that our new dairy program, which will raise the incomes of some 62,000 farmers in Quebec alone, is enough to refute any insinuation that I have no interest in or understanding of the problems of Quebec farmers. Any halfway objective examination of my views on the need for expanded farm units and better farm management in Quebec will also show that they are completely in line with the current thinking of the Quebec Government.
But the Leader of the Opposition has such a fatal genius for bringing troubles on himself that I cannot bring myself to cause him any more. When he mentioned agriculture I wanted to take him seriously if I could. I went through his speech twice, and I could not find a single policy in the whole carload of his sarcasms, and it occurred to me that you just cannot give leadership in anything, certainly not in agriculture and much less to a whole country, with nothing but invective, however entertaining that invective might be.
To govern Canada, Mr. Speaker, and to help agriculture we must have policies, the kind of policies referred to in the Speech from the Throne. Instead of getting into the kind of cat fight the Leader of the Opposition is always asking for, I want to discuss some of the Government's thinking on new agricultural policies and new agricultural approaches. I would be interested to hear the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton) present some alternatives.

April 13, 1965
The Address-Mr. Hays
As I have said before, some of the policies of the previous Government were steps in the right direction, but they were faltering steps. In agriculture their stock in trade was the handout approach.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Pretty extensive notes.


Harry William Hays: They lacked either the imagination or the guts to bring in solid and responsible policies aimed at providing lasting solutions to our agricultural problems.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Author?


Harry William Hays: What they apparently wanted most from all their policies were votes. They did not care how much of the taxpayers' money they had to spend trying to buy them, or how much they worsened the long term problems of agriculture in the process.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Author?


Harry William Hays: The mess they made of the dairy program is a good example. They were right in wanting to give our dairy producers higher returns, but they were too chicken-hearted to go the whole way and develop a policy that would put those higher returns on a sound basis, a basis that would not eventually have wrecked the industry with an ever-increasing surplus of production. They were afraid to do what they must have known should be done. They might have lost a few votes-


John (Jack) McIntosh: Who wrote that for you?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Author?


Harry William Hays: -or else they were incompetent to do the job. They left it to this Government to get the dairy industry out of its mess, and we are now well on our way toward doing just that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Author?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, this will give the middle-aged beatnik from Port Arthur something to put in his column. Anyone who cares to examine our dairy program in detail will find that while it is designed to bring about a return for manufacturing milk which on the national average basis will be equal to $3.50 per hundredweight compared with $2.80 to $3 up to a year ago, it is also designed to discourage production surplus to our domestic needs.
In crop insurance it was the same story. They brought in a program that our farmers need, but it was so crippled by their political fearfulness that no province was ready to buy it. It was left to this Government to
[Mr. Hays.l
straighten it out and make it work. They brought in the ARDA program; then they made such a mess of the whole country's finances that they could not afford to get it off the ground. It was not until this Government took over and straightened out their financial mess that ARDA really got rolling. They expanded farm credit, but again they only went half far enough and left it to this Government to apply the bold approach demanded in this field.
We have to think a little bigger in Canada today than we ever thought before because our problems are a great deal larger. We have to define our problems and then define the goals we want our policies to head for. Our agriculture as a whole is healthier and more productive today than ever before, but we all recognize that thousands of individual farmers still have serious problems. You can sum up these problems in two words: low income. This is the core of the problem we have to deal with in all our agricultural policies.
Since I have been Minister of Agriculture I have studied personally at first hand the agricultural policies in 10 countries. From what I have learned it is my considered opinion that Canada today is behind most of those countries in establishing policies that will ensure a strong, economically sound food production industry for the expanded population we will have in the future. Where we are most behind is in establishing a comprehensive national policy to cover the whole of our agricultural economy.
We like to think of Canada as an agricultural exporting country, and we still do export some 30 per cent of our total farm production, which amounts to about a fifth of our total exports. But we have been so careless of agriculture during the last 20 years or so that today we import almost as much food, in terms of value, as we export, including items like pork and beef and cheese which Canada can produce as well as any country in the world. We do not think Canada should become dependant on world markets for such an essential item as food. It is to see that this does not happen that this Government is developing a comprehensive national policy for agriculture.
This is not the appropriate occasion to go into the details, but I can say this: I believe that the direction in which we will be moving with the proposed National Dairy Commission should provide a guide for approaches to income and marketing problems in other areas of agriculture in the future. If these sound like radical approaches, I defend them
April 13, 1965

by pointing out that our problems are also radical. Handouts are certainly no solution, nor are subsidy programs that only encourage unhealthy surpluses.
We have taken an ad hoc approach to our agricultural problems for too long. The Government intends to develop in co-operation with the provinces a national agricultural program based on economic principles which, as far as possible, can be placed beyond the reach of political expediences. This program must ensure a stable supply of food for our consumers at reasonable prices. It must recognize the legitimate interests in our domestic market of our trading partners. But it must also recognize the right of every farmer in the country to an income that is more closely equivalent to what the workers in our towns and cities enjoy.
We now have labour laws guaranteeing minimum wages for our workers. We have tariffs and tax incentives for our businessmen. It is time we started thinking of a minimum income for our farmers. In 1949 the average weekly industrial wage was equivalent to $2,236 per year. In the same year the average realized net income of farmers was almost the same, $2,283. In 1964, however, the average industrial wage had increased to $4,472 while average farm income was only $3,815, a difference of nearly $700.
I believe that the primary objective of all our agricultural programs should be to encourage a national average realized net income for the family farm equivalent to the national average industrial wage. I think that should be our definition of an economic farm unit. It was with this goal in mind that we doubled the farm credit available through the Federal Government. It was with this goal in mind that we established the Farm Machinery Syndicates Act. It was with this goal in mind that we revised the crop insurance program. It was with this goal in mind that we developed a new utility-based prize program for all major farm fairs and exhibitions in this country. It will be with this goal in mind that we will establish a National Dairy Commission.
Reviewing the agricultural situation after taking office, the Government decided that the most urgent step toward strengthening the position of the family farm was to provide better credit facilities. Without adequate credit the family farm could not be expanded to its rightful level of profitability in our economy as a whole. We have now provided the credit facilities to make this possible. Our farm credit legislation has also made it easier
The Address-Mr. Hays for a father to pass on the family farm to his children and for young farmers to get a decent start. Yet our critics complain that this is no help because you cannot borrow yourself out of debt.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
These people just do not understand the uses of credit in farming. They still think of the family farm as a few acres of badly cultivated land, six tired cows, a couple of worn out sows, bookkeeping on the back of an envelope, a shed or two, a tarpaper shack, a mail order catalogue and an outhouse. This is not a family farm but a welfare problem, and we have policies for that, too.
Up to now in Canada it has generally been left to farmers themselves to develop economic units through their own resources. In my examination of agricultural policies in other countries I have been impressed by Government programs for the purchase and redevelopment of poorly used lands. I think the Federal and Provincial Governments in Canada will have to consider very soon a comprehensive national program for Government purchase and redevelopment of such lands into economic family farm units, which can be sold or leased back to private individuals who can then expect to make a decent living on them. We want a flush toilet, not an outhouse farm economy for Canada. The successful family farm today must mean modern, expensive and efficient machinery; good buildings, costly fertilizers, city style bookkeeping and management, with enough cash income to send the children to universities as city families do, and electric lights and indoor plumbing.
Let us take a look at the kind of family farm that could be expected to return a cash income of about $4,500 a year for the farmer's labour and investment. For a wheat farm on medium land in Saskatchewan he would need about 700 acres, plus the machinery to work it, or an investment of $40,000 at the very least and probably closer to $50,000 or $60,000. For a dairy farm in Ontario to provide that kind of living, the farmers would probably need at least 200 acres of land and 40 to 50 milk cows, a minimum investment of $60,000 and probably more. To make a cow and calf beef operation pay that much in Quebec or the Maritimes a farmer should have something like 500 acres and at least 100 cows, probably closer to 200, an investment of anywhere from $60,000 to $75,000 and upward.
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Coates
This is the reason we expanded farm credit as much as we did, and we may eventually have to expand it even further. This is why we now intend to take the next step by developing policies that will assure our farmers the kind of markets and incomes that will enable them to pay for this kind of expansion.


Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: May I ask a
question? Is it true that a farmer must be under the age of 45 and have assets of $75,000 in order to be eligible to borrow from the Farm Credit Corporation the $55,000 to which the Minister referred?


Harry William Hays: This is not so, Mr. Speaker. If
he obtains a supervised loan up to $55,000 he gets the first $27,500 at 5 per cent, and an economic rate is charged on the balance. A farmer is required to have 25 per cent down. If you were selling to your son you could give him the 25 per cent and he would be able to finance the balance through the Farm Credit Corporation. I might say that since we amended the Act to grant larger loans, farmers across this country have been participating. Many of them are refinancing or extending loans that they have, and we have many new farmers who have just started and who have purchased land from their fathers or relatives.


Lawrence E. Watson: But these people would not be permitted to borrow $55,000, would they, because they would not be qualified?


Mr.   Kays@: Not necessarily; if they have the qualifications they certainly can borrow. They have to be bona fide farmers; they cannot be Members of Parliament or Cabinet Ministers or would-be authors, that sort of thing. Most of them can take advantage of these loans.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I direct a question to the Minister?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will write your speech.


Harry William Hays: It would not be worth reading.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Can the Minister tell the House how many loans have been made up to the amount of $55,000?


Harry William Hays: I cannot answer the question because I should like to be accurate. However, I would be glad to get the information for the hon. gentleman.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of con-

gratulations to the Mover and Seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I should like to offer special congratulations to the hon. Member for St. John's West, who acquitted himself very ably and indicated that he certainly has the ability and is the kind of representative from the Atlantic area the people look forward to having represent them in future Parliaments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture. I may say that as a Member from Nova Scotia, where we have very significant problems in agriculture, we were pleased to see an indication in the Speech from the Throne that some action would be taken in agriculture that would be of benefit to our area. It is difficult to make further comments on the proposed legislation until we see it.
We have been waiting a long time for action in this field. Certainly I am not going to be overly critical of the Government at this stage, in view of the fact that action has been taken no matter how belated it might be. I will certainly look forward to the new agreements that have been developed between the Provincial Governments and the Federal Government under ARDA. I will look forward to the feed grain legislation which is so much needed in our area of Canada if we are to develop the beef cattle industry to the extent we would like to see it developed. I hope the Government will move very quickly in bringing this legislation before the House so that agriculture in the Atlantic area can be assisted, and assisted it must be in a very material way at the earliest possible opportunity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some general comments about the Speech from the Throne and a subject which has given me a great deal of concern for some time. We did not become the nation we are today by producing leaders who mimic their counterparts in the United States. Yet when we read the Throne Speech we must quickly come to the conclusion it is based on either a yellow, tattered and torn state of the union message outlining the new frontier policies of the late President Kennedy, or the new version of President Johnson's great society. In either instance it would be helpful to Canada if we had made in Canada policies, based on Canadians' ideas and applicable to our Canada.
What a shock this Throne Speech must have been to many Canadians who supported the
April 13. 1965

Liberal Party in 1963, for it is a socialist philosophy dressed up in Madison Avenue language. It is the announcement of an impending marriage between the Liberal Party and the N.D.P. It may well be that the only reason the ceremony has not been performed before now is the language used in outlining the marriage proposal.
Some have said this Throne Speech is like a reversible coat in that it can be turned inside out and used as an election platform. Surely, Mr. Speaker, before election platforms can be considered by the Government of today we must expect action of a far different type which has been far too long in coming, and which will allow the electorate to make a sane and sensible decision. Surely this Throne Speech is little more than apple polishing in the hope the electorate will forget what has transpired in this nation since this Government took office. If this is a smokescreen for scandal, then it is too thin and too obvious and the Canadian public will quickly see through it and judge this Government for what it is, a gigantic flop.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
The Prime Minister described my leader as Mr. Clean, and he was so correct. No man has a greater reputation for honesty and integrity than the Leader of the Official Opposition, and no man led his government with more fearless dedication to these principles. There was no code of ethics required among members of the Diefenbaker administration; it was a part of the character of the individuals appointed during that period. There were no charges of misleading Parliament levelled at my leader, and no concern among Members of this House over activities of Cabinet Ministers. No man in Canada today has been scrutinized with greater care by members of the Fourth Estate. No man has had his character investigated in such minute detail or has had his faults-yes, we all have some- magnified beyond recognition as has the Leader of the Opposition; and no man has a cleaner bill of health when the decision is rendered on his dedication to his country and to the principles of honesty and integrity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Government is not so simple minded as to think it could secure a mandate from the Canadian people on the basis of its present record. It would be an endorsation of fumbling and bumbling, of colossal ineptitude that has become the hallmark of this regime. Surely no Canadian would vote for the continued tenure 22620-21
The Address-Mr. Coates of a Prime Minister who fled from the House of Commons on an unimportant junket to western Canada with bombshell after bombshell being dropped on his party, only to return, after the fireworks had died down, to inform the country and the House that he had misled them before embarking on his junket.
Where is the action from the Government on the gravest matter facing Parliament since I have been a Member, and surely one of the gravest in the history of our nation? Instead of action we get excuses on the character of the Prime Minister; he is timid, he is feeble, he is anaemic, he is a nice guy who does not like to hurt his friends. If these are the Prime Minister's friends, who needs enemies? But, Mr. Speaker, they do not tell the real story.
The real story is that the Prime Minister is not capable of taking the action that is demanded, and on this basis an appeal to the public will end his tenure in office-a good thing for Parliament and for Canada. The Liberal Party has caused irreparable damage to Parliament. It has left open sores that are so much in evidence today, and the ointment prescribed in the Throne Speech will not heal the wounds they have inflicted on this revered institution.
Early in the last session of Parliament, indeed soon after the session began, on February 20, 1964, as recorded at page 38 of Hansard I asked the Minister of Justice the following question:
Is the Minister in a position to inform the House on his Department's assessment of the extent of Mafia operations in Canada?
At that time the Minister of Justice took my question as notice. Then on February 26, as recorded at page 258 of Hansard, I again asked the Minister if he was in a position to reply to my question of February 20, and he stated at that time:
-I would prefer to answer that question later, and I also ask for leave to discuss the advisability of answering it.
I did not realize at that time, but I can certainly appreciate today, why the Minister of Justice wanted to consider the advisability of answering a question on the Government's assessment of organized crime in Canada, in view of the fact that I am sure the recent Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister would have been very anxious not to have the Minister of Justice provide us with that kind of information; and that a great many other friends of the Minister, important
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Coates people in the Liberal Party, would not have been at all interested in having Canadians become aware of the degree of infiltration of organized crime within the Government of this nation.
Mr. Speaker, I did not realize the degree but I was concerned, because I was aware of the investigation that was carried out in the Province of Ontario and of the indications of the build-up in organized crime in this nation, most of it moving in from south of the border, taking over our great cities. Now we have found in a most unhelpful way just how far organized crime has gone in this nation and what a great influence it has on this institution and on people who have been elected to this institution.
We are now awaiting the report of the Dorion Inquiry, and that will look after one aspect of the situation. But, Mr. Speaker, are Canadians going to be satisfied that this is the full extent of the infiltration of organized crime into the Government and the operations of the Government of this nation? When we see how easy it was for Mr. Rivard to walk out of a penal institution and disappear completely, to become not only a national joke but an international joke, we get some appreciation of just how far organized crime has entered into the operations of governments in this nation. And surely if we are going to remove the smears that have been placed on this institution by the Liberal Party we as Canadians are entitled to more than the Dorion Inquiry, and we should demand it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: What this country needs today is a Royal Commission that can investigate every aspect of organized crime and its operations in the nation; a commission that will go well beyond the scope of the Dorion Inquiry; that will look at the Department of Justice and the methods used in determining whether or not charges are to be laid against individuals; that will look at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and determine how certain people get into this nation and how they stay here, and how difficult it seems to be for officials of that department to remove them from this nation when we find that they no longer should be here.
There are so many avenues that demand exploration that Canadians should expect at the very least from the Government a full disclosure to the public of what has been developing in this nation through the buildup of organized crime, and the only way this
[Mr. Coates. J

can be done is through the appointment of a royal commission or a judicial inquiry that will have available to it a scope that is not and has not been available to the Dorion Inquiry. When this comes about, then Members of Parliament will be able to feel that they need not have this type of smear hanging over their heads because of something in which they had no part. I would not like to think that this institution has been degraded to the degree evident in the minds of the Canadian people because of things the Liberal Party has done, things which they felt were to their benefit but which were certainly not to the benefit of Parliament or the Canadian people.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
But this may be too much to expect, Mr. Speaker, from the present Prime Minister, for he seems to put his friends before his country, and to put his friends before Parliament. In fact he seems to put his friends before everything, and it is difficult to imagine what kind of action you can get from a man like this. But surely it is never too late to hope that he can change, that he may read some of the editorials which appear almost daily in the newspapers of the nation telling him to take action and to be ruthless; telling him to do the things which he gave the people of Canada the impression he would do when asking for their support in April, 1963, but which he has failed, and failed in a most miserable manner, to do since he became the Prime Minister of this nation.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join other hon. Members of this house in congratulating the Mover and the Seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I was very impressed with one idea expressed by the hon. Member for St. John's West, which was that education is now a matter of national concern. In fact he went further than I ever did and said that the standards of education were a matter of national concern, and it is a tribute to his eloquence that so far no one has taken issue with him on that. I recall that the last occasion I broached this subject was on the education bill, and the Leader of the Opposition took me severely to task on the question. Therefore I congratulate the hon. Member for St. John's West on the success he has had, because he shows reform thinking.
In these few moments I should like to deal quite emphatically with the whole concept of
April 13. 1385

reform. The Speech from the Throne finally adopts the idea that we must have reform of our rules and procedures. I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that back in November, 1962, when I made public my views about the Liberal Party and their zeal for reform, I said in my remarks that the most essential place for reform is in this House. At that time the word "reform" was not quite as acceptable as it is today, and I am happy to see that everyone else in this chamber is now in favour of reforming not only our rules and procedures but the whole concept of parliamentary government.
In the last eight or nine years we Liberals, I think, have learned one thing clearly, and that is that we do not rule by divine right. We occupy the treasury benches only if we pursue reform with zeal. That is our whole purpose of being. Sometimes I am inclined to remind hon. Members and some of the Ministers that the Liberal Party was not born in a soft easy chair at the Rideau Club. Nor was it intended or initiated to protect and solidify its establishment. Most hon. Members know that the whole purpose of the Liberal Party, its whole conception, was to be against establishment. It was a party for the individual, and I think this line of view is very well expressed in the Speech from the Throne.
I intend to deal with one specific issue in this idea of reform, and that is in connection with one problem existing today, namely that of assistance during times of unemployment. Most hon. Members will realize that there are eight or nine avenues which supposedly are means to assist people who become unemployed. If a man is fired from his job he then turns to unemployment insurance. This is a federal matter. There are certain regulations involved and he has to send in his card, get it mailed back and so on. However, if you exhaust your unemployment insurance and you are under the age of 65, then you have to apply for welfare, which is a municipal matter. If you are injured on the job you go to the compensation board, which is a provincial matter. If you are over 65 and out of work you can apply for old age assistance, a provincial matter. If you are under 65 and cannot get a job you go back to your municipality. If you are crippled or blinded then a provincial act comes into application.
All these measures deal with the provision of assistance during times of unemployment. Therefore I suggest to the Government that
The Address-Mr. Otto an insurance plan which is a measure of reform is absolutely needed now. We have all these plans, each with a different system of administration, yet not one of them actually deals with the subject properly.
Consider the question of unemployment insurance. Originally it was devised to provide a means to pay for food, clothing and shelter when a man lost his job. Consider again, Mr. Speaker, whether at the present time the $30 a week provided does any of these things. It scarcely pays for his food. What is to become of his shelter and clothing and all the other expenses necessary when a man is out of work?
Obviously our present measures are not sufficient. Unemployment insurance, I think we will all admit, has been a sort of political football. We included within its ambit fishermen, lumbermen and others, and the provision of strike pay. In other words, at the present time the only people who really get some benefit from the unemployment insurance fund are those who already have protection. For instance, if a man goes on strike and draws strike pay, this additional $30 will help him. If a female employee quits her job to raise a family, this sum again comes in very handy. If a man retires but does not receive a pension it also comes in handy.
However, Mr. Speaker, all these provisions have a reserve, and the unfortunate part about the whole matter is that most Canadians are now convinced that this is a sort of enforced savings plan, and they have no compunction whatever about asking for unemployment insurance whether or not they are really entitled to it. In other words they say to themselves "I have put so much money in and I want to draw so much money out". That is not the purpose of the fund.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
To supplement this I think you would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the number of people who use family assistance as some sort of family allowance which people save up for the benefit of their children and their education, but when the time of stress comes they have to dip into that. This is another matter that is a sore point with most people. The situation now is that unemployment insurance, and in fact all these other programs, do not provide the proper assistance, the proper measures. This is where we, as the Liberal Party and a Liberal Government, should get our minds to work to develop a completely new scheme.

April 13, 1965
The Address-Mr. Otto I would suggest the following, in keeping with that idea. We already have an unemployment insurance set-up; we now have the Pension Plan, and we have the old age assistance program. I suggest a comprehensive scheme that will merge all these programs into a truly beneficial pattern. I suggest that this be a contributory plan. I suggest that the benefits be geared to approximately 75 per cent of earnings, very similar to the Compensation Board, because this is a much truer idea of help and assistance. I also suggest that there be a maximum annual income and a maximum fixed to the benefits. I further suggest that the total annual earnings be taken into consideration, so that if a man draws $75 a week but happens to be a seasonal employee and during the course of the year earns more than he is entitled to under this scheme, then of course that would have to be refunded or levelled out. I also suggest one other thing, that all people, whether blind, crippled, old, not yet receiving the pension, who need assistance during the term of their employment should be merged into this one plan.
I have one further suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that may sound a little radical but I do not think it is; that is, that these benefits should be payable when a man wants to quit his job and look for another one. Some will say "Good heavens, this is strictly socialistic". I am looking at it from a business sense point of view. I know from personal experience that if a man doesn't like his work and doesn't feel this is where he belongs, he produces to only 10 per cent of his capacity. We should give them six months to find another job. I have done this; I have said "Go and look for another job and I will pay you until you find one". The result was that I was better off because I found somebody else who liked the job, and he was better off because he found a job he liked, and he and the man I employed produced to 90 per cent of their capacity rather than 10 per cent. This is a problem we must face, and I suggest that this type of new, comprehensive plan would be truly a measure of reform in this field.
I think, Sir, you will recall with me that this may be adopting an idea from private enterprise, because back in 1954, 1953, 1952, just in the general insurance field you had fire insurance, theft insurance, liability insurance, hail insurance, glass insurance and just about every type of insurance, and it was very costly. Then the idea of comprehensive general insurance was introduced. I was surprised to find just recently that I am paying
[Mr. Otto.l
less for insurance now, in 1965, than I was paying in 1954, and getting everything covered. So the administrative saving and the efficiency of this type of comprehensive plan would be very beneficial and is very much needed. We would finally be able to say to the people of Canada that we truly have a measure that gives them factual assistance when they are unemployed.
This would remove a lot of the apprehensions that exist at the present time. Some will say this is an interference with provincial rights, because the Provinces are already concerned in these matters. But if we do have-and we have-an idea of co-operative federalism, I think we can overcome these problems. That, Sir, I suggest would be the true meaning of reform, and I highly recommend that our Government look into this matter and that all Members pay serious attention to a comprehensive plan, which is a very much needed measure at the present time.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Member a question. I noted with interest the hon. Member's review of the various plans this Government had taken up or advocated. I would like to ask him what became of the older workers training and assistance program, which was a much vaunted program a few months ago but about which I have not heard anything lately.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the Minister of Labour dealt with this matter the other day. However, I would like the opportunity to repeat my point. I am trying to say that we should merge all these plans. We have all these individual plans which could be merged into one truly effective plan, which we are going to need in this time of automation and in this time of a general movement of labour.


Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are those of congratulation to the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They are both young men who no doubt have a long future in public life ahead of them.
It is interesting to note that both these Members referred to unemployment; they both said they had unemployment in their ridings and that they were concerned with this. Many of us recall that when the Liberals were in opposition they claimed they had all the answers. They talked daily about doom and gloom and said "Give us a chance and we will correct everything".
April 13, 1865

During the 1962 and 1963 election compaigns, to listen to Liberal speakers and read their propaganda one would come to the conclusion that they were supermen with the power of magic; that all they would have to do was wave the magic wand and everything would be rosy.
However, it did not take very long for this bubble to break. It has become plain that those sitting on the treasury benches are not supermen; that they are mere mortals and are not infallible. They have also demonstrated that they are indecisive, ineffective, lackadaisical, even lazy, and in some cases are not free from corruption. It has become plain that they have not been able to solve the problems, and in many cases have not even been able to cope with them. This was demonstrated by the mover and seconder, who said that unemployment was a serious factor in their ridings.
Another frightening situation is the skyrocketing cost of living during the past two years. This has created real hardship for those who have low incomes and those who are on fixed incomes, and this includes all retired people on pension.
The Speech from the Throne was certainly wordy. It is possibly one of the longest speeches presented to an opening of Parliament. It includes many left-overs and is full of generalities. One cannot help but be suspicious that it is mere window dressing and that, by the past performance of Liberal Governments, they have no intention of dealing with many of the items mentioned. In the event of an election it is a handy document to have, whereby the Government could say this was their program. This is a typical Liberal attitude.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
Members on this side of the House have dealt with many of the items mentioned in the Throne Speech. I intend to deal briefly with some of them. The hon. Member for Simcoe East dealt with the paragraph relating to the price of drugs. I agree with him that it is not good enough for the Government to re-establish a committee to study this matter. The Government has the power to cut the price of drugs by removing the sales tax. It is most unfair and unjust that there should be a sales tax on drugs. I personally believe that the principle involved here is totally wrong. When a person is ill he has the added expense of obtaining drugs. It is not enough that these people are ill and have these added expenses over and above those
The Address-Mr. Stefanson incurred by a person who is well; the Government penalizes them further by putting a sales tax on drugs. I feel this is wrong, unfair and disgraceful, and I urge the Government to take immediate steps to correct this situation.
The hon. Member for London referred to the Income Tax Act and specific unrealistic exemptions. This matter was discussed during an amendment proposed yesterday, and the figure of $3,000 as exemption for a married individual was suggested as being realistic. Under today's conditions I believe also that that would be more realistic, and I urge the Minister of Finance to give some consideration to an increase in income tax exemptions in his budget which he intends to bring down on April 26.
The Minister of Finance and the Government have turned deaf ears to the requests by Conservative Members for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery. Surely by now the Government has learned through experience that this tax has placed a burden on Canadian industry and has hindered growth and development. It is to be hoped that the Government will take quick action to correct this inequity and injustice.
There is something for almost everyone in the Throne Speech, but one group has been left out completely, and that is the small businessman in Canada. In the past the small businessman in Canada has been the backbone of the nation. I am sure almost every Canadian has received assistance at some time from a small businessman. Today with the trend toward supermarkets and shopping centres many small businessmen are experiencing difficulty, but as far as the Government is concerned it is apparently prepared to see the small businessman perish and disappear completely. In this regard this Government is apparently void of ideas, and is content to sit on its fat backside and do nothing. I for one hope it will have a change of heart.
I should now like to refer to that paragraph in the Speech from the Throne which states:
You will be asked to consider measures of special assistance to the family farm in both eastern and western Canada.
I listened to the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon but he did not clarify that paragraph in relation to agriculture. In fact I gained the impression that he was making fun of the family farm. His attitude has led
322	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stefanson me to believe that these are just flowery words which make nice reading, and they are there only for that purpose. The Minister of Agriculture referred to a national policy for agriculture. This Minister and this Government are noted for going out through the country making statements, grandiose announcements and announcements of policy without action to follow them up. They receive press coverage, are interviewed on television, and by this manner of behaviour are able to deceive the Canadian public.
The Minister of Agriculture spoke about low farm incomes, and that certainly is a true situation. It is interesting, however, to note that since he became Minister there has been a drastic drop in the prices of beef cattle, turkeys, eggs and poultry, and a short time ago in wheat. All this would indicate that he does not have a clue as to how to deal with these matters. When the hon. Minister accused the previous Government of not doing anything he seemed to have forgotten that the former Government introduced ARDA, crop insurance, the Farm Credit Corporation, the Stabilization Act, legislation providing interest free cash advances on farm-stored grain, and also introduced acreage payments. All this Minister has ever done is increase the load placed on farmers. His announcement regarding the increased amount that farmers can borrow drastically increased the value of land and has done nothing whatever to assist the farmers.
Perhaps I should also point out to the Minister that although he brought in an amendment to the Crop Insurance Act last summer to provide for reinsurance, it is my understanding that the Minister has not finalized this with the Provinces, although he has had several months to do so. In that regard I would charge him with being tardy in his duties.
The former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) made a grandiose announcement in the House of Commons on July 17, 1963 about arranging meetings with the Provinces to discuss a national highway policy. This anouncement received a great deal of publicity in the press, on radio and on television. The Minister was interviewed on television and gave the impression that this was a tremendously important policy announcement and that action would be forthcoming. What has been the result? This conference was never convened. Why was it not convened? A cost-sharing arrangement between the Fed-

DEBATES	April 13, 1965
eral and Provincial Governments in respect of major highways would have been acceptable to Provincial Governments, and I suspect that is the reason this conference was not convened. There are indications that this Government is discontinuing the Roads to Resources Program. This was a beneficial and useful program, and it was under this program that many of the roads in central and northern Manitoba were built including the road from Gypsumville to Grand Rapids.
There is an urgent need for the establishment of a national highway policy. To help the growth and development of western Canada it is essential to construct a second east-west route. This second highway should follow a northern route. It could easily pass through the interlake area of Manitoba, cross Lake Manitoba at the Narrows and carry on west to Edmonton and beyond. There is also a need for more highways in northern Manitoba to make this area more accessible so the natural resources can be developed. I urge the new Minister of Public Works to get cracking and establish a national highway policy without further delay.
Another matter for his consideration is the need for a policy covering pleasure boats, which are increasing in large numbers each year in all parts of Canada and will continue to increase. This traffic requires certain services, and it is therefore essential to determine who has the responsibility for providing these services. It has become urgent that policy be adopted in this regard.
Members of this Government have made so-called policy statements with a lot of fanfare and publicity, following which nothing has been done. I suggest this is a pattern which has developed among those sitting on the treasury benches. This type of performance is not good enough. The people in all parts of Canada are entitled to something better.
I should now like to refer briefly to the paragraph in the Throne Speech which refers to human resources. It states:
All the great potentialities of our economy are not, however, being realized. The talents of some of our people are wasted because of poverty, illness, inadequate education and training-
It then states:
My government therefore is developing a program for the full utilization of our human resources and the elimination of poverty among our people.
Those are very nice words, but sound very much as though they have been borrowed from the former Kennedy administration and
April 13, 1965	COMMONS
the present Johnson administration across the line. They indicate quite clearly that this Government has far from solved the problems with which it is faced. I await with interest the legislation which the Government will introduce to deal with these problems. I sincerely hope that these are not just flowery expressions put into the Throne Speech for effect, but that the Government will take concrete action. I hope the Government will come up with some good, effective legislation which will best utilize all human resources. It does seem to me that redevelopment of rural areas and the training of workers fits into the ARDA program.
The ARDA legislation introduced by the former Government is the most forward looking legislation introduced by any Government. Another paragraph of the Throne Speech refers to ARDA as follows:
You will be asked to approve the creation of a fund for rural economic development and, in order to provide for fuller integration of action for rural development, amendments to the legislation regarding ARDA will be placed before you.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
When the Minister of Agriculture spoke this afternoon he poked fun at what the former Government had done through ARDA.
I think the ARDA legislation was by far the most forward looking and imaginative legislation ever introduced by any Parliament on the North American continent. Certainly it is not the type of legislation that a Minister should treat humorously. As an indication of what the Prime Minister must have thought of the competence of the Minister of Agriculture, let me point out that he did not allow ARDA to remain under the Department of Agriculture, where it actually belongs. He removed it from the Minister and has now placed it under the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve). He has much more confidence in the Minister of Forestry administering this act properly. I certainly will await with interest the amendments which the Government proposes to introduce. The original ARDA legislation had three main aims; to put to better use marginal land that is not very productive in its present use, to develop income and employment opportunities in rural areas, and to develop and conserve the water and soil resources of rural Canada.
On checking over the projects which have been approved in the Province of Manitoba I find that these come mainly under soil and water conservation projects, alternate uses of land and research. Actually very little has been done to date under rural development.
DEBATES	323
The Address-Mr. Stefanson In my opinion this section of the Act is the most challenging, for in the long run it will accomplish the most good. I hope a determined effort will be made to promote projects under this section of the Act. One project which has been approved and which comes under this section is a pilot plant to process rough fish from Lake Winnipeg for mink food to increase the income of local fishermen and make available low cost animal food.
In March of 1963 the Interlake region of Manitoba was declared a test area under the ARDA program, and later it was designated as a rural development area. Many research programs were carried out in this area, some paid for 100 per cent by the Federal Government and some on a cost sharing basis with the province. Some of these programs dealt with research, land use, water conservation, wildlife, tourist facilities and attractions, manpower and the prospects of establishing industry. Many of these surveys have been completed and no doubt they were very useful in that a lot of valuable data has been collected. This information should be made available to area development committees and municipal councils. This information will be of little value if it is locked up. The more widely it is made available the more likely it will be made use of.
In April of 1964 two area resources conferences were held in the Interlake area, one at Arborg and the other at Stonewall. These two conferences provided a lot of information and generated a great deal of local interest. Since these conferences were held, area development committees have been set up throughout the whole district. These committees are doing a lot of good work, and the men and women serving on them and giving of their time and effort deserve a lot of credit. With the spirit of the people at the local level, I am sure that the ARDA program will be made good use of in the Interlake area.
These people, however, need a lot of encouragement from both provincial and federal officials. I am aware that these officials are doing a good job, but I should like to suggest that in an area which has been designated as a rural development area an even greater degree of co-operation and effort should be put forth by officials of both governments.
The Minister of Forestry, who is in charge of administering the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, has, I understand, great confidence in the Act. For this
324	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stefanson I am very thankful. However, I have one criticism to make. With the original agreement which was signed in 1962 now expired, the Minister has not signed the new agreement with the provinces. In my opinion this is being tardy. I urge the Minister to take care of this without further delay. I also urge the Minister and his officials to do everything in their power to make sure this legislation does what it was set up to do, and that they make all possible assistance available to areas designated as development areas. The success of this legislation will help to make Canada a better place in which to live.
In the paragraph of the Speech from the Throne dealing with ARDA there is reference to the creation of a fund for rural economic development. I certainly hope that when the fund is created the money will be spent all across Canada. My constituency could benefit a great deal if some of the money was used in that particular area, and I urge the Government to see to it that some of the funds are allotted to that area.
There is another matter I want to touch on. I refer to water pollution. In 1958 I had the pleasure of introducing a private Member's resolution in the House dealing with water pollution. Subsequently the former Conservative Government took the first step to deal with water pollution when they made loans available to towns and cities for trunk sewers and sewage disposal plants. In the agreements there was a forgiveness provision to the extent of 25 per cent to encourage towns and cities to undertake this work.
This was the first step to deal with water pollution and it was indeed a most welcome one. Many towns have used this legislation to tackle this problem. But this is not enough. A far greater effort has to be made. The Government of today have ignored this question completely, and by the looks of things they intend to ignore it because I do not believe it is referred to in the Speech from the Throne.
The hon. Member for Simcoe East dealt with water. I would agree with him that water is fast becoming Canada's most important natural resource. A shortage of water is developing all over the North American continent, and it is urgent that steps be taken to conserve water and develop a water policy.
Another matter I raised on one occasion by way of a resolution had to do with establishing a permanent voters' list. In the Speech from the Throne there are these words:
My Government Intends ot make proposals regarding the limitation and payment ot election

DEBATES	April 13, 1965
expenses when it has received and considered the findings of the committee of inquiry.
I hope that at the same time they will also see fit to deal with the matter of establishing a permanent voters' list. Under our system today many people are disfranchised, and there certainly is no reason why every Canadian should not have the chance to vote in a federal election. From my own experience in my own riding I know that if an election occurs at a certain time the fishermen will have gone north to their fishing grounds, and they will lose their votes. I hope this matter will be given serious consideration.
There is another matter which is back on the agenda and is referred to in the Speech from the Throne in these words:
You will be asked to enact legislation to establish an Indian Claims Commission.
We have seen that promise before but nothing has been done about it. I will wait with interest to see whether the same thing will apply again or whether any action will be forthcoming.
There is one other item I want to touch on before I take my seat, and it is referred to in this paragraph in the Speech from the Throne:
In order to raise the level of income of Canadian fishermen, a measure will be placed before you to provide for an expanded national fisheries development program.
I am very pleased to see that the Minister of Fisheries is in his seat. Hon. Members will recall that in January, 1964 the Minister of Fisheries convened a conference which we were all very glad to see convened. Everybody had high hopes that there was going to be tremendous activity and a lot of things done for the fishermen. This heading appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press: "Fishermen To Get New Deal On Aid". Again, there was this heading in the Winnipeg Tribune: "Fishermen To Get Same Federal Aid As Farmers". However, a Mr. Kramer of Saskatchewan indicated he felt that if the fishermen were only going to get the same deal as the farmers they certainly would not be getting much. Nevertheless, fishermen are among our primary producers, and I personally feel it has been the tendency of most countries to forget the primary producer. It is certainly a fact that not much assistance has been provided to the fishing industry.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
This communique, issued following the conference, was lengthy, consisting of 1,850 words. It says here that after the meeting
April 13, 1985

Mr. Smallwood was ecstatic about the conference results. He said there was agreement on all sides to the proposition that the fishing industry should be treated the same as agriculture, and called it a "Magna Carta" for the fishing industry. I would be amazed if Mr. Smallwood was not getting a little bit impatient at the inactivity of the present Government and the lack of action on the recommendations made at this most important conference.
In so far as Manitoba is concerned, Mines and Resources Minister Sterling Lyon has made several recommendations. The first is for an expanded program of biological research, specifically a fish culture and biological station for Grand Rapids, in view of the need to increase output. So far as I know, nothing has been done in this regard. Then he goes on, and I quote:
Much greater effort and technological research, to meet the need for new product development and the development of new fishing gear and technology. A technological research station concerned with new product development was recommended for Winnipeg and an increased program of technological research was requested for both the large lakes and the smaller northern lakes.
I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries to look into this proposal and at a later date advise me as to what has been done about it. Another proposal is as follows:
Assistance for the University of Manitoba to establish a fisherman education program to fill the need for education and extension work. Additional aid was recommended for technical and vocational training for fishermen in three appropriate communities in the province.
I should like to know also whether any action has been taken on this proposal. The next recommendation was:
Immediate establishment of a Federal-Provincial technical group to examine capital requirements in the industry which requires increased investment.
The last proposal related to the establishment of a fish marketing board. I take it from the results of the conference that this would require legislation by both Provincial and Federal Governments. I should like to know, however, whether any action has been taken on this proposal, and if so at what stage it is.
Before I conclude I should like to refer to one other item which relates to fishing, and that is the shipbuilding subsidy for fishing vessels which is available to fishermen in the Atlantic Provinces. I have no quarrel with this subsidy. I think it is very good; but if these fishermen are entitled to this type of assistance I believe the inland fisher-22620-22
The Address-Mr. Legault men who fish on Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis should be given the same consideration. This is a subsidy which is provided for boats of 35 feet or over in length.
I believe it should apply to fishermen in Manitoba and elsewhere in Canada.
There is another matter I should like to mention under the heading of fishing, and that is the sales tax on equipment used by inland fishermen. I am referring to bombardiers, motor vehicles, power ice augers and diesel fuel used for generating electric power. These are items that are essential to the fishing industry, particularly in the area from which I come. An ice auger is used precisely for boring a hole in the ice. The fisherman puts his ice auger on the bombardier and drills a hole in the ice for fishing. It should not be difficult to understand that is its only purpose. I maintain there should be no sales tax on this item.
In conclusion, I hope the Government will give consideration to the suggestions I have made, and not only give consideration to them but will take action to implement some of them.


Mr. Carl Legauli (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for their encouragement.
The fact that I came here after a by-election held last June shows that the electors of the riding of Nipissing have confidence in this government under the able leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister.
This by-election was held as a result of the death of our friend, Hon. Jack Garland, who was liked by all members of parliament and by all his electors. Everyone could approach him because he was so sympathetic. His decisions were as fair as Solomon's. He was unassuming, but a man of action who always found a favourable and constructive solution to the problems which faced him.
For us in Nipissing Jack Garland had become a living legend. We have lost a close friend and a great Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the praise expressed to the movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), who have shown by their speeches that they deserve the confidence of their constituents.
I also congratulate the hon. member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) for the fine way
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Legault in which she made her maiden speech, last Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, the district of Nipissing, which I have the honour to represent, has a population of approximately 70,000, with close to
38,000	voters, and possesses the whole gamut of requisites for the ideal Garden of Eden sought by everyone. It is composed of 130 townships ranging in size from 36 square miles to 100 square miles, and because of its geographical position could be considered the hub for all future developments in Canada.
It is in this area that you will find a very important factor, the height of land distributing fresh water north to James Bay, east down the Ottawa River and south by the French River toward the Great Lakes. You can appreciate my interest in promoting an extended study of the Grand Canal system prepared by Mr. Tom Kierans of Sudbury, which would affect favourably the development of northern Ontario. It is practically a foregone conclusion that this solution to the serious problem of low water levels on the Great Lakes will come about within a few years. The urgent importance and need for fresh water have reached a proportion unsurpassed by any previous problem undertaken by Governments.
The interim report of the Mines, Forests and Natural Water Resources Committee includes a suggestion that an immediate survey be made of this great Grand Canal system potential. If we put off the solution of this acute problem until later we can only bring hardship to millions of people and serious financial loss to a vast industrial empire. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of immediate action on this project. It would certainly contribute immensely to the development and economic stability of a large territory. You can well forecast the access this would give to great resources and the subsequent addition of secondary industries. This in itself would complete the circuit of water navigation from the Great Lakes to the Ottawa River and to Hudson Bay. It is in North Bay that you will find the centre of distribution for all means of transportation and communication which, as I have mentioned before, will prove to be the main artery to all Canadian points.
Nipissing is very colourful because within its boundaries are found developments for all interests. The northern part, famous for its tourist resource, possesses numerous mineral deposits which have lately aroused the interest
[Mr Legault.]
of many firms because of the large content of iron and copper. We can boast of a granite quarry having a product of quality unsurpassed in North America. The operators of this development have started to produce curling stones, and it is good at this time to mention that they are better than those imported, and that they are the only manufacturers of this kind in North America.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
You will find agricultural and dairy farming in the western and southeastern part of the riding. There are numerous lumber operations and sawmills which play a great part in the economy of the region. We have a manufacturer of explosives in DuPont of Canada Limited; manufacturers of wood by-products in the Abitibi Power and Paper Company Limited, Johns-Manville Company, Weyer-Houser Company Limited. Many sawmills are operated and their products exported to various parts of the world. The potential of the tourist trade will be developed in coming years to an extent undreamed of in the past. The numerous scenic lakes are slowly being discovered by thirsty vacation seekers. The visitors to the eastern end of the riding will find indescribable appreciation of the grandiose, majestic splendours surrounding Mattawa.
Widdifield Township at the moment is undergoing growing pains but is coping with the situation very well with the installation of the Bomarc base and the complex Sage installation which is the nerve centre for the air defence of all North America. You can well understand that because of its position, Nipissing is soon to experience an unheard of expansion.
When I say my riding is colourful it is because of the wonderful and varied ethnic groups of people who live in it and give it an atmosphere of warmth and friendliness never forgotten by all who visit us. It is composed of people of numerous racial origins such as Indians, Anglo-Saxons, French Italians, Germans, Greek, Chinese, Ukrainians, Poles and many others. It would be well to realize that this is a proving ground of bilingualism and biculturalism. In this great district you will find all commodities and services at your disposition. The opportunities are unlimited and the growth is being accomplished step by step in a very intelligent way.
I was very proud and privileged to have been nominated and elected to represent Nipissing in support of the present admin-
April 13, 1965

istration guided by our Prime Minister, a great man at the right time for the right job, who has steered the country during its most difficult years, the man knowing the secret of how to compromise in order to satisfy everyone but, as you have all realized, always achieving a definite goal that had been set. A great quality which he possesses is to delegate responsibilities to well chosen experts in their field. This Government has undertaken constructive measures well balanced to the true economic potentiality of this country and its citizens. This Government has taken positive action to bring about a more unified Canada. There has been a lot of criticism, but we all must accept the fact that the decisions taken were definite, constructive measures for this purpose.
A distinctive flag, a controversial issue for many years, unifies and identifies our great country and its people. The B and B Commission was the only practical movement made in order to study and suggest the proper solution to a problem which faces us, but which was too often brushed aside for fear of facing reality. It is bringing facts to the attention of everyone, which we have to accept and to which concrete, logical solutions will be brought about for a more unified country.
The Pension Plan passed at the last session is a social measure which in itself helps to cement this unity. We have all experienced numerous pieces of legislation which make our country the best democratic place to live in. All this has been under the powerful leadership of our right hon. Prime Minister. Evidence is in the united and complete support and great admiration for him from all members of the Liberal Party, and from many others. This is being accomplished under adverse conditions and the difficulty of fighting off distorted interpretations of various reports detrimental to favourable solutions, coupled with the uneasiness and impractical position of a minority Government. It is the first time in Canadian history that a minority Government has been able to survive for more than a few months and yet accomplish so much.
The Government is sometimes accused of being accident-prone, by innuendo, but certainly not of being a Government of do nothing and be nothing. All Canadians appreciate and support social measures which have as their purpose to give security to needy and elderly people, but we must beware of extremists who would bring about socialism.
327
The Address-Mr. Legault We must leave the citizens of this country free, so that by their incentive, desire for improvement and reward, all shall obtain a better standard of living. The new legislation in the Throne Speech will do much for all the people of Canada.
I would like to bring to your attention the difficult preparation of the comprehensive medicare plan which must bring satisfaction to everyone. We do want to obtain the required protection and attention for needy and elderly people, but still respect the liberty of action, choice and decision of all parties affected by this legislation. The policies and ideals of this Government respecting proper administration call for co-ordination and recognition of the rights of various jurisdictions.
The federal-provincial co-operative way of administering such a vast country is the only logical action to take. It is to be regretted that we as a people have somewhat failed to keep pace mentally with the accelerated technical developments which have taken place. We have to realize such facts as that within the next few years, two hours and fifteen minutes is all that will be required to cross the Atlantic. Immediate transcription is obtained of all activities throughout the world, yet we seem to be immunized against the miseries that exist in most parts of this world. Water always finds a way to adjust to its own level. Racial, economical and social problems throughout this world can within a few hours be our own, whether we like it or not.

Mr. Speaker, the program undertaken for the educational, cultural, social and economic development of our Indians, as set forth during the last session, is one that, within the next 10 years, should bring out the great potential of that capable and very intelligent race.
We often show too much impatience for the solutions of problems concerning bilingualism and biculturalism. The steps taken have already brought about an obvious improvement, but it will take at least two generations before results really satisfactory for all Canadians can be achieved.
I think that the setting up of a company of young Canadians will fulfil two functions. One is the work and the good that those young citizens will do; the other is the education and the practical knowledge that they will get from those experiences.
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Ricard
The revision of the regulations concerning the administration of the Immigration Act will bring about an improvement to the situation that we know today.
A study to reform parliamentary procedure should be welcome by all hon. members. All social measures proposed will certainly, with the years, fill many gaps, simplify and cut the number of welfare pension plans in existence today. That will entail the rationalization of several measures which are now impracticable. It is with such an approach that Canada will improve and continue to be a country that is envied the world over.
A suggestion I should like to make to the house at this time would be to provide money to tourist camp operators as it is done at the present time in the case of farmers through farm credit.

The area development program is very welcome, and will bring encouragement to temporarily depressed areas. This, Mr. Speaker, should prove to be a very aggressive and interesting session.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Hon. Theogene Ricard (SI. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay tribute to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. member for St. Mauriee-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) for the gracefulness and the efficiency with which they discharged their task in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
There are many subjects with which I would like to deal, but I will abstain and will merely mention them casually.
One could make a complete speech on the absence of the measures the government should take to stop the ever-increasing rise in the cost of living. At present the cost of living has reached an all-time high in the country, that is 137.3 per cent. In my opinion those who are responsible for this situation are the hon. members now sitting on the treasury benches. It is their responsibility to take the necessary steps so that the income of the average worker, of the factory worker is no longer taxed so heavily because of the excessive cost of living. A moment of thought is enough to notice that the cost of living has risen alarmingly by 2.7 per cent during a single year. This should be enough to urge all the people of good will to do something to correct this situation.

Of course, there is the 11 per cent tax created by our hon. friends opposite which has surely contributed to a great extent to increase the cost of living. The numerous representations which we made to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) urging him to repeal this tax have been unsuccessful so far.
Once again, appealing to his generosity, I ask him to remove this 11 per cent tax which is surely responsible to a great extent for this increase in the cost of living.
I could say a great deal also about the means to check unemployment. We had been promised full employment during the last two election campaigns, and I am sorry to tell the house that my province still has the largest group of unemployed in Canada. I understand that unemployed in the province of Quebec represent 39 per cent of all unemployed in Canada. However, this did not seem to upset too much the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) to whom we have asked, and are asking again, what he intends to do in order to provide some assistance, especially to the unemployed of the province of Quebec and of the Maritime provinces. To each of our questions, he always gave the same answer: You will get a reply to your questions in due course. We have been hearing that for two years and the speech from the throne does not contain any measure that will increase the number of jobs in Canada.
I would also like to point out that thanks to the opposition's pressures and suggestions, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) finally agreed to meet our requests to a limited extent. For more than two years, we have been urging the Liberal government, more particularly the Minister of Agriculture, to set up a price of approximately $3.50 per hundredweight for manufactured milk. Well, some time ago, the Minister of Agriculture announced to the house a dairy policy based on the one his predecessor had set up a few years previously.
However, as he himself acknowledged, he took that decision only after having caused the farmers to lose about $11 million that they would have got if the dairy policy put forward while we were in office had been maintained. No wonder farmers feel insecure. In fact, all of them are peeved with the Minister of Agriculture at present.
Mr. Speaker, my next remarks will concern mainly the Canadian textile industry, and they are made in the best interests of my constituents.
April 13, 1965

Of all our industries, that of textile is one of the oldest ones in this country. Throughout the years, it has provided stable and profitable employment. It is imperative to give that industry, which is one of our basic industries, all the protection it needs. It is found mostly in small and medium sized cities where it enables most of the inhabitants to earn a living.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if one keeps in mind the fact that last year the synthetic textile industry gave work to about 20,600 workers, one realizes its importance. Those 20,600 workers are integrated into the parish and community life of our cities. They are citizens who pay taxes. We ought to give them the protection to which they are entitled.
In 1964, in the field of synthetic textile, this industry spent about $7.7 million for new buildings, while almost $40 million was spent on machinery. This means that this industry deserves the attention of the government and of the members of this house.
There is a danger that this industry may be seriously affected in the coming months, unless beneficial and drastic measures are taken immediately.
When one remembers that in 1950, the Canadian industry supplied 77 per cent of the local market, while it supplied only 60 per cent in 1963, one realizes that foreign manufacturers are progressively taking over our domestic market, year after year, to the great detriment of the Canadian worker.
In 1964, imports from Japan amounted to $44.7 million, that is 37.9 per cent more than in 1963.
When the Japanese industry started to compete with the Canadian textile industry immediately after the war, its products left a lot to be desired and they were quite inferior in quality to the products made in Canada. But today, conditions have changed and if the Japanese products are not of a superior quality they are at least equal in quality to the products made in Canada.
As a result of the improvement of its machinery, the Japanese textile industry has now exceeded the needs of the Japanese market. In fact, according to the information provided by a Canadian businessman, the Japanese synthetic textile industry is determined to invade at all costs the Canadian market.
According to statistics I have obtained from various sources, we have practically succeeded, up to now, in keeping in check imports from the United States. On the other
The Address-Mr. Ricard hand, imports from Japan increased from 6.1 per cent in 1959 to 22.6 per cent in 1964. And, according to the information I have obtained from that same Canadian industrialist, imports from Japan during the first few months of this year well exceeded those of 1964. There is therefore reason for alarm, and it is the government's responsibility to take whatever action is necessary to restrain such imports which can only be detrimental to our workers.
Last week, I met the president of a synthetic textiles company and as I remarked that his staff appeared to be quite busy, he said: Yes, we are quite busy this year, but unless some action is taken I fear we may not be so busy next year, for if Japanese imports continue to invade our market at this rate, several of our employees will be forced, I am sorry to say, to find employment elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, the textile industry is, as everybody knows, of prime importance to the riding I represent. The remarks of the president of that company made me think of the employees of Consolidated Textile Limited, operating a very important spinning-mill in my constituency, as well as those of the Yamaska Shirt Company who will also be affected if shirts, blouses, trousers and shorts continue to be imported at the rate they are now.
Last year, for instance, the management of Consolidated Textile Limited spent a great deal of money on machinery improvement, and it would be most unfortunate if, because of this government's inaction, many of my compatriots were obliged, next year, to find some other kind of employment while they have devoted so many years to this particular work.
Mr. Speaker, let us keep in mind that, like Cornwall, St. Hyacinthe has the best employees in the Canadian textile industry.
I have here a brief submitted to the tariff board by the Canadian Textile Institute. A look at the tables it contains will give an idea of the real danger which the Canadian textile industry is facing at the present time.
At this stage I might be allowed to quote a few figures. A table entitled:
Imports of synthetic textiles from Japan (in thousand square yards)
shows that Japanese imports increased from 119 square yards or .3 per cent of the Canadian market in 1954 to 14,853 square yards or 20.2 per cent in 1963. This situation would not be too alarming if our local market could be expanded only up to a certain point.

April 13, 1985
The Address-Mr. Ricard The natural increase in our population can absorb a greater production of synthetic textiles, but our industry already produces a great deal as a result of an improved labour force and modernized machinery.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
What is alarming is that, while imports amounted to .3 per cent in 1954, they are now 20.2 per cent and this is in one area only.
For instance, imports of Japanese rayon spun textiles increased from 17,000 square yards to 85,000,000 square yards in 1963, which means that such imports now supply 15.7 per cent of the Canadian market, as compared to 4.6 per cent in 1959.
Another table shows that in 1959 imports of Japanese textiles (rayon spun goods) totalled 102,000 square yards, while in 1963, Japanese manufacturers exported to Canada
7,565,000	square yards. Therefore, imports increased from 1.9 per cent in 1959 to 10.6 per cent in 1963.
Mr. Speaker, to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Japanese industry, especially in the field of synthetic textiles, is constantly invading our home market, I feel it is my duty to raise my voice and remind the government of its obligations. I am not against Canada trading with other countries, far from it. To a certain extent, we have to depend on foreign markets for our own products, but it seems to me we would behave like an ostrich if we were to bury our heads in the sand to avoid seeing the danger that is threatening our workers at the present time.
It is all very well, as I said, to have trade relations with foreign countries, but our first obligation is to our fellow Canadians. It was in order to remind the Minister of this thing that I decided today to speak for a few minutes on this subject.
My hon. friend from Stanstead (Mr. Forest) recognized last week the importance of this textile industry for his constituency. I associate myself with him and with my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Mar-coux), in requesting the government to give immediate attention to this problem. Let us not wait until it is too late; let us take right now the necessary steps.
During a discussion with the president of one of the most important textile manufacturing companies in the province, I realized there is presently great apprehension and people stand in fear of the future in the event

steps are not taken immediately to correct this situation.
I trust that other members, representing
constituencies where there are textile industries, will support my representations and will ask that voluntary quotas be applied on all imports from Japan.
I reviewed some articles which appeared in the Japanese press, and I found out that for the year 1964 only, compared with 1963, Japanese production of nylon goods increased 48.8 per cent, of polyester goods 37.5 per cent, and of acrylic textile goods, 71.1 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider, as I was saying a few minutes ago, that the production of the Japanese industry now exceeds the needs of the Japanese market and that they are determined to drop goods on the Canadian market, we must conclude that we have to protect ourselves against this danger.
I wish to say that I endorse the proposal made by CATMA in its brief to the department a few weeks ago. To that end, Japanese exports should be subject to quotas of not more than two million square yards for synthetic fabric, four million square yards for rayon thread and not more than six million square yards for rayon fabric.
Unless we take the necessary steps to establish such quotas, our textile industry and especially that of synthetic textiles, will end up in the doldrums and possibly vanish before too many years.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I call upon hon. members to co-operate so that Canadian workers will not have to suffer from the encouragement given imports of products manufactured by others than Canadian taxpayers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to devote the major portion of my remarks on this occasion to the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne which refers to the need to improve the procedures of Parliament.
Before I do so I should like to take just a moment or two to make reference to some other items in the Speech from the Throne that hold particular interest for me and for all of us in the New Democratic Party. I refer to those measures which suggest that further steps are to be taken in the field of social welfare and that there is to be launched a war on poverty. We heartily welcome these words, and we earnestly hope that during the course
April 13. 19S5	COMMONS
of this session they will be translated into actual statutes. It is our fear that in many instances only words have been given to us, but we shall press for action.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It is my notion from studying the Speech from the Throne that perhaps the item that is closest to being ready to present to us is what is referred to as the Canada Assistance Plan. We do not have much detail about this piece of legislation yet, but I gather it is to be a form of legislation that will in time take the place of the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act and unemployment assistance, and that it will provide certain other benefits as well. We believe it is a good move to replace these categorical programs with an over-all program based on need rather than on the means that a person may have. We earnestly hope this session will not be prorogued until the Canada Assistance Plan is on our statute books.
It has been said in editorials in a number of newspapers since the Speech from the Throne was delivered that the Government would appear to have been raiding the cupboard of the New Democratic Party. This is a form of raiding that we do not mind.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The new socialists.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We only hope that when the Government takes things out of our cupboard it will really put them on the statute books and not just hide them away somewhere. May I remind the Government and may I remind the writers of newspaper editorials that there are still a good many items in our cupboard. Let me name two or three of them. It is still our belief that the pension legislation that we developed in the last session, good as it is, would be a lot better if the flat rate benefit under old age security was raised to $100 a month.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We suggest that when the Government is raiding our cupboard it take that one and put it on the statute books, and that it make the full pension available at age 65 right away.
We also feel, despite the explanations given by the Prime Minister, that the Government is still moving too slowly with respect to medicare. We want to see not just federal-provincial conferences, not just talk; we want to see action in this important field. When there is talk about a war on poverty, let it be
DEBATES	331
The Address-Mr. Knowles remembered we will not be rid of poverty until we are rid of all the slums in this country, until our people are well housed whether they live in the cities or in the rural areas. We will not be free of poverty until even in a country where education is a provincial matter we have found a way to make our nation's resources available so that for all our people education can be brought to a much higher level than is the case at the present time.
There is one other immediate item in our New Democratic Party cupboard which we wish the Government would take and put on the statute books. I refer to the need to provide for the maintenance of income when the breadwinner is off work because of illness. This is one of the most serious gaps in our social legislation. We moved a bit in that direction a few years ago when we provided that if a person has collected one benefit under unemployment insurance and then becomes ill he may continue to receive his benefits. But it is still the case that if a person is out of work basically because of illness there is no benefit for him. This, as I say, is a most glaring gap in the social legislation of this country, and we urge the Government to act on this matter at an early date.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are still many items in our cupboard which we hope the Government will take and act upon at this session, and I urge in particular that this session not be prorogued until we have at least got the Canada Assistance Plan on the statute books.
I said I wanted to talk mainly about the procedures of Parliament. There is a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne the opening sentence of which reads as follows:
My ministers believe that it is imperative to reform the procedures of the House of Commons in order that it may accomplish the large volume of work required to meet the needs of the Canadian people in modern times.
We may find ourselves in some disagreement with the Government, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to ways and means of implementing that sentiment, but we could not agree with it more than we do. When it comes to improving the procedures of Parliament there are, of course, many items to be studied. There are many rules that need to be modernized, and even after we have looked at all the rules and made them the best they can be made, that is not everything. There is still room for reforming ourselves
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Knowles and for introducing those measures of selfdiscipline that will enable us to make this Parliament the place the people of Canada believe it is, the place they think it ought to be.
But I want to say that in terms of procedure, in terms of our rules, I think the most important problem that faces us-and it is alluded to in the sentence in the Speech from the Throne which I just read-is the problem of time. This is an age in which there have been all kinds of explosions that we hear about and read about. In Parliament in recent years we have had an explosion in the amount of business with which we have to deal, and unless we find some way to apportion, to allocate, to plan the use of our Parliamentary year we are going to find ourselves failing as a Parliament to serve the needs of the Canadian people.
Years ago when Parliament first met the year had 12 months and Parliament needed only a few of them to get the business done. Even this Government has not found it possible to provide more than 12 months in the year, and the last Government was not able to do so either. But we now seem to have enough business every year to take 15 or 20 months, and I suggest that poses a very direct problem and that we have to do something about planning and allocating the use of our time.
Lest it be thought that those of us who make statements like this are just generalizing, may I put one or two bits of statistics on the record. It is one of my hobbies not to read detective stories but to read Parliamentary documents. I hear some of my colleagues questioning my choice of reading matter but at any rate, Mr. Speaker, I find it a very interesting hobby. I find that back in the first two or three decades of the Parliament of Canada the sessions lasted two, two and a half or three months. Indeed there was not a single session prior to the turn of the century that reached a duration of four months. Even in World War I, when Canada grew up and became a nation amongst the nations of the world and dealt with terrific problems, the sessions lasted from four to four and a half months and no longer.
There was one session prior to World War I, the session of 1912-13, which is still referred to by oldtimers. I hope Senator Grattan O'Leary will not mind if I include him in that category because he has referred to it as a session that lasted almost as long as the last session of this House. But even that

session, which had the naval aid bill to deal with, which had the introduction of closure and the terrific battle it provoked, lasted from start to finish only six and a half months, and during that period of six and a half months there were two recesses.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Some of us in this chamber today were here during the sessions of World War II. We recall that during World War II Parliament was kept in session on a year round basis; from start to finish was a full calendar year. However, the actual number of weeks that we were in session was such that the sessions did not extend over six or six and a half months.
The facts are clear, Mr. Speaker. Down to the end of World War II, time was not a problem. The rules, I suggest, were made back in the days 100 or 200 years ago when time was not an issue, so arrangements were not necessary to plan the use of time. After all, if the nation's business at the federal level could be done in two and a half or three months, it was an avocation for those who came here, it was a prestigious position to be a Member, and the going was fairly easy. There needed to be no time limit on speeches; there needed to be no set adjournment time. Members just got things done in their own sweet way.
However, Mr. Speaker, all that has now changed. Today if we are going to deal with the tremendous amount of business that faces us we have to cope with the problem of time. In those early days Parliament dealt with such things as postal services, customs, railways and canals, but not many more things. Today everything that affects our people from the cradle to the grave, at home and abroad or in outer space, is the concern of Parliament. At each and every session the new events of the complicated life of the twentieth century impinge upon our jobs as Members of Parliament. It is this explosion in the amount of business that we have to do, the mounting accumulation of work that is ours, that faces us with the necessity of taking a look at the way we use our time.
There are some who would cut the Gordian knot by simply imposing rigid time limits and settling it in that way. I think it has to be faced that unless as a Parliament, unless as Members in all parties, we think about this and come to some kind of reasonable agreement, one of these days some Government with a majority is going to do that and do damage to Parliament in the process.
April 13, 1965	COMMONS
Those who would do it in that way, who would fix rigid time limits for everything, seem to take the position that the only job we have is to reach decisions, to vote, to pass the laws that are placed before us.
However, I suggest that our job in Parliament is twofold. It is, on the one hand, the making of decisions, the voting; but it is also, to put it plainly, to talk. The very word Parliament describes this institution as what it is and implies that the whole democratic process involves the taking of decisions after there has been a full and free discussion. Those are our two jobs; to talk, to discuss, to review matters thoroughly on the one hand, and to take votes, to reach decisions, on the other. The whole problem, the whole history of Parliamentary procedure, has been an attempt to find a balance between these two roles. Without free speech, without a guarantee that nothing will be done in undue haste, in fact without the right to look at a proposition in general and in detail, to do this a second and a third time, it would not be Parliament.
It is equally true that if the rules permit an endless expression of views to the point of preventing decisions from being taken, if so much time is spent on one or two matters that others do not get reached, then that too is not Parliament. Our undoubted responsibility is to protect the right of free speech in Parliament, but it is also our responsibility so to arrange our business, which is the public's business, that we deal with all of it each year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when anyone talks about planning the Parliamentary year, about allocating time for debates, about making arrangements so that we move from one subject to another and get things done, there are those who say this is a denial of free speech. There are those who shout that awful word "closure". I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that no one in this House dislikes the closure rule that we now have on our books more than I do. I think it was conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity. It was brought in in the middle of a contentious debate and then applied to the debate that was already in process. Most of the times when it is applied this is done because the rules as they exist at the start of the debate fail to fit the situation. I do not believe the closure rule we have now works any better than would be the case if the referee in a football game tried to change the rules in the middle of the third quarter.
DEBATES	333
The Address-Mr. Knowles
As one who is against closure-indeed I voted against its use during the flag debate in the last session for the reasons I have just given, and for the reason that I think every time we use the present closure rule we put off the day when we will find a better way of coping with the problem of time-the point I want to make is this, that I think the deadliest form of closure we have in this Parliament is not the closure rule; is not the rule that says this Throne Speech debate shall last only eight days, the budget debate six days; is not the rule that prohibits Members from speaking more than a certain number of minutes. I think the deadliest form of closure is the practice of carrying some debates over so many days, so many weeks or so many months that we never get to the other important issues with which Parliament should be dealing.
I have criticized the Liberals over the years for their dilatory manner in bringing in the things they promised in 1919. I am still at it, still trying to get them to get along. However, even though a great deal of the fault lies in the fact that that is the Liberal way, it is true also that when you spend week after week on a flag debate, when you spend week after week on a pension plan that has been thoroughly gone into in a committee, you do not leave time to get at medicare, you do not leave time to get at the problems of Federal-Provincial relations and all the other tremendous problems now facing the people of Canada which should receive the attention of this Parliament. You cannot go on having a 14-month session every 12 months. What is serious about this is that in these 14-month sessions you have to spend so much time on a few subjects you do not get at the others. So, Mr. Speaker, as an opponent of closure- I mean the closure rule that is now on the books-I am equally opposed to the way in which Parliament has been spending so much time on some subjects that it has foreclosed the possibility of getting at some of the serious problems that face us in this House of Commons.
I say therefore that we should stop trying to deal with this question by using the word "closure", by saying it is a denial of free speech to plan our debates. It is no more a denial of free speech to say a certain debate shall last only a certain length of time than it is for you to say to me, Mr. Speaker, that I have only 30 minutes in this debate. If I try to go over 30 minutes, you will stop me. Is that closure against me? No; you are trying to
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Knowles protect the rights of other Members to speak as well. When we get to the point of planning important debates and reaching decisions after a time limit that has been agreed to, we will not be imposing closure, we will be protecting Parliament's right to get at other matters as well.
We had a suggestion today in a question by the hon. Member for Queens to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys of how the problems with which we have to deal in Parliament may multiply manyfold. We have problems now in dealing with Federal-Provincial relations, with social welfare, international relations, trade, and carrying on the war on poverty at home and abroad. If we have made contact with a civilization out in outer space, then we may need another secretary of state for external affairs more diplomatic than the one we have now. Our problems will multiply tremendously. When are we going to get time to deal with these problems if we do not plan and organize the use of the time we have? The hon. Member for Peace River suggests that there may need to be an ambassador to outer space.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have got a list ready.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently there are more people being nominated for these posts than are willing to volunteer for them.
I would like to make the point that if we are going to go in for planning our Parliamentary year, for allocating the time that we use, we have to arrive at a means of doing it by agreement. This is where I am still asking questions about the Government's proposal. I read the opening sentence in the paragraph about this matter in the Speech from the Throne, and I agree with it 100 per cent. But the rest of that paragraph tells us the Government is going to bring proposals before Parliament in the field of procedure.
It is pretty hard to be critical of the Government at this point for doing this, because of the fact that we have moved pretty slowly in the matter of reforming the rules of the House; but we did make some progress last session, as a matter of fact a fair amount of progress. I do urge very strongly upon the Government, however, that it do not effect rule changes by having them brought in by the Government and passed directly on the basis of such majority as it can command.
I know the Government will say it is in a minority position, but it does seem to find support somewhere, sometimes by absentee-

ism, and it does seem to be able to put its will across. I suggest that rule changes imposed in that way will not work as well as rule changes arrived at by agreement among all parties in the House, and I suggest that if the Government has some proposals to lay before us it should keep this in mind.
I suggest there are some things that were agreed upon by the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization in the last session which did not get through the house, but which had the support of all the parties represented on that Committee, and the Government would be justified in finding a way to bring those measures before Parliament and give it a chance to vote on them one way or the other.
But if the Government has other proposals, for example something in the field of allocation of time, a rule that a subcommittee of mine worked out in the last session, its best course would be to present those proposals to the House and then have the House refer them to an all-party committee. It may take a little longer and I would not blame the Prime Minister for feeling a little impatient at the time it would take, but an agreement arrived at in that way will certainly work much better than something that bears the mark of having been imposed by the government of the day.
In entering this word of caution I am simply asking the Government to see to it that changing the rules is a job done by Parliament, not by the Government. Members of the Government found last session that in getting a flag through the House it became easier to do it when it was a parliamentary choice instead of a Government choice, and the same thing should apply to procedure. But even though I am entering this note of caution I am also urging the Government to find a way to get the House working on this matter.
We cannot go on year after year doing nothing about this problem of planning and allocating the use of our time, and I think we should get at it very early in this session. A good deal has been said about the many measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Members of the House and newspapers are saying we will be here for another 14-month session, and we will be if we deal with all the measures contained in the Throne Speech as we ought to; but we are going to waste a lot of time if we do not cope with this main problem of time itself.
April 13, 1965

Therefore I urge the Prime Minister to bring whatever proposals the Government has in this field before the House. In so far as those proposals are ones that were already worked out last session by the Special Committee, I suggest it would be appropriate to ask the House to vote on them more or less right away. With respect to any other proposals I suggest they be referred immediately to another Special Committee on Procedure and Organization. Further, I suggest that Committee should work even harder than the Committee of last session, and having been a member of that last Committee I can say it worked very hard.
We should go into this matter with the clearcut realization that the people of Canada expect us to act on this important problem at this session of Parliament. To me, Mr. Speaker, a great deal is at stake, so far as democracy is concerned, in the image that Parliament has in the eyes of our people. We are being criticized, and I do not think there is anything wrong about the criticism we are subjected to in the press, over the radio and television. In fact, I think it is good for us. It would be tragic if the Canadian people were not paying any attention to us. It is good that they are discussing Parliament and, if you test Parliament by the amount of discussion about it, then this one stands up pretty well because we are certainly getting a lot of discussion. However, it is not good enough for us to bristle because we are being criticized. It not good enough for us to defend ourselves against the criticism. Our main response to it should be an attempt to improve things in Parliament itself.
As I have said, there are many rules, many details that can be looked at, and we must get at them. I have already said there is room for reforming ourselves, for improving our own self-discipline, but I think the most important problem is the use that we make of the Parliamentary year. The year still has only 12 months and I think it would be useful if some portion of those 12 months could be spent by Members in their constituencies. However, the main problem we have to cope with is finding how to allocate and use our time. I urge that it be on a planned basis. I urge it be on a basis of agreement. I think it can be worked out.
They have rules that cover this in other jurisdictions. We have worked out some things here, and I think if we feel the importance of this and have a bit of leadership from the Government on it, while at the same time it
Speaker's Ruling
is recognized that it is a parliamentary task, then we can do something about it.
I do not think the last rule of procedure will ever be written. Procedure in a free parliament is in fact living and dynamic. We will have to make other changes in the future to meet other needs that arise, but at this point in our history I believe what we need most are rules that will provide for agreement in advance on the allocation of time, so that in a common sense way we can get a year's business done inside a year, preferably with some time to spare so that Members can mingle a bit more with their constituents.
I have already made it clear that I do not propose a rigid time limit on everything. I do not propose rules that can be invoked without agreement among the various parties in the House. One must preserve the right to oppose to the ultimate when the Opposition feels that the Government is dead wrong, as the Liberals felt about the naval aid bill in 1913, and as most of us in the opposition felt about the pipe line bill in 1956. You do not have to worry about Parliament when extreme measures are introduced. Parliament will always rise in its own defence when the times demand it. Our problem is with the great and growing mass of routine business, and I believe if we are to achieve a balance between full discussion and getting things done, between latitude in debate and getting decisions made, we will have to plan our discussion time. This way, in my view, lies real freedom, freedom to discuss not just one issue but all the issues that present themselves to us, freedom not only to discuss but freedom to vote and to make decisions. This way, in my view, Parliament will survive.



STATUS OF GOVERNMENT ORDER RESPECTING


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) allow me to make a ruling before he speaks? The matter was raised this morning, and this being the last day before the recess, with the consent of the House I would like to finish this matter now, if I could. Do I have the consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) rose this morning on a point of order when there was really nothing before the House. After listening to his long argument I stated I

April 13, 1965
Speaker's Ruling
would examine the matter and try to bring in a just decision this afternoon. I have since that time read the transcript and it appears to me that his objection is to item No. 9 which appears on today's Order Paper and which reads as follows:
That the recommendations contained in the report of the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration Commission of Enquiry, tabled on July 29, 1964, including the following two questions:
1.	Whether the permanent staff of the P.F.A.A. should be brought under the Civil Service Commission, and
2.	Whether there should be other changes in the operation of the P.F.A.A.,
be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization for such recommendations as it deems advisable.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I do not see that I have to go beyond the text of the resolution, which simply asks the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, following the report of a Commission of Inquiry, to study that report including two questions, and make such recommendations as it deemed advisable. This is all, I respectfully submit, that is before the Chair, and on the face of it the resolution appears to be perfectly in order.
The hon. Member, however, suggests that I should go behind the resolution and he argues that the Government Order is a nullity and should be struck off the Order Paper. He also said that the Commission is not a judicial inquiry but that it is a Crown court without any appeal.
Points of order, according to citation 70 of Beauchesne are:
-questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders of the customary modes of proceeding in debate, or in the conduct of legislative business-
I can see here no departure from the Standing Orders but rather a request that the Speaker decide what is purely a question of law and entirely outside his jurisdiction in relation to the powers of a commission of inquiry.
Citation 71(5) of Beauchesne states explicitly that:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
This is exactly what happened. The hon. Member rose on a point of order and submitted to me what I consider to be a question of law, that is, whether the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry are in excess of the powers and authorities granted to the Commissioner by the Governor in Council.

He wants me to declare those recommendations to be a breach of the Order in Council tabled in the Blouse of Commons and affixed to the report. He wants me further to declare those recommendations are null and void and of no force and effect.
If I were to decide this matter, I certainly would be going beyond the jurisdiction granted me by law and by the Standing Orders of this House. I would refer the House to an opinion of Mr. Deputy Speaker on October 25, 1963, with which I concur. In that case, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) had argued that a Bill should not be considered, that it was out of order because it was ultra vires the Parliament of Canada. The Deputy Speaker ruled, as reported at page 4036 for October 25, 1963 that:
-it should not be the responsibility of the Chair to rule whether a particular piece of legislation.. .is or is not within the competence of this House.
He then referred hon. Members to Standing Order 12 which limits and defines the duties and responsibilities of the Speaker, that is, to deciding on questions of order, not questions of law. The Deputy Speaker then quoted from page 825 of Beauchesne, third edition, which refers to a ruling of Hon. Lewis Wallbridge, Speaker, made on June 25, 1864, where he, the Speaker, stated:
That according to the usages of the British Parliament he was not bound to decide on a question of law.
Following that decision, I would also like to refer to citation 71(5) of Beauchesne, fourth edition, at page 61:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
Now, I am of the opinion that it is not the duty of the Speaker to examine the powers of an outside Commission and to sit on appeal of the Commission's decision in its report to make certain recommendations. This is a question of argument touching on the very heart of the matter to be discussed in the Committee. It has no real connection with the motion itself, which is in order according to precedent, which may or may not be called like all other Government Orders.
For the above reasons, and in view of the citations to which I have referred, I am, as I have already stated, unable to agree with the point of order raised by the hon. Member, and I must rule that the hon. Member's proposition is not receivable in any case
April 13, 1965

Division
because it asks the Speaker to decide a question of law and not a question of order or of procedure.


Mr. Mclniosh:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to your decision I have three legal opinions as to what-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. Member is disputing the decision of the Chair he has [DOT]certain procedures he can follow; but I would be quite surprised if he is. The hon. 'Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart).


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege may I say a few words with regard to your ruling?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. Member is out of order in attempting to raise these questions at the present time. The Chair is here to decide these matters. There are other ways of appealing decisions; but to enter into a dispute after the Chair has laboured -hopefully-to try to arrive at a proper decision is to enter into argument with the Chair, a procedure which is quite contrary to custom and to Standing Order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: With all deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to enter into an argument, but I was surprised when you brought forward your opinion at this period of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I had no idea you would give it at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, that is argument in an indirect fashion. In view of the fact that the House is closing at ten tonight, when would the hon. Member suggest that the Speaker bring in his opinion? It was agreed this morning that the Speaker would bring It in as soon as possible, and that has been done.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Then may I have the privilege of replying as soon as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: There is no reply under our rules. The Speaker is not a lawyer in court; he is in fact the judge, and my decision has heen rendered. If every Member were to dispute everything the Chair says we would have chaos in this House.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Then you leave me no alternative but to challenge your ruling. I appeal your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the
decision of the Chair from which the hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has
appealed to the House. All those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's decision will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I think five Members rose; would you call a vote?


Mr. Speaker:: This is not an easy day; I can say that with some feeling. However, in order to be scrupulously fair, those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
++YEAS
Messrs:
Addison	Dube
Armstrong	Ethier
Asselin (Notre Dame	Eudes
de Grace)	Fisher
Badanai	Forest
Basford	Francis
Batten	Gauthier
Beaule	Gelber
Bechard	Godin
Beer	Granger
Belanger	Gray
Benidickson	Gregoire
Blouin	Guay
Boulanger	Habel
Boutin	Hahn
Brewin	Haidasz
Brown	Hays
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Hellyer
Cameron (High Park)	Herridge
Cantin	Honey
Cardin	Klein
Caron	Knowles
Carter	Konantz, Mrs.
Chapdelaine	LaMarsh, Miss
Chretien	Lamontagne
Cote (Chicoutimi)	Lamoureux
Cote (Longueuil)	Langlois
Cowan	Laniel
Crossman	Laverdiere
Cyr	Leblanc
Davis	Leboe
Deachman	Leduc
Dionne	Legault
Douglas	Lessard (Lake St. John)

April 13, 1965
Division
Lessard (St. Henry)	Pickersgill
Lloyd	Pilon
MacEachen	Plourde
Mackasey	Prittie
MacNaught	Prud'homme
Mcllraith	Regan
McMillan	Richard
McNulty	Rideout, Mrs.
McWilliam	Rinfret
Marcoux	Robichaud
Martin (Essex East)	Rochon
Martin (Timmins)	Rock
Mather	Roxburgh
Matheson	Ryan
Matte	Saltsman
Mitchell	Scott
Moreau	Stewart
Mullally	Tardif
Munro	Temple
Nicholson	Thompson
Nixon	Tucker
Olson	Turner
Otto	Wahn
Patterson	Walker
Pearson	Watson (Chateauguay-
Pepin	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Perron	Whelan
Peters	Winch-122.
	NAYS
	Messrs:
Alkenbrack	McIntosh
Bigg	Madill
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) Mandziuk	
Chatterton	Moore
Churchill	Muir (Cape Breton
Crouse	North and Victoria)
Dinsdale	Muir (Lisgar)
Enns	Nasserden
Fane	Noble
Flemming (Victoria-	Nugent
Carleton)	Ormiston
Forbes	Pascoe
Gundlock	Pugh
Hales	Rapp
Homer (Acadia)	Rheaume
Horner (The Battlefords) Rynard	
Howe (Wellington -	Simpson
Huron)	Southam
Irvine	Starr
Jones, Mrs.	Stefanson
Jorgenson	Stenson
Kennedy	Thomas
Kindt	Vincent
Korchinski	Watson (Assiniboia)
Loney	Webb
MacEwan	Winkler
Maclnnis	Woolliams-52.
MacRae	
[DOT] (3.40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the decision sustained.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the decision.


Mr. Valade:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Harley:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to support the Chair.


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



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) was educated in my constituency. The hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) had already displayed his reasoned approach to our nation's problems. It was no surprise therefore that, given their splendid topic, the speeches they delivered in the House commended themselves so highly to all Members. I wish to add my congratulations.
The Speech from the Throne is a rich document, but I want to concentrate this afternoon on two particular facets of the Speech. One of these concerns the Canada Assistance Plan and the other the plan for regional development. You will recall, Sir, that earlier this day the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for a report on the meeting that took place on April 8 and 9 between the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and the welfare ministers for the Provinces. The Minister of National Health and Welfare could not remain this afternoon, but she has asked me to say some words on her behalf to discharge a responsibility in this regard.
The welfare ministers from all the ten provinces were present at this meeting, together with representatives from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Developments in the field of welfare during the past year were discussed thoroughly and cordially. The major discussion at the meeting was on the proposed Canada Assistance Plan announced in the Speech from the Throne and outlined by the Prime Minister last Tuesday. I am happy to be able to report, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that the plan was given general approval by
April 13, 1985

the Provincial Ministers, who welcomed it as providing a basis for a more flexible approach to public welfare in Canada.
The plan in general conforms to the suggestions which had been made by the Provinces at previous conferences. It does not interfere with the right of the Provinces to continue the present assistance programs for the aged, the blind, and the disabled. Under the Canada Assistance Plan recipients will be granted assistance on the basis of their needs. The plan will extend Federal cost-sharing to needy mothers, to the health costs of recipients and to expenditures for improved administration of assistance programs and welfare services for recipients.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
During the conference the Minister went into somewhat more detail than was possible earlier. First, she made it clear that Canada is prepared to match dollar for dollar the expenditures that the provinces now make in the field of mothers' allowances, that is, aid to mothers with dependant children. Second, the Minister explained that Canada is now prepared to share in the costs of health services provided by the Provinces to public assistance recipients. Under this proposal provision is made for the inclusion of the costs of medical, nursing, dental and optical care and drugs. The extent that such services cover will be for the Provinces themselves to decide, and it will be up to them to make the types of arrangements for the provision of health services that they consider most suitable in their particular case. In her discussions with the Welfare Ministers, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) also made very clear, as did the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself last Tuesday, that the health proposal is an interim measure which will carry on only until the medicare program comes into operation, which the Minister hopes will be very soon.
Another important feature of the plan which was warmly received by the Provincial Ministers of Welfare was the one calling for a sharing in new expenditures for the expansion of staff and services. This proposal recognizes the need for increased and better trained public assistance staffs to make possible a rehabilitative approach through lowering case loads, through adjustment of the requirements of assistance recipients, and through referral to training, employment, medical, and other resources. It is anticipated
The Address-Mr. Stewart many of those now receiving assistance can attain independence. Sir, I should hope that the aspect of the Speech from the Throne which was discussed at this meeting, which took place last Thursday and Friday, is one to which the House will be able to turn rapidly, once we have completed the debate on the Budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. Member permit a question? Does he know whether any papers were presented by the Federal Government to that conference, copies of which could be tabled in the House or made available to us in some way?


John B. Stewart: I will inquire about this, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain if such papers as were used at the conference could be presented. This might cause some difficulty, as you would realize I am sure, because it may be that the Provinces would not wish a portion of the documentation to be revealed when other parts were not.
I think perhaps I will go on with the other aspect of the Speech from the Throne with which I wanted to deal this afternoon. The other aspect of the Speech from the Throne to which I wish to direct attention this afternoon concerns the plans for regional development. As you perhaps remember, Sir, there has been some disputation in this House recently about to whom Nova Scotians should give thanks for certain economic improvements in their Province. This dispute was predictable because both Governments, the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia, have been active, and it is far from easy to sort out the credits.
The truth-no matter to whom the praise or blame as the case may be should go-is that unemployment in Nova Scotia is much too high. The release made on March 17, 1965 on the condition of the labour force shows that while on February 20, 1965, approximately 20,000 more persons were employed in the Atlantic region than one year earlier, the unemployment rate was 13 per cent. In every other region of Canada, there had been a decline in the unemployment rate during that period, but in the Atlantic region it had gone up from 12.7 per cent in February, 1964, to 13 per cent in February, 1965. It is encouraging to learn from the Speech from the Throne that this Government is keenly aware of this regional problem and is devising measures to cope with it.
In 1956, when the Bill that eventually was to become the Area Redevelopment Act was before the Senate of the United States, a

April 13, 1965
The Address-Mr. Stewart sharp disagreement became evident between the views of two very distinguished Senators who participated in the debate. One was Senator Goldwater and the other was Senator John F. Kennedy. Actually there was an element of truth in what both said. Speaking on July 25, 1956, Mr. Goldwater said:
The whole history of this country's development refutes the contention of those who would invoke extreme federal remedies in such situations. In the West, for instance, we have experienced the boom development of certain areas, only to realize, at some later date when the economic sources were dissipated, the collapse of whole communities which exist today only as ghost towns. During such transitions, our people did not seek governmental assistance for the artificial stimulation of areas whose economic wells had run dry. They accepted the tribulations of their ventures with stout hearts and strong backs, just as in the beginning they accepted their triumphs.
It is clear that Senator Goldwater was thinking almost exclusively about primary industries based on some scarce natural resource. This being recognized, we must concede that there is some validity in what he said. If the industries that maintain a population are based on gold, timber, oil or some similar resource, and if these are exhausted and no other economic base is introduced, there is no point in trying to maintain new generations in that place.
Senator Kennedy, speaking earlier that same day, contended that:
-the responsibility of the federal government to aid such areas is commonly acknowledged. This responsibility is in the interest of the areas which are subject to chronic unemployment and underemployment, and coincides also with the interests of the nation. The fact is that these less fortunate areas exert a general drag upon the economy and the federal government, in order to assure full prosperity for the nation as a whole, should do all it can to eliminate pockets of unemployment and underemployment.
It is quite clear that Senator Kennedy was thinking of people engaged in secondary and tertiary industries. There are limits beyond which a country such as Canada should not go in efforts to help less fortunate areas, because to go beyond those limits would be to endanger the nation's position in the international market. On the other hand, as Senator Kennedy was insisting, such areas, if permitted to exist for long, exact their price. They do constitute a drag on regional prosperity and on the national economy as well. I think we can say safely that if either Senator Goldwater's position or Senator Kennedy's position was pushed in practice to its extreme, the result would be very costly. The Goldwater extreme would
[Mr. Stewart.!
promote complete population mobility; that is, it would allow economic causes freely to move the population to the favoured national sites of secondary and tertiary industry. The extreme Kennedy position is to accept population stagnation, that is, to try to bring employment to all the people wherever they live.
Now, these distinctions are relevant to the identification of the areas to which measures for regional development are to apply. The general conclusion to which we are driven by them is that if special measures for regional economic development are to be effective, unless we are dealing with primary industries based on a local resource, the smaller the areas selected the more expensive the measures that will be effective. The area development program, which now provides tax incentives taking the form of a three-year income tax exemption and accelerated write-offs of the capital costs of both machinery and equipment and new buildings acquired by new manufacturing and processing enterprises has been helpful in Nova Scotia, for example, in attracting new industries to places like Canso, Abercrombie, Stellarton, and Point Edward. The areas eligible for these incentives have been those national employment service areas wherein there has been relatively high unemployment. The Speech from the Throne reveals that the Government is now proposing to expand its program to include other areas where incomes are low.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This is encouraging. We know that the National Employment Service areas are only administrative areas. As labour market areas they can be regarded as sufficiently distinct to serve as the long-run theatres for economic development programs only if we forget that population mobility, not population stagnation, is essential to the reformation of the economy of the Atlantic region. A program of regional development directed at the Atlantic Provinces must deal, not with mere administrative units but with genuine economic regions.
It is desirable, of course, to employ statistical criteria in identifying the less fortunate areas. Without such criteria the Government will find itself involved in highly subjective judgments and would be subject to heavy local pressures. But it is also desirable to assure that the areas selected are justifiable in terms of their economic potential for either primary, resource-based industries or for secondary and tertiary industries. Other-
April 13, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	341
The Address-Mr. Stewart
wise, the measures applied will be either relatively ineffectual or extremely costly.
What I am proposing is that while statistical criteria should be used to ascertain the localities in which the population is plagued by high unemployment and low incomes, the special development measures should not be restricted to those localities, but should be applied to the general economic region in which such localities prevail. I am suggesting that the regional development policy ought to be based on a recognition that the most promising growth centres, even if now relatively prosperous, must not be excluded from growth encouragement. Do not cast your seeds on only the rocky ground! Perhaps, Sir, at this juncture I ought to mention that my entire constituency is already eligible for tax incentives under the designated area program, so I am not pleading my own case.
In addition to forecasting a new method for defining the regions needing development, the Speech from the Throne forecasts both new measures "to aid industrial expansion" in those regions and measures "to help people to take full advantage of such improved employment opportunities."
It has been known all along that the present tax incentive program for designated areas has not been regarded by the Government as a full-blown program for regional development. I think we may conclude from the Speech from the Throne that the Government is now ready to put into effect a new and higher phase of its program. Just what the new measures to aid industrial expansion will be we cannot say at this time, but I would presume they will not include any plan to transmit Federal money to the Provinces, to be used by the Provinces to provide direct proportional grants toward either the capital costs or the payroll costs of new ventures. Any such plan would entail many difficulties.
There are certain advantages for all concerned when a training program is established for the potential employees of projected industry. I assume it is some such training program that the Government has in mind in this laconic passage in the Speech from the Throne. Men and women could be recruited from near and far according to their potentialities for the projected work, and trained specifically for that work. In this way the training program would not simply take in the people who happen to arrive at the technical or vocational school's door. I hope this is what is forecast in the paragraph to which I have just referred.
It is encouraging to note that reference is made in the Speech from the Throne to the ARDA program. In the Atlantic Provinces the ARDA program is the other side of the coin of development. It is most important that our land resources be used properly, whether the use to which they are put be agriculture, forestation, or recreation. I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that in some of our Provinces the possibilities of the ARDA program are not thoroughly appreciated. We get small projects, important perhaps to some Minister or to some locality, but projects which by being small create the image of the ARDA program as a rather dreary undertaking.
The ARDA program ought to be approached most imaginatively; and I say that, realizing that large parts of my constituency being underdeveloped have, in the very fact that they are underdeveloped, great potentiality.
Back in 1957, in the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, there was set forth a paragraph which I will abbreviate as follows:
An objective of economic policy should be to integrate and improve the basic economic framework of the Atlantic region, including in particular the transportation facilities of the area, with a view to facilitating and encouraging economic growth within the region. This is not likely to be accomplished by a multiplicity of unco-ordinated measures providing aid on an ad hoc basis. . . What is needed we believe is bold comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the underlying problems of the region in order to make the best possible use of the resources of the area and to improve transportation and other basic services.
I am glad that the Government has remembered that passage in the report of the Gordon Royal Commission. There is a great danger in all unco-ordinated approaches to economic development, particularly when two, or even three levels of government assume some responsibility for that development.
One of the complaints we have been hearing in Atlantic Canada recently is that there are so many agencies for regional development, both Federal and Provincial, that it is difficult not only to understand the distinct undertakings of each of the several agencies but even to remember what the initials of their names stand for. I should hope that the proposed special Federal-Provincial conference would help in clarifying the goals of these various agencies and in harmonizing federal and provincial policies and programs.
In this connection I should like to suggest that when the general Federal-Provincial conference on regional development has finished
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Stewart its work, there should be a special session involving the Government of Canada and the Governments of the four Atlantic Provinces, because I think that certain of the problems germane to the discussion that would take place at such a conference would not be directly relevant to other parts of the country. Such a conference, if well planned, could be most helpful in producing a better understanding between the Provinces and the Government of Canada, and in shaping the kinds of policies which will be necessary.
In this kind of venture organization is very important. One of the most encouraging aspects of the Speech from the Throne is that the Prime Minister himself is proposing to direct his own attention to this assault upon regional economic stagnation. In the Atlantic Provinces, as you might expect, we have a great deal of confidence in the Prime Minister, and that in itself is important.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Robert Muir: Speak for yourself, John.


John B. Stewart: Well, we do have certain people who disagree, but such ones are always with us. What is even more important, Sir, is that the inevitable temptation for different agencies to go their several ways can be overcome if the Prime Minister himself is directly involved. The future development of the Atlantic region is going to require the co-operation of the Federal Department of Public Works, the Federal Department of Transport, the Federal Department of Finance, the Federal Department of Industry, the Federal Department of Labour, and the Atlantic Development Board. If all these agencies are going to work harmoniously together without dispersion of energy and conflict of interest, without the leadership of the Prime Minister nothing much will be accomplished. That is why I am glad that the Government has resisted the temptation, an almost inevitable temptation, I suppose, to set up a ministry for regional development. That would have been a mistake. What is needed is the ordinary departmental approach to this problem, co-ordinated by the Minister whose job it is to co-ordinate the works of the several departments, namely the Prime Minister.
There is one other topic to which I want to refer very briefly, Sir, in conclusion. It is a related topic, for unless something is done about it and unless it is taken seriously neither the Canada Assistance Plan nor the plan for

regional development will ever find their way, via the statute books, into action. I refer to the need for reform of our procedures in this House, a subject which was discussed earlier this afternoon by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I think it would be a mistake to found a demand for parliamentary reform on the experience-experience which extended to some 248 days, it is true-of the last session of this Parliament. But we all know, and it has been known since the days of World War II, that this House and its Committees seldom work intensively enough on the increasingly large bulk of public business which comes before them. Too much time is spent in what one might call the parliamentary doldrums.
The Special Committee on Procedure established last session at the instigation of the Government worked earnestly and long for basic reform, but we know the sorry reward of their efforts. I think it is now quite clear that nothing much could be achieved to reform our procedures unless the Government itself acts. It is encouraging to see in the Speech from the Throne that the Government does propose to undertake specific reforms essential to parliamentary reform. As the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre said, there are two aspects to this. We are here to discuss, and we are here to decide. The reconciliation of these two aims, which are likely to be viewed rather differently according to where one sits in this House, is not easy; but it is now patently clear that no solution more satisfactory than the one we now have, which is to experience something like a 14 or 15 month session, is likely to be attained unless the Government itself goes ahead, assumes the responsibility for proposing necessary reforms, and brings those reforms forward for debate, and, in good time, to a decision in this House.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. Member will permit a question?


John B. Stewart: Yes.


Robert Muir: I listened to my learned colleague's rather interesting discourse and I did not wish to interrupt his remarks. In his remarks he stated that the unemployment rate as at mid-February, 1965 was 13 per cent in the Atlantic Provinces. I am inclined to agree with him; unfortunately it is that high. However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) recently stated to the Mari-
April 13. 1965

lime Women's Club at Montreal that the rate was 7.8 per cent. There seems to be a conflict of opinion there and I am wondering whether the hon. Member could tell me why a Cabinet Minister would give this information, which I think is erroneous, to a respectable and important group like the Maritime Women's Club. Would the hon. Member take it upon himself to advise the Minister that she is in error?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, these kinds of disagreements appear to be inevitable. The hon. gentleman is insisting that I was correct when I recited the figure set forth in the survey of the labour force, yet he himself the other evening told us that we should all rejoice and throw up our hands because Mr. Robert L. Stanfield had solved all the economic problems in Nova Scotia.


Robert Muir: Could I pose another question to the hon. Member? Would the hon. Member accept another question?


John B. Stewart: Well, I think my time has expired.


Robert Muir: Surely you are not afraid of questions. Have I your permission?


John B. Stewart: If I have time, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the question I would be willing.


Mr. Starr:: You did not deal with the last one.


Robert Muir: Is he not aware that my feelings the other night were these. I said that we were so fortunate in having Bob Stanfield and Industrial Estates in Nova Scotia to bring in new industries to replace those which have been taken out of the Province by this Government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, please.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Now
we have cleared up the problems facing Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can proceed with my ill-prepared remarks. I want to agree with one point made by the last speaker, the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart), when he discussed the problem of designating an area which really has no relationship to the over-all problems in a province. This is very true of the designated areas in New Brunswick, owing to some quite artificial formula, or by reason of a formula
The Address-Mr. Fairweather which does not take into account the economic problems or the problems of transportation, or where industry would be best located.
I am very hopeful that the Government will change this arrangement during the next few months.
It is the custom-and I want to include myself in this-to congratulate the mover and second of the Speech; I think each of them did credit to himself in a really wonderful way. It was a good effort and a good afternoon.
I would be less than gracious were I not also to include in my congratulations and compliments the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) on her maiden speech. She discussed Maritime union, which has been discussed in the Maritimes for all of 110 years. Her interest is in locating the capital of such a union, of such a country or new province, which might be called Acadia, in Moncton.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I prefer a different approach. I would think it would be better for the time being that the capital rotate between St. John's, Newfoundland, Halifax, Charlottetown and Fredericton, and then in the millennium we can come to Moncton.
However, now we have solved the problems of Maritime union I would like to pass on to a problem that the Principal and ViceChancellor of McGill, Dr. Robertson, calls really the crisis in the country today. He says that the "developing crisis in higher education" ranks as a national problem second only to "the problem of unity in our country".
That was in a speech reported in the Montreal Star of April 5. The Vice-Chancellor of York University in the United Kingdom, Lord James of Rusholme, says that the Federal Government must put education higher on its priorities list. I would think most of us in this House, no matter what our political affiliation, would agree with Lord James of Rusholme.


Mr. Addison:: Where do you stand?


Mr. Fairweather:: We will deal with where I stand in a moment. I am disappointed in the Speech from the Throne because it has not faced the crisis of higher education in any manner. I think the problem of assistance to universities is, as Dr. Robertson said, the second most important thing in this country. The other day in Fredericton, New Brunswick, 1,500 students met before the Legislative
April 13, 1965

The Address

Mr. Fairweather Assembly of that Province protesting the increase in fees of the University of New Brunswick at Mount Allison. Then in the other two universities that I know of, which have increased their fees, Acadia and Dal-housie, similar protests have been made to Government. Many years ago in the United States a group of researchers, academics and practising lawyers formed what is known as the Law Institute, which from time to time prepares and publishes a brief restatement of a particular aspect of the law. For example, there is the restatement of the law on torts, on practice, on evidence, and so on. The Institute does this because changing conditions demand different solutions for problems, different concepts and different approaches.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is time that a group of Canadians with an interest in and concern for the rapidly developing crisis in higher education prepared just such a restatement of the constitutional concept of the word "education" as used in the British North America Act. The Federal Government, in spite of several well documented briefs from the Canadian Universities Foundation, plus innumerable individual requests, has done nothing to change the formula for per capita grants for universities since the Diefen-baker Government increased these grants from $1.50 to $2 effective June 1, 1962. The university operating budgets have far outstripped the increase in population and the $2 per capita figure, in order that it be in any way comparable with present day buying power should be a minimum of $2.95. I presume that is where my hon. friend from Danforth (Mr. Scott) got his $3 figure yesterday.


Reid Scott: I was just rounding it out.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The hon. Member says he was just rounding it out. Well, the nickel would be very helpful. The actual federal per capita grants to universities as of June 1 this year will be about $39,300,000, whereas if the grants had kept pace with the increase in university operating costs-that is, $2.95 per capita-they would be approximately $58 million. I suggest this is a substantial difference, and it is a difference that should make hon. Members who support the Government just a little bit ashamed of that Government's neglect of higher education in this country.
The problem is not, however, simply one of dollars for university operating grants. The restatement I seek is for a co-ordinated


approach by Federal and Provincial Governments to special aspects of higher education, but within the framework and basic philosophy of the Constitution. I think this can be done. I think there are people in, say the Province of Quebec and on the Treasury benches, who could re-negotiate this matter of education in so far as the Constitution is concerned.
Some aspects of higher education which recognize neither Provincial nor, for that matter, national boundaries are, I suggest, in the areas of research, overseas students and programs involving studies of the cultures of lands other than our own. For example, Canada's needs for nuclear physicists cannot be circumscribed by the statutory injunction making education solely a provincial responsibility. Researchers in medicine and in the dynamics of space flights will not be impressed by a narrow and restrictive constitutional debate. McGill University, in its most excellent brief to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, put it this way:
There are two major dimensions to the role of a modem university. The first is universality. Language, culture, and social milieu are factors that influence the quality and style of its activities, but to be worthy of the designation "university", it must have a commitment to the quest for knowledge that transcends these particulars. The second dimension is is involvement in the society of which it is a part. The role of educational institutions generally is to nourish and develop the culture of the society in which they exist and which they serve.
The changing circumstances of the twentieth century have altered the character of the university and changed its role but they have increased, rather than diminished, its interests and responsibilities beyond the margins of the immediate community in which it finds itself.
It is in this context, then, that I seek a new accord between the Government of Canada and the Provincial Governments in the field of higher education while ensuring academic freedom and preserving fundamental provincial rights. Let Canada as a nation develop a sophisticated formula for ensuring that the universities of this land can provide us with the necessary number of doctors and scientists for our national needs and our international obligations. This type of accord, it seems to me

and I am not going to talk for very long about it-was found in another area of largely provincial concern, and that is of natural resources, in the conference held in Montreal a couple of months ago, the Resource Conference. It is this type of approach that I think could well be used in the field of education.
April 13, 1365

Let Canada assist some of our great universities establish schools of Asian and of African studies, for example. Then, too, we could have a Foreign Service Institute which, I suggest, could transfuse the Departments of External Affairs, Trade and Commerce and other Government Departments with qualified recruits. I feel that there is a mood prevalent in both French and English speaking Canada for a redrawing of the present too restrictive areas of responsibility in the field of education. Let us harness the mood, restate the principles and give university education, particularly at the graduate level, a clear direction for what I think of as the exciting years ahead.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the New Democratic Party outlined various projects for higher education. I think it was a pity that they could not wait to announce them-they have all been busy with election manifestos here; the Throne Speech, and now the New Democratic Party on higher education-in August of this year, when we expect to have the results of the Bladen Commission report on higher education. I think this is something of an indication of our constitutional thin skin in the fact that the Canadian Universities Foundation found the money and the formula for this Commission, which the Government of Canada, because of a narrow concept of education, could not finance, or for which it could not provide the initiative.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As you know, Dr. Vincent Bladen, the Chairman, who is Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of Toronto; Dr. Louis Paul Dugal, Dean of Pure and Applied Sciences; Hon. Senator W. W. McCutcheon and Mr. Howard Ross of the well-known firm Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart, are Commissioners studying the financing of higher education in Canada. Not only are they studying it, but they are to make recommendations on the financing of universities and colleges in Canada, with particular reference to the decade ending in 1975, respecting financial requirements of universities and colleges for operation, research, physical facilities and student aid. They are also studying the proportion of the financial support of higher education which should be provided by tuition fees, contributions from governments, corporations, foundations and individuals. They are studying policies regarding the allocation of funds for higher education, and criteria by which institutions and students should be deemed eligible to receive such aid.
The Address[DOT]-Mr. Fairweather
I am sure the recommendations of this Commission will be watched by the Government of Canada in spite of the fact that at the moment there is no co-ordination of this field. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) some time ago who had replaced Dr. Taylor in the Privy Council office, and who was to advise the Government in this area. I have not received an answer as yet, and I do not know whether or not it means that nobody has replaced Dr. Taylor.
There is a serious gap in Federal responsibility, and I think it is no longer good enough just to slough off responsibility by rushing to Section 93 of the Constitution, which was drafted years ago when colleges were just local colleges and had not conceived of the universality which the McGill Commission submission so eloquently set out.
There are one or two other things I should like to mention in the field of higher education. One is the suggestion of the Canadian Universities Foundation in respect of national achievement awards. These awards would be made in the form of remissions of portions of loans made under the Canada Student Loans Fund. There would be remissions made if students achieved superior marks. This is the type of challenge for excellence that we in Parliament should encourage. I think this would be much better than grinding out loans without any thought as to how well the students receiving the loans are doing.
Another interesting suggestion which I certainly cannot claim as my own, but one chat I had the opportunity of passing on, is that a national university be established on the site which will be vacated some day when Expo '67 completes its exposition. This would certainly be a good location because it would have the advantage of utilizing the two founding cultures in Canada.
Another problem we must face in respect of higher education is created by the lack of real, meaningful exchange programs between students of French Canada and those of so-called English Canada. This could be encouraged in a much more massive way than is taking place now.
We have had some discussion here about the rules of this House. It was my privilege to serve on the House Committee on Organization and Procedure. I have not been here for very long, but that was the high mark certainly for me during my two years in Parliament. I sometimes think in respect of
April 13, 1865

The Address-Mr. Fairweather the matter of Parliamentary rules that we worship the form but forget the substance. I think it is time we considered the substance and ignored the form. I have had 10 years experience in a small Provincial Legislature, if I may become personal for a moment, and I have followed the happenings in Legislatures of other Provinces. I can assure the House that these small Provincial Legislatures go through about ten times the amount of work, in about half the time, as we do here. I think it is incumbent upon us as Members of Parliament to do something about this situation. I welcome that part of the Throne Speech, to which I will give enthusiastic support when it comes before us in the form of legislation.
It has been said here this afternoon that the House of Commons is a dynamic place. If this need be said anywhere else, let me remind hon. Members that people have been talking about this and writing about it to a great degree, particularly because we are now celebrating the 700th anniversary of Parliament as an institution. Obviously rules and procedures have undergone tremendous changes during that 700-year period; but sometimes sitting here I wonder whether during some of the debate we are not living the whole 700 years of history. That of course is another story.
Because this is a Speech which has not been carefully typed and prepared, I must take a moment or two to consult my notes. This seems to be about the right juncture to discuss for just a moment what I envisage as a division, if I may call it that, of the roles of a Member of Parliament. Some of us forget that we are really three people in one, with three separate roles. The first role surely is to represent the people of our constituencies. I suggest this is only one role, but a very important one, and one which cannot be forgotten or, if forgotten, at the peril of each Member.
The second role is one of obligation as an educator in our ridings and throughout the country. The last role of a Member of Parliament embodies an obligation to the country to give it "his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment and his enlightened conscience." Edmund Burke said so in 1774, and it seems to me that his affirmation of that day still stands.
It is in this context that I want to speak about a problem which I face as a representative, as an educator, as well as one who has a duty to give an unbiased opinion. It troubles me to think that the Royal Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism is touching only the high spots. By that, Sir, I mean the

large centres of population in this country. In spite of the efforts of the mass media to get the message across, I do not believe the results of this Commission's work are reaching the small towns, villages and countrysides of Canada. This is a serious defect in the work of this Commission. I am one of those individuals who believes, and this is almost too trite to mention, that hate and prejudice are not inherited but are taught. Surely this is a role for this Royal Commission. It is all very well to hear briefs at the King Edward Hotel in Toronto, but I wonder whether the Commission could not fragmentize itself and hear briefs at the Queen's Hotel at Sussex, New Brunswick, which has a population of 2,500. I think it is only by hearing the type of message that might come from small communities of this kind that this Commission will find out what the general public thinking is.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I have been intrigued, as any Canadian must be, by the sensible thoughts of Dr. Wilder Penfield. He says, of course, that in teaching other languages our fault is that we start too late. I have always wondered why some Canadians sneer at those who have the privilege of having a second or third language. In Europe and in fact almost anywhere in the world but in North America this would be taken for granted. Yet I am afraid that in Canada we have not yet reached that stage in our civilizing process when second and third languages are taken in this matter of fact way. I know this is not particularly a Federal field, but undoubtedly the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission will be giving attention to how the teaching of the second language can begin, not in secondary school but in kindergarten.
I think that is about all I have to say, except for one last point. Yesterday the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan, posed a question to which a good many writers and thinkers have been giving their attention lately. I refer to the fact that so much of government at the present time is taking place outside the forum of this Parliament, and in fact in the forums of the Legislatures, in committee rooms in the West Block and in committee rooms in hotels across this land; and unless this type of thing is stopped we as members are going to put ourselves out of business, so to speak. Many people might think this is a good idea. Claude Ryan, writing the other day in Le Devoir, pointed out that there are eight fields in the Speech from the Throne that will require
April 13, 1S65

Dominion-Provincial conferences or Canada-Provincial conferences, or whatever the new, modern, up to date word is for "dominion". I think we have to be very careful that this type of conference is exposed to proper, public debate and criticism, which can only take place either in this Parliament or in a Legislature.
I support the Canada Pension Plan; but let me cite it as an example. It troubled me to think that the plan could not really be changed at all and that the debate here was in effect a sham, because all decisions had already been made. The excuse was given that matters had all been cleared up or clarified, or that an agreement had been made with the Provinces; and we were left more or less to put "well done" on the document and shoot it off to the Senate.
We are going to be considering very soon another very important piece of legislation involving the patriation of the Constitution- which is not a patriation at all, because the constitution, of course, will remain a United Kingdom statute. But it would be very disturbing if those on the treasury benches came to us-in fact, as Members of Parliament we cannot let it happen-and said to us: There is nothing you can do or say now because it has all been agreed to long ago by the Legislatures of the Provinces, or has been the subject of some agreement. I do not care whether it is the Fulton formula, the Favreau formula, the Fulton-Favreau formula or some other combination of names that it is currently popular to attach to it. I want to see the formula.
I support the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I think the proper place to examine the matter is in a committee and I certainly think the very fullest debate must be held on this problem. It would be an absolute negation of all our responsibilities if we were to be told that we would have no opportunity to change the formula or to amend the philosophy, and so on, just because the Legislatures had done something. This is a field on which the political scientists I see sitting on the other side of the House can put their classes to work for years to come. I sort of think of it as a nonparliamentary process, with everything being nicely tied up and handed to us, and with our not having an opportunity to examine the matter thoroughly.


Mr. Pepin:: May I ask the hon. Member a question? I recognize some of the problems that the hon. Member is discussing are real, but would he not also recognize that the
The Address-Mr. Mackasey people who meet at these Federal-Provincial conferences are also elected Members, or people responsible to elected Members?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I recognize, of course, that the 10 provincial Premiers and their attorneys general are very real and I also recognize that they also represent a point of view. But I think I also represent a point of view, and I believe that we as Members of Parliament have to have a chance to express our point of view. This matter has all been tied up somewhere over in the West Block or in the East Block, and I want to see the matter dealt with here, where it should be.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) on his very thought-provoking and moderate speech. While I do not agree with all portions of his speech, or with all his opinions I do share his desire for peace and unity in this nation and I most certainly subscribe to the teachings of Dr. Penfield which, if they were implemented a little more fully, I think would do much to make bilingualism a reality.
Tradition affords me the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) on their contributions to the debate on the Speech from the Throne. The spontaneous applause and many messages of congratulations sent their way indicate the respect of all Members, regardless of political affiliation, for well-prepared and well-delivered speeches. Perhaps what is even more important, this is an indication of the bond of affection that does at times permeate and traverse traditional partisan lines, although in modern times I think that the bond of affection has perhaps too often been buried in the rubble of political partisanship.
The reaction in the House to the Speech from the Throne is, I think, traditional in that we on the Government side indicate what we like about it and those in the Opposition indicate what is missing. But I have been rather pleased at the reception that the proposed legislation set forth in the Speech from the Throne has received in leading editorials in our large daily newspapers. I do not intend to read from these editorials, but in a general way I believe they come to the conclusion that the Speech from the Throne does indicate a determination on the part of the Liberal Party to continue to implement the type of social welfare measures
April 13, 19G5

The Address-Mr. Mackasey that Canadians of this day and age have come to expect from the Liberal Party. But underlying the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, is an awareness of the fact that all our welfare measures must be paid for by an ever-expanding economy, one that will provide the jobs for newcomers to the labour market, one that will provide positions for those who must be retrained to new skills, and an economy that must provide the moneys not only for social welfare measures but also for the new legislation that is contemplated in the Speech from the Throne. I would say to my good friends from the N.D.P. who were talking about our constant borrowing from the cupboard, that if all the social welfare measures suggested in the Throne Speech are implemented their cupboard would bear a great similarity to Mother Hubbard's.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
One thing that appealed to me in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, was the reestablishment of a Special Committee of the House of Commons known as the Food and Drugs Committee. The purpose as outlined in the Throne Speech will be specifically to aim at reducing the prices paid by the public for drugs. While the Throne Speech is by nature rather sketchy in detail, I would have hoped that the reference to the price of drugs would have been tied in with some reference to the necessity for maintaining, above all else, that degree of safety that we in Canada have come to expect from our pharmaceutical manufacturers, and which I have come to realize more and more, as an active member of that Food and Drugs Committee, has a direct bearing on the cost of drugs, as do the moneys being spent on research and the construction of more and more research laboratories.
It is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of drugs to the Canadian public be as low as possible, consistent with our Canadian ideas of free enterprise, the realization of safety standards established by the Food and Drugs Directorate, and compatible with the development and expansion of our pharmaceutical manufacturing industry which, as at present in Montreal and Toronto, does provide thousands of jobs and money toward the almost disgraceful lack of pure research in this country.
The second significant paragraph in the Throne Speech alludes to the proposed legislation to strengthen the position of Canadian publications. While it is tempting, Mr. 
Speaker, to comment at length on such proposed legislation, I would prefer to do so when the proposed legislation is before the House. But I do note with a great deal of interest the substitution of the word "publication" for "periodical". This coincides with an opinion I expressed in the House almost a year ago, that when Canada loses complete control in the field of communications, radio programs, television, newspapers and magazines, then the day will have arrived when Canada ceases to grow as a nation. My sentiments cannot and must not be regarded as anti-American but rather as pro-Canadian. I submit there is a fundamental difference. I believe it is imperative that our daily newspapers remain in full control of Canadians; that our editorials in those daily newspapers remain in the hands of Canadians, Canadians who can interpret the events in this House and in this country, as well as international affairs, free from the natural bias that could prevail in those editorials if they originated from some other source outside of this nation. I would urge the Government, Mr. Speaker, to introduce this legislation as soon as possible. The present uncertainty that prevails over the magazine field as a result of the ever present legislation on the Order Paper is unfair to those Canadian periodicals who look hopefully for some solution to their financial problem. It is unfair also to those periodicals under scrutiny, and as yet unaccepted as Canadian periodicals; who have the right to have their position defined once and for all so that they, too, may plan for their future, if there is one for them in Canada. I do not pretend to know the solution to the problem of the periodicals, but I do feel it is not in the best interest or not in the best Canadian tradition to retard appropriate legislation any longer. If it is undemocratic to introduce discriminatory retroactive legislation, then we must and should spell out correctly what this Government feels constitutes a Canadian publication.
The indication that this Government intends to go forward with its proposal to establish a Canadian Development Corporation to assist in financing major new industrial developments in this country, to increase the Canadian ownership of business corporations, reflects the determination of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to help reduce, by legislation if possible, the ever-continuing erosion of our own industries and of our industrial resources to foreign interests. It
April 13, 1965	COMMONS
indicates a type of Canadianism that is not as prevalent as it should be in certain financial circles. It is indeed a tribute to the Minister of Finance that he is willing to introduce ways and means that must cause some eyebrow lifting amongst his business acquaintances, with whom he was associated so long before he decided to serve his country through the medium of elected office.
If time permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the officers of Power Corporation who recently showed enough initiative to take over Consolidated Paper, and with this takeover regain for this country control over a large tract of forest and natural resources as well, of course, as regaining control over Consolidated Paper's Canadian subsidiary. In a speech made recently in Winnipeg Maurice Strong, President of Power Corporation, advocated the establishment of more corporations similar in make-up and purpose to Power Corporation, corporations that would not hesitate to take over parent firms rather than seek out a minority voice in Canadian subsidiaries. This type of initiative, combined with the legislation to be introduced by the Minister of Finance establishing the Canadian Development Corporation, will do much to help us retain what is left of our Canadian identity in the business world.
I should have liked to continue in this vein, Mr. Speaker, because as a Member of the Government Party the opportunities to speak in the House are not as frequent as some of us would like. I, Mr. Speaker, rarely depart from this type of speech, rarely participate unless I feel I have something to say. Rarely do I take the time of the House to retaliate or answer personal attacks upon this Party or upon Members of this Party. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I share the opinion of a well-known United States congressman-I believe his name was Joe Cannon-who rose to be Speaker in the House of Representatives. One day he was asked why he did not retaliate to a rather vicious attack that had just been made and he replied. "There are times when you have to fight the skunks, but you don't need to give them the choice of weapons." This has been my philosophy since I came into the House.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
But if I sound a little angry, and if I would like to answer in detail the remarks the hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) expressed in the House yesterday, it is only because I feel as an individual that perhaps he has gone to 22620-23
DEBATES	349
The Address-Mr. Mackasey the well once too often, and that Members all over the House, without exception, are getting a little tired of his personal attacks upon the Prime Minister of this country.
Any hopes that we may have had that rubbing shoulders with the hierarchy of his Party may have mellowed the hon. Member for Yukon, may have made him a little more objective in his remarks, were rapidly dispelled by his speech yesterday. Instead of objective, constructive criticism of the Throne Speech, as we have just been treated to by the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), we were treated to another vicious, unwarranted, but I suppose utterly predictable attack upon the Prime Minister and upon the front bench of this Party.
Some Members may ask, "What do you expect from the hon. Member for Yukon? Why do you think he is capable of being responsible in his remarks? What contribution has he every made in the House that was not of a destructive nature?"
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member rose in the House last November to bring to the attention of the House certain alleged wrongdoings, I spoke in that debate and expressed the opinion that the hon. Member for Yukon was doing his duty as a Member of the House, and I expressed the opinion at that time that wrongdoing should not be shoved under any rug.
But, Mr. Speaker, I had expected better things from the hon. Member for Yukon, because of his new-found role in the Conservative Party, that of alleged master strategist, the dark horse in the leadership stakes, the man who is to outline the strategy that would restore the party's image in Quebec and restore the Conservative Party to the ranks of those that deserve the description of national.
The Montreal Star, to which the hon. Member for Yukon likes to allude on occasion, had an editorial in its issue of March 6 this year entitled, "The New Role of Mr. Nielsen." It is a lengthy editorial and the first paragraph of it says this:
Nothing in Mr. Erik Nielsen's parliamentary record has shown him up as a constitutional expert, but that apparently is to be his new role. For the moment, to judge by a document circulating among Conservative M.P.'s and attributed to the hon. member from the Yukon, muckraking is out-
He forgot to read that document yesterday.
-though he rendered a most useful service in this connection-and the constitution in.
I shall leave out sections of the editorial because they refer to the pros and cons of
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Mackasey opting, and opting out; but further on the editorial says:
All this has no meaning to that limited section of the Conservative Party which includes the Horners and the Nielsens and is led by Mr. Diefen-baker. The Leader of the Opposition has in fact given his supporters what amounts to an ultimatum: support the party or get out, though what is equally clear is that Diefenbaker ultimatums no longer carry the weight they once did.
Once more a section of the Conservative party in Parliament is finding in the past the natural home of its reaction. But the clock cannot be turned back to some happy era which this group finds more to its liking. The issue is not whether to centralize or not to centralize, but to develop policies which will meet the needs of the present and, in so doing, strengthen the future of this country.
I do not question the loyalty of the hon. Member for Yukon to his leader. I believe it is the duty of every member of a political party to show precisely that same loyalty to the party leader, and that is just precisely what I am trying to do this afternoon. Nor do I have any question about the ambitions of the hon. Member for Yukon, for ambition goes hand in hand with politics, and I do not fault the hon. Member for seizing the opportunities provided by his propensity to destructiveness to push his way to the top of his party, to be the voice behind the Leader of the Opposition. I simply had hopes that the hon. Member for Yukon would use his new place of prominence in his Party for the unity of this country, to indicate to the House that from henceforth the Conservative party would stop living in the past and start looking to the future.
Instead, we see the sorry spectacle of the hon. Member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), a Conservative of 16 years standing, leaving his Party because he realized that the philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition, strengthened by the support of the hon. Member for Yukon, could only lead to the complete destruction of the Conservative party in Quebec, and ultimately to its complete destruction as a national Party.
Unless the saner voices of moderation have an opportunity, in the hon. Member for Yukon's Party, to emerge, to be heard, to formulate policy, then this great Party is doomed to extinction. For, contrary to any opinion the hon. Member for Yukon has, or any other hon. Member has, that there is a strong English backlash setting in, in this nation, the reverse is true. Canadians from coast to coast, of all racial backgrounds, want national unity. They want the type of Can-

ada that the Prime Minister is striving for, and the voice of the hon. Member for Yukon, or 50 similar voices, will not drown out the voice of reason of the Prime Minister or stifle his desire to provide the guidance and enlightened legislation that is so vitally necessary at this time in our history.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In his remarks yesterday the hon. Member referred briefly to the C.B.C. Sunday night program, "This Hour Has Seven Days," and suggested that hon. Members who saw the program would have a great laugh at the expense of the Prime Minister. Well, I saw that program, Mr. Speaker, and I would defend the C.B.C.'s right to present it with my last breath, for I will never subscribe to censorship in any form. But this does not preclude me from saying that the program was in bad taste, that ridiculing the Prime Minister of this country, or for that matter ridiculing the President of the United States, indicates what many people have long suspected about this program, that it is running out of constructive and creative ideas, and is failing to live up to the high hopes many people had for it at its inception. Its reference to the flag as "the rag" is despicable and can only weaken the respect that all Canadians should have for our national symbol, regardless of the controversy that preceded its adoption. The same performers who imitated the Prime Minister, creating the impression that the Prime Minister may have referred to the flag as the rag and who in turn ridiculed the President of the United States, have no compunction about crossing the border to take advantage of the opportunities there for second rate comedians.
By some queer reasoning the hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) feels that we must not attack poverty in this country because the United States thought of it first. We must not think of a youth corps because the United States has a peace corps. We must not introduce social welfare measures because, in his opinion, we have borrowed these measures from the N.D.P. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is precisely this willingness on the part of the Prime Minister to borrow what is best for this nation, from whatever source it may stem, that makes him the great man that he is. He cares little for the alleged glory of being considered original. He is more interested in alleviating poverty in this nation. If we can benefit from the experiences of our friendly nation to the south of us, and if we can benefit from the experiences which
April 13, 1965

they had in their war on poverty, why should we not take advantage of this experience? I wonder whether any Canadian who feels the benefit of this attack on poverty particularly cares whether the idea stems from the House of Parliament or from the White House? As for borrowing the N.D.P.'s philosophies, any legislation which we have adopted in the past and that which we will adopt in the future, has always been an important part of the manifesto of the Liberal Party. Our Party has been consistently known for its willingness to introduce social welfare measures to the Canadian economy.
The hon. Member for Yukon, Mr. Speaker, once again has been reviewing his moments of glory by referring darkly to the so-called scandals and so-called immorality in high places, and he indicates his willingness to discuss them again at some time in the future. Personally I would prefer to see him staying closely to the field for which he has such an affinity, instead of playing strategist within his own caucus, which indirectly is driving from the ranks of his party one of the few voices of moderation in this country, a voice which was accepted and appreciated in English Tory ranks as well as in his own native Province.
The hon. Member referred quite cheerfully to an editorial by Mr. W. A. Wilson in the Montreal Star and his references to the Cabinet. I am quite willing to admit that I am an admirer of Mr. Wilson's writings and read his comments quite closely. I appreciate his editorials, whether they be critical or whether they be complimentary.
I should like to read another editorial from the Montreal Star dated April 1 which is entitled "Sound and fury signify nothing". This article bears the stamp of Mr. Wilson and reads, in part, as follows:
Mr. Erik Nielsen was going his best lick in the House of Commons on the government's opting-out bill. He called it "deconfederation on the instalment plan", charged the Liberals with responsibility for parliament being "plucked from its powers like a chicken", described the bill itself as the "first halting step along the road to eventual disintegration".
It was all dandy political stuff, and if it had no validity at least it had entertainment value. No sooner had he finished his vaudeville act. however, than members were back on track and the opting-out legislation on its way to the Senate. The Tories it is clear had no heart in the Nielsen approach. The weakness of their opposition to it was in almost direct proportion to the violence of Mr. Nielsen's oratory. The threatened drawn-out debate on the legislation never materialized. The Conservative amendment was defeated and the legislation given second reading in 45 minutes.
351
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
I will conclude this article, Mr. Speaker, with this last paragraph:
Meanwhile, all that the Diefenbaker group have succeeded in doing is to show up once again the deep division in the Conservative Party. Mr. Greene, the Liberal Member for Renfrew South, read back to Mr. Nielsen statements made by another Conservative, Marcel Lambert of Edmonton West, describing the Bill as innocuous and declaring in effect that the Act was unnecessary because the provinces were only taking over fields assigned to them by the constitution. It must be heart breaking for the rest of the Conservative party to stand by and watch the kind of portrait of Conservatism which men like Mr. Nielsen are painting.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why don't you worry about the Liberal Party?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. Member for Yukon referred to caucus leaks in his own Party and he was rather rough on his fellow members. I can appreciate the problem of caucuses, but these leaks no doubt led to an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 19 entitled "Two views of opting-out", or "One Tory's mouse is another Tory's monster". This editorial dwells on the fact that the hon. Member for Yukon was not able to win over his Party in face of reasoned logic on the part of the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) during the Tory caucus debate on the opting-out formula. I say thank goodness for the Conservative Party, which we need as a national party in this country, and thank goodness for the moderate voice of the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was the voice of caucus.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. Member because his time has expired, unless he has unanimous agreement to continue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If he talks about the Liberal Party, yes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thank hon. Members and I shall attempt to shorten my speech by not reading too extensively from another editorial which concerns Tory caucus leaks, and which indicates that the hon. Member for Yukon is not above revealing caucus secrets if he feels that it is in his own best interests to do so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a low blow.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Wait until I have read the editorial. It says:
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Mackasey
Conservatives of both factions have shown an unusual disposition in recent weeks to share their caucus thought with the general public.
I might say this article is from the Winnipeg Free Press for March 19, and I should like to read that passage again because I see that the hon. Member for Edmonton West is paying attention.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Conservatives of both factions have shown an unusual disposition in recent weeks to share their caucus thought with the general public. There has been an astonishing discrepancy in the views thus communicated. In the light of Mr. Lambert's present verdict that the bill is a mere mouse which will scarcely change anything, what are we to make of the "confidential" published remarks of Mr. Nielsen (an undoubted loyalist) only a fortnight ago?
Mr. Speaker, there is more in the same vein in this rather lengthy editorial, but certainly the indication that a confidential document published by Mr. Nielsen-


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was not published by Mr. Nielsen.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not making the
charges; they are in the Winnipeg Free Press. I suggest, however, that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones and the hon. Member should not be too critical of others when from his own Party there are leaks from the caucus.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will, when I have finished. I promise. That is the least I can do, in view of the hon. Member's co-operation. There is one last aspect of this matter, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member asked me to refer to the Liberal Party, and the hon. Member for Yukon yesterday, in a very benevolent mood, made a direct appeal to the backbenchers of the Liberal Party to rebel against what he called the old guard along the front row. I must inform the House that regardless of our weaknesses, our problems and the fact that at times we have been a little accident prone, there has never been in this Party any indication of division or a lack of loyalty on the part of the backbenchers to the Prime Minister or those hon. Gentlemen who sit along the front row. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman, when referring to the old guard, was including, as I presume he was, the House Leader (Mr. Mcllraith), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill), let me say this, that these men have already contributed more to this country, to

this House and to this Party than the hon. Member for Yukon will if he sits here for another 20 years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't be too sure of that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Instead of trying to drive a wedge into the Party solidarity for which this Liberal Party is justly famous, the hon. Member should examine his own conscience and see why it is that Members of the calibre of the hon. Member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and the hon. Member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) found it necessary to leave the Conservative Party; or why it was that the Conservative Leader-[DOT] with whom I sympathize and whom I respect greatly-found that, even with the wonderful help of the hon. Member for Yukon, he was barely able to carry the day in the face of mounting revolt. Certainly this should take up the time of the hon. Member for Yukon, rather than worrying about Liberal backbenchers.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that the backbenchers in the Liberal Party are satisfied with the leadership they are getting-


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: They have got to be.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -for they know that they share in the confidence of a man who is dedicated to the future of this nation. If time permitted-and I do not want to prevail upon the benevolence of this House-I would have read an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette entitled "A Party Fighting Friend and Foe", which refers to the problems that are splitting the Conservative Party asunder. I would just like to repeat-and I know I express the opinion of the backbenchers of this Party-and a few remarks that I made outside this House, when I said that when Lester Pearson retires from the political arena, when the historians of this nation have had an opportunity to assess this man's career, they will find that his greatest single achievement was not winning the Nobel Peace Prize but-


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Suez?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -was in introducing proper legislation and understanding the problems that confront this nation, and who singlehanded has done more than any other man in this country for national unity.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, with indulgence of the House may I ask a question of the hon. Member?
April 13. 1SS5


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. Member mentioned, from his lofty position of Chairman of the Liberal Caucus, that those who live in glass houses should not cast stones. Can he assure the House that he himself is not in a vulnerable position and that he does not have to preside over some rather serious differences of opinion?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member made a very excellent point. There is one fundamental difference, however. We do not drag our differences of opinion about caucus leaks into the House of Commons. I do not stand up in this House, as Caucus Leader, and castigate my fellow backbenchers, as the hon. Member for Yukon did yesterday. This is the fundamental difference. If we have caucus leaks, we repair them ourselves; we do not wash this type of dirty linen in the House of Commons.


Malcolm MacInnis: Oh, you do have dirty linen?


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have it, eh?


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my congratulations to the Mover and Seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and to the hon. Lady for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) for her fine contribution. I hope to keep my remarks on a positive basis, as I always try to do, so I will not try to defend my colleague from the Yukon who at the present time has, I think, attained national stature as being-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -a man of great courage and ability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: April 13, 1365
The Address-Mr. Bigg vote, and I told them that this right would be of assistance to them in gaining equality in this country. This whole problem requires immediate study and solution, which could be accomplished by the appointment of such a Commission. Nothing has been done in this regard during the time this Government has been in office.
We have heard a number of lectures in the House during this Throne Speech debate about the duties of Members of Parliament. Is this Parliament falling into disrepute? If it is, why is it moving in this downhill direction? All hon. Members of the House should ask themselves these questions: Are we doing enough with the opportunities at hand? Are we giving proper and adequate consideration to the problems of this country? Are we actually going to do something about them?
This Throne Speech covers the whole ambit of difficulties which exist today in Canada. I am not here making an election speech, but I am not worried about an election being called. You can call one at any time you wish, but this House should get down to business and bring forward legislation which does not need complete overhaul. Legislation brought forward by the present Government has required overhauling, and this has been carried out as a result of the efforts of Members on this side of the House. When that has taken place many of the newspapers in this country have suggested that the delay in passage is all Mr. Diefenbaker's fault. On the other side of the coin, the Government has continually accepted credit for the few measures which have not required overhaul.
As an example of what I have in mind, let me ask why the Pension Plan had to be submitted three times and is still, in my opinion, a failure. On many occasions we have not been given the opportunity to vote for or against certain programs, but have been put off by arguments as to whether or not we should have the right to discuss them at all. Let us have some positive discussions about the measures which this Government brings forward. Surely the time has come when we should return parliamentary powers to Parliament. Let us stop appointing Royal Commissions and creating Crown corporations to denude Parliament of its powers.
It was pleasing to me to note that the Government intends to at least suggest the appointment of an ombudsman. This points up the fact that there are many things wrong with the bureaucratic administration of this

country. I should also like to see an end to the creation of Crown corporations which presumably take the powers of administration out of the hands of Parliament, following which they can hide behind these administrative screens and refuse to accept responsibility.
At this point I should like to refer to a specific subject rather than speak in generalities. On March 8 I stood in this House and asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) whether the Secretary of the Army Benevolent Fund had been suspended. That Minister replied immediately, so he must have known the facts, and said that the Secretary was under suspension, although nothing wrong had been found in respect of this Fund. Let me inform this House that I consider that man to be exemplary in his service to this country. He was a member of the first company to go ashore in France on D-Day. He lost one leg in that battle and sustained serious damage to the other as a result of hand grenades. He is a prominent member of the War Amputees Society of Canada. He has been in charge of the Canadian Army Benevolent Fund as Secretary for 17 years. Each year the Auditor General has commended this man, who is responsible for the administration of this $6 million fund. He has reported that this valuable civil servant has carried out his duties in an exemplary manner during the 17 years he has been associated with the Fund.
In spite of all these facts, this man received, by long distance telephone call, information to the effect that he had been suspended and was no longer required to fulfil his duties. That telephone call was placed during the last week of February and I rose in this House on March 8 and asked the question to which I referred earlier. Is it surprising that today, April 13, this man is still under suspension, yet was not told for over a month why he had been suspended? On March 9, in answer to the second question I asked in regard to this case, the Minister stated that no charges had been preferred by the Legion or the Army and that there was nothing wrong with the Fund. He indicated that no complaints of a serious nature had been lodged against this man, yet this valuable civil servant has been suspended from his job for approximately eight weeks.
Several of the newspapers across this country have carried reports that this man was fired. Is it necessary for me to ask whether or not we need an ombudsman. I realize the
April 13, 1965

Minister of Veterans Affairs is sick, but I see no reason why one of his assistants on the other side of this chamber could not get up and tell us why this valuable civil servant was suspended. I am one of this man's best friends and I cannot find out why he was suspended. As a result of telephone calls I have ascertained that a board sat in respect of this case and found him to be free of any guilt. That man is not aware of that fact, nor are his thousands of friends across this country. He has been locked out of his office and instructed not to communicate with his personal staff. I know of my own knowledge that his personal mail has been opened and read. Does this mean that we are entering a new era in Canada, during which letters from my wife and family will be opened and read because some member of the Treasury Board thinks that there may or may not be something wrong with my behaviour? This man is still not allowed to communicate with his staff, and although his mail is not now being opened, it is still being subjected to scrutiny.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Surely it must be obvious to us all that we need an ombudsman to ferret out answers to questions of this kind, and to see that public servants of this calibre are not subjected to this kind of improper treatment. I do not want to use violent language, but I did not fight overseas for five and a half years only to return and find it possible in Canada to be subjected to this kind of thing. I am not an Erik Nielsen, trained in the law, to look after this sort of thing, but I am a mature Member of this House and as such intend to ask questions and obtain answers. I have not been able to obtain a satisfactory answer to this question in the past month, but as a Member of this House I intend to continue to ask it until I do. If setting up a Crown corporation makes it possible to treat a Canadian citizen in this way, then I say we had better pass a federal statute now doing away with all Crown corporations, until we are assured that every citizen of this country has the right to the privacy of his own mail, the right to communicate with his office staff and the right to know what charges he faces any time he is put under this kind of house arrest.
I came home from overseas 20 years ago yesterday, and I have waited for the opportunity to stand up and say that the kind of tactics against which we fought in Europe will never occur in Canada. If I have to become violent in my speech, then I will say
The Address-Mr. Frenette that as long as I am alive this type of treatment will not be given to any Canadian citizen. If you want to hide behind statutes, let us pass a statute which says that this sort of thing cannot occur. I am not blaming the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) for this but I am saying that he is sitting there with this sort of thing going on, and to my knowledge nothing is being done about it. I should like every Member of the House to take cognizance of this fact. If the Minister needs the power to stop this kind of thing and protect the average Canadian citizen, I want to be the first one to see that he gets it.
There is reference to amendment of the legislation concerning the Canadian Army Benevolent Fund in the Speech from the Throne and I suggest the reason it is there is that I asked a question on the 8th of March and there is no satisfactory answer to this problem up to the present time. We had better find one. There are hundred of thousands of men in the War Amputations Society. Who can say that this man has paid the price in blood, and sweat for the right to be treated like a human being?
tTranslation]


Mr. Jean-Louis Frenette (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the youth of this country will be called upon some day to play an increasingly important role in the public business of Canada, and an eloquent evidence of this was given to us by the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Indeed, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleehe (Mr. Chretien) have brilliantly stated the views of the Canadian youth on the problems facing parliament at this time. After those who spoke before me, I want to offer them my sincere congratulations for their contribution to the debate and to Canadian politics.
I do not for one moment suppose that the few remarks I propose to make will be a very important factor that could induce the government to change its policies. But considering that it is my responsibility to air the views of my constituents in this house, I shall try to be their true spokesman and to voice their comments on Canadian policies at this time.
The speech from the throne which was read by His Excellency the Governor General did not overexcite us or reveal anything very sensational. However, we must recog-
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Frenette nize that that document gives a rather faithful picture of the economic situation in Canada, especially through its pointed allusions to poverty and want, which are the lot of too many of our fellow citizens.
While, for some years now, we have been able to rejoice over a notable improvement in the standard of living of the average citizen, this satisfaction should not blind us to such an extent that we forget the hardship which is the lot of almost 20 per cent of our population.
With your agreement, Mr. Speaker, I shall read that paragraphs of the speech of the throne where it is acknowledged that poverty does exist among the Canadian people. I quote:
All the great potentialities of our economy are not, however, being realized. The talents of some of our people are wasted because of poverty, illness, inadequate education and training, inequality in opportunities for work. To combat these problems, to improve the opportunities of people who are now at a disadvantage, is to put new power into economic expansion and to enhance the unity of our country.
Mr. Speaker, this recognition of poverty among us should be an incentive turning us into an army of fighters, imbued with one desire, one ideal: to put a quick end to this deplorable state of affairs.
I could not be more favourably disposed toward the underdeveloped countries and all those, throughout the world, who suffer hunger, but I do not hesitate to say and to admit that our first duty is, to wage a merciless war on poverty and on hardship among our own people.
We have the privilege of living in a country exceptionally rich, and I consider it outrageous that because of our political prejudices, our ignorance and our indifference, we should be unable to help those who rely on us to distribute this wealth among them.
The Speech from the Throne is an inspiration in that war we must wage. It contains the outlines of the program which is essential, but I would have liked it to be more explicit and more detailed. The long range policies will not result in any immediate improvement, and yet, for millions of Canadians, a state of emergency has unfortunately been prevailing for too long.
In the last session, we passed a measure to improve the lot of our older citizens; it is not perfect, I agree, but it will give, we hope, good results.
As a matter of fact, since the adoption of the first social security measure for our

older citizens, we have witnessed a constant progress in the payment of benefits. From $20 a month, the old age pension was raised to $75 a month in the space of some 20 years. I am very glad indeed that there has been this improvement. In fact, I would even hope for more, and it seems to me that the concern of our government should not stop there and that it would be urgent, for instance, to adjust the payment of family allowances to the variations in the cost of living. Let the government grant children but half of what they gave to our older citizens, which might represent an increase of about $5 per child per month, and I am ready to bet on the results of the next general election.
There is more and more emphasis put, and rightly so, on the necessity of preparing our young people for their role as full citizens. Emphasis is laid also on the need for production incentives, on credit facilities and on the improvement of our domestic and foreign markets.
Mr. Speaker, are not all those measures inspired by our concern for the well-being of the people?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Such an increase in family allowances would have the immediate effect of putting in circulation another half a billion dollars in Canada. I challenge anyone to find a better incentive to production. Canadian parents could put this money to good use for the benefit of their children and create by this very fact a constant demand for all sorts of products; this would be a shot in the arm for the Canadian economy.
As members of parliament, our first and foremost duty is to legislate in the interests of the Canadian people; we must combine all our energies for the welfare of the majority and as we are also representing our ridings, we have the responsibility to express the feelings of our electors who have been clamouring for many years for increased family allowances.
I have much respect for the economists who suggest elaborate and complex plans to boost the Canadian economy, but I also have confidence in the common sense of the people, and I always listen carefully to the voice of our farmers, workers and small craftsmen whose common sense often astonishes me.
I noticed during my very brief experience in parliament that, as the middle class people, safe from financial difficulties and daily wor-
April 13. 1965	COMMONS
ries of the average family man, we easily become complacent like everyone who is content with his lot and, without realizing it, we are gradually getting away from the people, and the voice of the humble folk and the indigent reaches us distorted and blurred. It would really be something to see how easily some politicians can get rid of their "bourgeois" shells, at the mere sign of an approaching election, to suddenly become dedicated protectors of the people.
Unfortunately, our examination of proposed legislation too often turns into an election campaign or useless discussions on procedure. We forget the important thing and let our attention be taken over by side issues. All our proceedings, in my opinion, should be governed by a humanitarian feeling that would inspire each and every one of us to work for the happiness of others. This, as I see it, is the mission assigned to us as members of parliament. And if each one of us were to stop worrying about his political interests and work in that kind of spirit, I am convinced it would soon be possible to provide all Canadian families with the bare necessities they are entitled to as Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, following again the principle that a member of parliament must interpret as faithfully as possible the views of his electors, I would like to make some comments on the activities of the C.B.C. Over the past few weeks, I have been receiving letters and I have heard comments and remarks on the moral rating of the T.V. shows; heads of families, parents' associations, school trustees strongly protest because with their own money, the income from their own taxes, a corporation belonging to the Canadian people broadcasts in their homes a pervasive and baneful poison whose effect is all the more dangerous as it is often presented in a pleasant form.
Some C.B.C. programs give wide and shameless publicity to free love, prostitution, violence and crime. On behalf of my constituents, I strongly protest against the bad use that is made of a publicity medium financed by the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the theory that parliament should not deal with this situation, that it should not interfere with the operation of this corporation, that the board of governors is solely responsible and does not have to report to anybody. We do have organizations in Canada to protect society as far as the sale of pharmaceutical or food products is concerned. Why then is
DEBATES	357
The Address-Mr. Frenette society not protected against this evil which is perhaps even worse and attacks insidiously moral values and human dignity?
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly here with a meeting I had recently with high school students who had organized a debate among themselves on the television problem. I was very much impressed by the way those students discussed that problem and pointed to the dangers and benefits of television. I make it a point, Mr. Speaker, to refer to what those students told me on that occasion: television programs-remember these are children 15, 16 or 17 years-are generally insignificant and stupid. This is what our children think, Mr. Speaker, about Canadian television. I think this calls for immediate action.
I should also like to draw the attention of the government to the problem of agriculture, particularly in the province of Quebec. I do not propose to re-examine here statistics issued in this regard; they are available to everybody. But I urge the minister, who is too often absent unfortunately, to have his government change its farm policy.
Some encouraging steps have been taken lately in favour of dairy farmers. It is surely a stimulus which will produce effective results, but it is no time to stop when things are going so well under the delusion that all problems are solved. Marketing, and especially the search for methods likely to reduce production costs are, in my opinion, the main factors of success in agriculture. Besides, farming organizations quite often submit briefs which are really charters of the farmers' rights. I am sure the minister's advisers will find in them many suggestions likely to help Canadian agriculture.
Although our agricultural calling of the past has gradually changed over the years to the extent of becoming industrial and commercial, nevertheless, a very important segment of our economy is closely related to farming. We were pleased to hear of the forthcoming establishment of the Canadian dairy commission, which will work in cooperation with the provincial agencies. It is our heartfelt hope that this commission, unlike so many others, will not be a haven for disappointed or defeated politicians, but rather a really effective organization, with all the competence and authority required to undertake and continue a truly positive action.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne contains two paragraphs, which, in my view,
April 13. 1965



PROCEEDING ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, subject to the special order made yesterday and pursuant to Standing Order 39A to inform the House that the question to be raised at ten o'clock this day is as follows: the hon. Member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), industry-benefits of Canada-U.S. automobile agreement to Canadian consumers.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, Eric H. Erikson writes: "Strength inherent in the age of youth. I call it the sense of and the capacity for Fidelity". In this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) have been faithful to the best traditions of this House and I would like to congratulate them on their addresses in moving and seconding this motion. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout), in her maiden speech, also did credit to this House and to her historic constituency. The hon. Member
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Gelber for Nipissing (Mr. Legault) is a valued member and we welcome him as well to this historic House.
In a searching discussion of the problems of youth, Professor Erikson writes:
Fidelity could not mature earlier in life, and must not in the crises of youth, fail its time of ascendance if human adaptation is to remain intact.. .Here again diversity and fidelity are polarized.. .fidelity without a sense of diversity can become an obsession and a bore.. .diversity without a sense of fidelity..."
-can become empty. The role of youth is crucial in our society and this Government sets an important horizon in organizing a Company of Young Canadians. The Professor of Human Development at Harvard continues:
In youth, then, the life history intersects with history: here individuals are confirmed in their identities, societies regenerated in their life style.
E. E. Cohen, executive secretary, National Child Labour Committee, is concerned about "early physical maturation combined with delayed social responsibility". This program of the Government of Canada to provide a wider context of service meets in some measure what has been called the moratorium of responsibility. Some feel that youth is too preoccupied with solving personal problems and problems of adjustment. Professor Erikson writes:
-but in youth the tables of childhood dependence begin slowly to turn: no longer is it merely for the old to teach the young the meaning of life, whether individual or collective. It is the young who, by their responses and actions, tell the old whether life as represented by the old and as presented to the young has meaning; and it is the young who carry in them the power to confirm those who confirm them and, joining the issues, to renew and to regenerate, or to reform and to rebel.
This historic role meets new challenges in the nuclear age.
The youth of Canada is prepared to meet the challenge which the Company of Young Canadians offers. We do not accept the tragic ethic expressed in the story from Greek myths told by the ancient historian Herodotus about two youths, Kleobis and Biton, of remarkable strength, who were victorious in many gymnastic games and drew the chariot of their mother, Hera, a priestess, a great distance to the sanctuary of Argos. She prayed to the gods to reward her sons and as their greatest gift, allowed the two brothers to die in their sleep in the fulness of their youth. Our ideal is the fulness of life, and in providing added avenues for social responsibility for the youth of Canada the Company of Young Canadians can play a historic role.

Dr. Harold Taylor, a well known Canadian points out:
We do find changes taking place in the attitudes of students towards themselves and towards their society. These changes occur when two major factors are present. The first is the presence of idealistic, sensitive teachers who care about their students and who develop ways of helping them to find the guidance they need. The second is a community life in which the students are called upon to concern themselves with their relationships to each other and to their world, not merely on the extroverted basis provided by sports and social engagements, but by the structure of the community itself.
The effort of Canadians in two world wars is a most remarkable one. About a million Canadians volunteered for service overseas 1939-45 and the honour role contains 41,992 who paid the supreme sacrifice in corners of foreign fields that will always remain part of our Canadian heritage. Our country has had this great tradition of voluntary service both in peace and war. The names of many battles are hallowed in the history of our country where with skill and bravery Canadians fought for a common cause. Some volunteered again in the Pacific area and during the United Nations collective security action in Korea Canadian volunteers carried the colours of famous Canadian regiments. We can paraphase the famous English poet, A. E. Housman who wrote: "It dawns in Asia. Tombstones show"-and Canadian names are read.
I know the House would want to hear again this excerpt from the citation on the awarding of the Victoria Cross to Captain (acting Major) Paul Triquet, Royal 22nd Regiment. Upon instructing soldiers in security I always read the entire citation and I am pleased to recall it today.
Against bitter and determined defence and under heavy fire, Captain Triquet and his company in close co-operation with the tanks, forced their way on until a position was reached on the outskirts of Casa Berardi. By this time the strength of the company was reduced to two sergeants and 15 men. In expectation of a counterattack, Captain Triquet at once set about organizing his handful of men into a defensive perimeter around the remaining tanks and passed the mot d'ordre "Ils ne passe-ront pas". A German counterattack supported by tanks developed almost immediately. Captain Triquet, ignoring the heavy fire, was everywhere encouraging his men and directing the defence, and by using whatever weapons were to hand personally accounted for several of the enemy. This and subsequent attacks were beaten off with heavy losses and Captain Triquet and his small force held out against overwhelming odds until the remainder of the battalion took Casa Berardi and relieved them the next day.
April 13, 1965

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been told that the idea of a Company of Young Canadians has been borrowed. Ideas are always borrowed. They are borrowed, reinterpreted and rearranged. We have been told that many ideas in the Speech from the Throne have been borrowed, and of course they have. They have been matured and mellowed by experience and they will be applied to the problems of Canada. That is the test of any government, to make a political reality out of a good idea. The idea of a program of service is something that springs from deep wells within Canadian life.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I would like to say a word about a very successful project, CUSO-the Canadian University Service Overseas. CUSO is organized on the basis of a partnership between the CUSO organization and the university that is recruiting personnel, because this is a student organization. CUSO selects, trains and transports the students. The host country provides them with local salary, room and board and an appropriate allowance. A Ghanaian official said this:
I am extremely suspicious of the "dedicated person" who wishes to help but has no specific skill. Don't send underdeveloped people to underdeveloped countries.
Its personnel must be screened, carefully selected and trained. Training programs for them before they go abroad have been conducted at the University of British Columbia, McGill University, the University of Montreal and the University of Toronto. Here is what was said by an educator from Tibet about one CUSO worker:
Due to her intense devotion to work and her medical knowledge we have been able to bring a tremendous improvement in the school. This school was primarily established for children who are so weak that they need particular care. So the task here is demanding. She has been wonderful with the children and they have taken a great liking to her.
In addition to intellectual ability, candidates must possess emotional maturity, resourcefulness and must be able to adapt themselves to the unfamiliar. They must be willing to regard their overseas assignment as an opportunity for learning through service, and they must have the capacity to conduct themselves at all times with humility and understanding. This is not only a process for serving others; it is a process for serving ourselves, for learning. Here is a story from Ghana. Two CUSO students were married in Ghana, and here is a letter which one of them wrote:
I'm afraid the only excuse I can offer for this late report is my marriage to fellow CUSO volun-
The Address-Mr. Gelber teer, John Baigent, and perhaps you'll see from my description just how hectic things have been. We were delighted when Terry Bacon, Third Secretary of the Canadian High Commission, responded by offering to give the reception as his gift.
One thing led to another. Since the wedding reception was out of our hands, we could then afford invitations and we had great fun trying to convince the African printer that we did not want elaborate cards covered with silver bells and cupids. We ended up with a design somewhere between African and Canadian tastes and had a marvellous time sending off 250 invitations-although we knew that 200 of the invited people would be too far away to come. It made us feel a little bit closer to the folks back home anyway.
No wedding is complete without a cake and once again we had fun with the African baker, convincing him that we were people of very simple tastes and didn't really want bells, cupids, hearts, etc., adorning our cake. The Africans love bright colours, gaudy decorations, etc., and their tradesmen reflect the philosophy that if a little bit is good, then lots is better I But we won-simplicity prevailed.
Mr. Speaker, under the Canadian University Service Overseas, Canada has sent a group of students to a wide number of countries around the world. The Globe and Mail reports some of them wrote back:
"No matter how much you prepare, you're rocked when you arrive," says Don Millar of Toronto, a 22-year-old history graduate teaching English in Dhampur, Uttar Pradesh.
"The heat and the faces just crowd in upon you", says Martha Nixon, 21, of Montreal, McGill graduate in psychology and anthropology, who is teaching at Balarampur, West Bengal.
"But the initial impression that our living conditions here were primitive and dirty has already worn off," adds Montrealer Stephen Jasper, 22, another McGill graduate, who is teaching English at Jamal Mohamed college in Tiruchirapalli, Madras State.
"India can be daunting-You're such a drop in a huge bucket, as one student put it-but the 10 young men and nine young women display no lack of enthusiasm, only a measure of humility about how much enthusiasm can accomplish.
"My greatest fear is that I somehow may not fit into the educational system, won't be able to communicate," says Terry McElroy, 22, of Ottawa, a Queen's University graduate teaching English at Padhampali High School in Orissa province."
There are other programs of service for students. Here is one described in the Ottawa
Citizen:
A group of 180 Canadian university students, 54 of them from Ottawa, will spend part of their summer holiday in the Mexican hinterland trying to improve the lot of the less fortunate. What makes this project a particular challenge is that they have to raise funds to pay the costs of transportation and the bare essentials of living.
Here is another program at present being carried on in Canada by The International
COMMONS DEBATES	April 13, 1965
The Address-Mr. Gelber
Grenfell Association. This information was supplied to me by the hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. O'Keefe):
These.. .are.. .young men and women who have recently finished what would be equivalent to our high school, and are just prior to entering university. These students come on the coast for various lengths of time, as orderlies, voluntary workers of one type or another. We have medical students who come on a rotational basis the year around, with the largest number coming during the summer months. These students come from various universities in Canada, the United States and England. During the summer months, we have short term volunteer workers from universities of Canada and the U.S.A., mainly, who do volunteer work in our dormitories, hospitals, and community work in various areas.
Then I have information here about Operation Beaver, 1965, a Canadian Ecumenical Council project. There is a whole series of projects listed here by the Student Christian Movement. Here is another group of projects listed by the Vocational Register, Student Christian Movement of Canada. There is a wide variety of voluntary programs, not only for students but at all levels in Canada. The voluntary tradition is an important tradition in Canada, and I believe that a proper challenge to the youth of Canada-not only to the students but to all the youth of Canada- will meet with a most happy response. The British, the French, the Dutch, the Scandinavians, the Australians all have programs of assistance abroad. I have information here about a great number of these. I would like to say just a word about the largest of these, and that is the United States Peace Corps. The then Senator Hubert Humphrey, now Vice President of the United States, in introducing the Peace Corps legislation into the Senate on June 1, 1961, said this:
The Peace Corps which has been set up under Executive order will cost less than the cost of firing one Atlas missile, even one that does not work. The anticipated first year's budget for the Peace Corps will cost one tenth of 1 per cent of what it will take to put a man on the moon.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
For the Peace Corps program the host country credits the Corps with a significant role in its development. Every nation in which the Peace Corps is serving is asking for more volunteers. Additional countries are also asking for Peace Corps participation in upbuilding.
I think it is symptomatic that the Ramon Magsaysay Philippines award which has been considered as one of Asia's prime awards was given to a Peace Corps Director, Sergeant Shriver, on behalf of the Volunteers, who had

served in 11 Asian countries by 1962. It was the first time this award has been given to a non-Asian.
There are many types of individuals that the United States Peace Corps invites for participation. It wants physicians, both general practitioners and specialists, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, health directors, medical technicians, physical technicians, hospital administrators and many others.
There is also a great deal of work for manual labourers in the Peace Corps. Jim McKay volunteered to serve in the Peace Corps and is now working in Lahore, Pakistan, helping to build a hospital. The average bricklayer there lays 225 bricks per day, whereas Jim's average is 750, and his skill is being used to help his Pakistani co-workers improve their own production.
There are important tasks at home which a Canadian corps of service could perform. Certainly the more obvious might be those relating to our Indian and Eskimo populations. There are all types of Group Workers needed in the most advanced and mature urban societies, as well as in the less advantageous urban areas.
We know of the work that is being done through ARDA. There is a demand for young Canadians to serve and assist in the type of work that ARDA is doing. They can do much to help with these important tasks. The frontiers of this country are great and the imagination and challenges which this Government can offer to the youth of Canada I am sure will meet with hearty response.
We hear a great deal about youth, and I was very interested when I found a quotation from Socrates who lived about 2,400 years ago. Socrates said:
Our youth now loves luxury. They have bad manners and contempt for authority. They show disrespect for their elders and love idle chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants-not the servants of the household. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.
I believe that both at home and abroad there are great tasks, great challenges and great opportunities for the youth of Canada, which is responding and will continue to respond. I think the Government is to be congratulated for bringing before this Parliament the idea of a Company of Young Canadians to serve both at home and abroad -to give service to others and to serve themselves.
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Pascoe
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from Sir Rabindranath Tagore, the Indian poet and philosopher, who once said:
Man goes into the noisy crowd to drown the clamour of his own silence.
Canadian youth will go forward into the crowd to find itself and its fulfilment.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to join with others in congratulating the Mover and Seconder of the Speech from the Throne. Their efforts are all the more commendable because of the vague generalities contained in the Speech. It contains plenty of fancy frosting on the cake, but not much cake to bite into. It contains promises but lacks detail.
I agree with many views expressed by editorial writers and T.V. commentators, that this is a pre-election speech which is not actually intended for full implementation during this session of Parliament. It was meant more for possible vote catching. The date of the coming election is not revealed in the Speech, but the intent is certainly there.
Many speakers have dealt at some length with what the Speech contains, and more particularly with what it does not contain. I should like to refer to three or four items which have not been covered during this debate. One item in the Throne Speech deals with what is described as "comprehensive legislation to reform public regulation of the railways". This really should read "reform of last session's legislation, Bill C-120". This is just another example of the Government being forced to revise ill-considered legislation hastily produced.
We have held some worth-while meetings of the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines and I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has had certain deficiencies of Bill C-120 forcibly drawn to his attention. I should now like to draw his attention to the Sixth National Farm and Business Forum, held in Winnipeg recently under the sponsorship of the Agricultural Bureau of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce.
A large number of individuals were in attendance at this conference, all of whom expressed opinions. While I do not intend to outline every opinion expressed, I should like to refer to one or two and place them on record, so that they will come to the attention of the Minister of Transport.
The first statement to which I wish to refer was made by Mr. A. V. Mauro, Q.C., Chairman of the Manitoba Transport Commission. He said that-
-national policy of rail rationalization was necessary and the primary objective of this should be to enhance the political and economic welfare of the Canadian people.
He then went on to say that-
-if any rationalization program is proposed for railway systems in the prairie provinces it should be worked out on a basis much wider than merely the solely related formula of railway submission.
Mr. Mauro then stated that-
-any appointed authority should consider an over-all pattern rather than a simple point to point approach undertaken by rail companies.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Here is another statement, this time by Hon. George Taylor, Minister of Highways for Alberta. He stated five points which I should like to put on the record.
1.	That a rationalization authority should be established with full responsibility to deal with rail line abandonment and with power to order the interchange of lines, the seasonal use of lines and the exchange of running rights between two or more railways. It should also have power to deal with costs and revenues before and after and would not be required to deal only with costs and revenues at the time of application.
2.	That all authority dealing with the abandonment of rail lines presently in the hands of the Board of Transport Commissioners, be transferred to the rationalization authority.
3.	That the rationalization authority be given full power to order the Board of Transport to carry out studies affecting the railways and the results of such studies should be transmitted to the authority without recommendation for a final decision.
4.	That the rationalization authority be given full power to deal with governments at all levels, the railways, businesses and all others in the area and region that will be affected by the abandonment of a branch line.
5.	The rationalization authority should be required to give extra weight to any item adversely affecting the favourable position of Canadian grain in world markets.
I want to emphasize that last point because I come from a grain producing area where the people are very much interested in the whole railway problem and especially in the problem of rail line abandonment. Mr. E. A. Boden, vice president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, also spoke and he said:
Abandonment of branch lines on the scale sought by the railways will cause major disruption of the grain industry.. . He said it would mean the removal of 3,453 miles of tracks and 923 country elevators which would cost approximately $60 million to replace.
Again I am emphasizing this because of my interest in the grain producing area from which I come. Mr. Boden continued:
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Pascoe
A federal authority concerned with branch line abandonment should have the power to act rather than to just recommend changes.
With respect to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other organizations he said:
They hold the view that whatever body is given the responsibility for deciding the fate of rail lines, should have the authority and the ability to examine the broad picture, to look at areas rather than single lines.
An article in the Western Producer summed up the conference and I should like to put part of it on the record:
It was significant that much of the time during the sessions was taken up with wide-ranging discussion of the shortcomings of the now defunct Bill C-120.
I think we can all agree with that because the Government has withdrawn that Bill. Then there is a reference to Mr. Boden to whom I have already referred:
Mr. E. A. Boden, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool second vice president, following a graphic description of the final results of the closure of all branch lines now proposed by the railway companies for abandonment, gave a number of interesting examples of possible rationalization. These included situations in which there could be line sharing and interchange of running rights, the bridging of existing gaps so that routes of access to main lines could be shortened, and other devices which appear perfectly feasible and desirable. It was interesting to note that no railway representative at the meeting offered critcism of Mr. Boden's proposals.
There is one other aspect of the railway problem to which I wish to refer briefly. It concerns reports of the curtailment of passenger services, particularly by the Canadian Pacific Railway. In this connection I wish to put on the record a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association in Regina on April 2 last. It reads as follows:
Whereas the C.P.R. has been granted land, mineral and tax concessions in the early days of its operation, and
Whereas an expanding population and economy requires a comprehensive transportation system for such growth, and
Whereas the C.P.R. has shown a disregard for the public interest and intends to discontinue passenger rail service even though the C.N.R. has increased passenger rail service profit by some 19 per cent,
Be it resolved that this assembly go on record as insisting upon the consideration of public interest before any further discontinuance of C.P.R. passenger train service is allowed, and
Be it further resolved that no additional curtailment of existing passenger service be allowed by the Board of Transport until a full inquiry is held by the Federal Government to determine whether the public is able to obtain space on present facilities.

Many in my riding are not convinced that the C.P.R. is making every possible effort to improve passenger traffic and they think the company should make this extra effort. Apparently Canadian National Railways has met with considerable success in its campaign to interest more people in travelling by rail. I would refer to the annual report of the C.N.R. just received where on page 9 there is this notation in regard to passenger services:
Sales. The number of passengers carried by C.N. increased in 1964 by 14.0 per cent over 1963 and passenger service revenues were 16.7 per cent higher. The red, white and blue fare plan, to which is credited much of the increase in passenger sales, was extended throughout the system during 1964 and this and other passenger sales projects were intensively advertised and promoted in various ways.
I read this as a challenge to the C.P.R. also to go out after passenger traffic, and I am quite sure they would be able to get it. I know we are trying to finish tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to take too much time but there is one more point to which I should like to refer because I am quite concerned about this matter. As I said before, I come from a wheat producing area. Early in the Speech from the Throne there appears this reference:
My Government is resolved that Canada shall make the fullest contribution it can to the lessening of international tensions, including the provision of practical assistance to developing countries.
I suggest that one way to extend practical assistance to developing countries is to provide greater help with regard to their food problems. I know that this Government and the previous Government have participated in the world food program under F.A.O. I believe we are the third largest contributor to this program under which distributions of skim milk, cheese, butter oil, dried fish, flour and oats have been made to 15 countries mostly in Asia and Africa. This particular food aid project was started in January, 1963 by the Diefenbaker Government. It seems to me that Canada could do much more to meet the food needs of underdeveloped countries. I am thinking particularly of our great stocks of wheat that are again beginning to pile up, despite the brave words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). There are problems in regard to our commercial wheat markets, but a more extensive food aid program of wheat and wheat flour should not interfere with our regular markets. It would certainly help the developing countries. Previous gifts of
April 13, 1965

wheat and wheat flour brought the first taste of bread to millions who now welcome bread as a staple diet. Canada should do more to satisfy this demand.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this is a good time to take issue, as I have done in this House on previous occasions, with those who advocate diets that do not include bread. Some of these advocates of no-bread meals are in this Parliament. I have a copy of such a diet here and the chart says that you must not eat bread or anything containing starch or flour. This is a diet to which I take very strong exception, Mr. Speaker. I cannot put it in better words than I find in this particular farm journal, and I quote:
Diet fads may easily do harm which can never be erased, as can posture fads, high heel fads, and any number of others. In food, fads have again and again thrown nutrition out of balance in a shocking proportion of the population. Bread and potatoes, the most common starch suppliers, have been repeatedly cast in the villain's role....
None of these foods is either villain or hero on its own. In a balanced diet each can and does play an excellent part. It is the silliness of fadism which gets them all out of proportion in human eating habits.
I have a news item here, Mr. Speaker, which may explain the no-bread diet of some of our friends. The article is headed "Soft Life Reduces Wheat Consumption". I quote:
A higher income is associated with the "soft life" and a minimum of physical exercise-desk work, driving instead of walking to the neighbourhood store, and hiring someone to do the odd jobs around the house. As a result, the need for high-caloric foods is reduced.
A bigger pay cheque also allows a family to indulge to a greater degree in the more expensive food items, thus creating a larger demand for meats and fruits at the expense of low priced items such as bread.
I am trying, as I said, to contradict this no-bread diet, and I think in the interests of good health I should. I should like to refer briefly to the suggestions of the nutrition division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Here, I have "Canada's Food Guide," indicating the foods to eat every day, and bread and cereals are certainly very much played up. Then, there is another copy of "Canada's Food Guide", and it advocates bread and cereals very day for good health. This pamphlet is from the Health League of Canada and is headed "Every Week is Health Week." I have quoted this before and it advocates at least four slices of bread a day.
These are just a few items relating to the health qualities of bread, Mr. Speaker. I should like to refer briefly to an article con-
The Address-Mr. Pascoe cerning foods and nutrition in Japan and India. I quote:
Long ago Japan realized the nutritional dangers of using rice to the exclusion of other foods and the advantage of using wheat and other cereal products as well as rice in their diet.
Then, with regard to India, the article says:
Although India is considered to be a rice eating country, half the population look on wheat as part of their staple diet.
I should like to quote an article from "Grain Market Features":
Speaking in London recently, Sir Charles Dodds, one of the world's acknowledged leaders in the field of nutrition referred to...the food value of cereals and the fact that cereals would go farther and were capable of contributing more to the maintenance of human life, more economically, than any other food product...
He added that experience over the' centuries had shown that life could be maintained adequately on bread alone, and if this was supplemented by vegetables and possibly small quantities of dairy products a high standard of nutrition could be maintained.
In concluding my argument with regard to bread I should like to quote this article from the Family Herald:
Canadian consumption of bread has tended to fall on a per capita basis as our standard of living has risen. Yet it would be a sorry day if flour ever became too much taken for granted by Canadians. With our enormous wheatlands, we are the custodians of perhaps the most important food crop the white man has ever known.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am from a bread eating area of Canada, the Prairies. My diet consists of at least four slices of bread daily. I do not believe I am too much overweight, and I am in good health. The young women of the Prairies eat bread and they are slim and attractive. They raise fine families of healthy bread-eaters. I am sure their measurements would compare with those who are skimping on bread. I had some exhibits in the gallery a short time ago, but unfortunately they have gone.
I have one more small item to which 1 should like to refer with regard to the Speech from the Throne. Actually, reference was made to it by the hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin! yesterday. He referred to the big problem in that area of the very large stocks of damp wheat. I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), who is in charge of the Board of Grain Commissioners, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the fact that in my city of Moose Jaw there is a large Canadian Government elevator equipped with the finest
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Fisher and most modern facilities for drying grain. It is not being used at this moment. I suggest to these Ministers that they look into the situation carefully. I think at very little expense they could move that wheat to this elevator at Moose Jaw, dry it and sell it at a much better price, a price which would cover the cost of drying.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is a
pleasure, Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif) to see you in the Chair. I know your reputation for never missing votes, and it is nice to see that has been recognized by giving you this higher responsibility. In connection with votes, I want to say that of all the votes that have taken place here in the last few years, the one I regret most missing was the one last Friday on the main motion of nonconfidence. I regret missing it because I believe completely in the indictment that condemned this Government particularly for carelessness, indifference and neglect of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in refusing to take action to eradicate wrongdoing in high and low places under Federal responsibility, and restore public confidence in the honesty and integrity of the Government.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
The question that still remains in my mind, despite the vote I was not here to take part in, really centres on the fact that I cannot believe the story that we have had in connection with a number of items, particularly in relation to the Prime Minister's conduct and the conduct of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) in the whole matter relating to the Rivard inquiry.
One of the things that most concerns me is the uneven, one might almost call it the random justice which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) seems to be so proud of. In his speech during this debate he thundered out how quickly he acted in connection with his Parliamentary Secretary. He acted very quickly with his Parliamentary Secretary, yet nothing has been proven against his Parliamentary Secretary. He acted very quickly with the Minister without Portfolio, and nothing has been yet proven against the Minister without Portfolio. He gave us no explanation of his actions in either case, other than it is quite obvious he thinks he has proven his ability to react in such a situation by the abrupt dismissal he has given those two men.
I have no brief for them, but I am very much bothered by the fact that the Prime Minister will make a virtue out of a curt dismissal like that of two of his advisers and yet, at the same time, have a completely different attitude to other people and other Ministers, for example the Minister of Justice, for example the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the matter of the Onofrio Mainaudo case, for example the gentlemen with their furniture. All that seems to be fine.
We have the situation that the hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) referred to, that the postal employees in this country are up in arms and enraged because they feel they have been slurred by the minister they have been given as a result of the minor shake-up coming out of these scandals. I was interested this afternoon in hearing one of the Government supporters giving the hon. Member for Yukon the devil for his tactics in raising these things, especially the serious question that brought about the Dorion Inquiry.
What do my friends on the Government side think the situation would have been if the Government had been in a comfortable majority? Do you think we would have had the terms of the Dorion Inquiry altered? Do you think we would not have been shut off completely? We certainly would. It is only as the result of vigilance-and I give a great deal of credit to the hon. Member for Yukon [DOT]-that we can begin to probe what I think is the most dangerous aspect of this Government, and that is its wishy-washy attitude towards its own integrity.
There is the difference between integrity and performance, or inept performance, and a lot of the ineptitude, the boneheaded plays of the Government do not have any relationship to the whole question I am talking about. They just reflect the general weakness of the Ministry and the Cabinet. I do not know whether we should feel sorry or sympathetic for some of the supporters of the Government, who have to sit behind it and put up with the performance of this Ministry.
One of the points I wanted to make in connection with this whole question of integrity and morality is to say how absurd I think it is that the Minister of Justice has made the kind of defence that he has. I wanted to put on the record-and of course this is in translation-what I consider his corny melodramatic, indefensible kind of reaction to his own stupidity and ineptitude in the performance of his chores. He gave a speech on Friday and this is what he said:
[Mr. Pascoe.l
April 13, 1965	COMMONS
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).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If anyone can applaud that nonsensical hyperbole, all reason is gone. But my point is that here is a man who talks about the cruelty and the penalty of politics as though he has been absurdly hurt, as though he has been pushed around by the fates and the wicked, vicious and evil politicians who have attacked him.


An hon. Member:: Isn't he entitled to defend himself?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Sure he is entitled, but I am getting sick and tired of the kind of people who wrap themselves in the flag of God and the family, and all the rest, when they are under attack. 1 am sick of the whiners, and the Government Party has one of the greatest collection of whiners I have ever encountered. They cannot get used to the fact that the old establishment game they play is gone, and perhaps forever. We have had the hon. Member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whining all over the place-"You know the terrible things, the persecution of politics, with people attacking the Prime Minister." We have got whiners like the hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) who is always sort of complaining about anyone who makes any kind of attack against the Government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member should mention one specific instance when I have complained about anything he has said about the Government or about me.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What I have said is that he is whining all the time in the House. I rank him as the No. 2 backbench whiner. As a matter of fact I think he is trying to whine his way into the Ministry.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mention one instance.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My point in connection with this is that in any kind of politics when there
DEBATES	367
The Address-Mr. Fisher is rough going there is attack and there is counterattack, and the characteristic of this Government and its supporters is: This isn't fair; this isn't decent. Well, I would like to tell some of the newer members opposite that I was here in a Parliament when a very small nucleus of members of their party, and particularly that prince of partisanship, the hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), unleashed day after day after day, through 1962 and 1963, a kind of attack that has made some of the things the Opposition has done in this Parliament seem pretty pale. Yet that was great, because that was in noble aid of getting the country back on the rails with a wonderful Liberal government.
I would like to suggest to hon. Members that this whining game they indulge in, this complaining about attack, and particularly the kind of whining exemplified by the Minister of Justice, is getting rather sickening.
I would now like to turn to some of the items in the Speech from the Throne and to make some comments on them. The first part of the Speech from the Throne contains the usual guff about the Royal Family and what a wonderful institution the Commonwealth is, and how we are going to make our contributions. One of the points that interested me was the sentence which read:
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.
Just last week we had the embarrassing situation of the whole question, in the public press coming out of Washington and New York, as to whether Lyndon Johnson was angry with Lester Pearson: What kind of treatment did Lester Pearson get when he was secluded with President Johnson? Why was President Johnson curt with the newspapermen? Why couldn't there be more newspapermen there?
We had one correspondent, the Globe and Mail correspondent in Washington, coming out with a story that never had a Canadian Prime Minister and a United States President established warmer, better relations. These two fellows hardly knew each other, but they got along better together than blood brothers, even better than the spirit of Hyan-nis Port and the relationship with the previous President.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I do not know how the Prime Minister gets along with President Johnson. I would
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Fisher hope he gets along well; but it is this promotional aspect that becomes a mockery when it is proven to be not true, this promotional aspect that somehow this particular Prime Minister has the quality that enables him to somehow mesmerize people in the foreign field. I wish he would save some of this mesmerism for the Canadian House of Commons, which seems to be the place where he will have his difficulties.
The point which is given the premier position, I think, in the Speech from the Throne is the reform of the proceedings of this House, which I think is something which the majority of members welcome. Certainly we in this party hope we will be given a strong lead. It is my opinion that the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), after discussions with party groups, can bring in thorough measures of reform, and if it comes to a vote they can count on the voting support of most hon. Members.
In connection with this I should like to say that, unlike other people, I welcome the step anounced later in the Throne Speech to attach to the office of the Prime Minister a secretariat in connection with this program to attack poverty. It seems to me that this House of Commons has been one of the difficulties in terms of getting a legislative program through in the last five years, and this is where much more concentration should take place. It seems to me that it is now the function of the Prime Minister and that of his office to perform, if you want, a brokerage job in the House of Commons and with the Ministries in order to get things moving. This kind of achievement requires, it seems to me, very drastic changes in our House rules. Our party is on record as supporting a number of reforms which I know are not unique to us. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the hon. Member for Eoyal (Mr. Fair-weather), have views which are similar to ours.
In elaboration of this question of the Prime Minister's office having a secretariat, I hope that one of the balancing things will be to see that our Committees are given more power or, in effect, a permanent secretariat. If we do give the executive the ability to do a better and more intensive job in relation to a legislative program in particular, rather than an administrative program, it seems to me that the House will have to get its compensations in terms of checks on that kind of power by having stronger and more powerful committees.

The next paragraph in the Speech deals with the question of promoting strength and unity in the Canadian federation. In my view, this is what you might call a "nothing" paragraph, since it takes us into no new suggestions of policy but just carries on the standard Liberal line adopted over the years. I read their first platform put out in 1894, I think it was, and it talked about national unity, how great it was, and how the Liberal Party was the vehicle for its expression. We are still getting the same kind of platitudes and I suppose it is as shopworn now as it was in 1917, or 1935, or whatever the case may be.
We also have a reference to amending the Constitution. The only comment I make here
is,	in a sense, a prediction. I would like to predict that we will not get the opportunity in this session to deal with the Constitution. I will predict that on the basis that Mr. Lesage, the Premier of Quebec, will lose his nerve.


Eric Alfred Winkler: And his seat.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Maybe his seat. But the Premier of Quebec will call off the Federal Government, and I can already see why. As far as I am concerned this is one of the least significant items, if it is a positive one, in the speech, because I do not believe that it will go through in this Session of Parliament.
The next paragraph does refer to amending the constitution, and I assume that if that were split off with the other aspect of
it,	it would have a fairly easy passage and receive general approval.
The next paragraph is:
You will be asked to authorize my government to provide that "O Canada" shall be the national anthem of Canada and that "God Save the Queen" shall be recognized as the royal anthem in Canada.
This is a subject which is in accord with the majority of Members drawn from all parties. I find it a logical follow-up to the flag achievement, which in my opinion is the greatest achievement the present Prime Minister has made. Even though my party was certainly critical of the way it was introduced I think the majority of us, although I am speaking for myself, felt that in many ways at least the persistence and leadership given did give us something which I personally take a great deal of pride in; and I think an increasing pride on the part of my constituents is being taken in our new flag.
The next paragraphs refer to economic growth, and we get into this poverty business. There have been a number of snide remarks about the copy-cat aspect of this
April 13, 1965	COMMONS
particular program, particularly relating to the United States scene. I have read practically everything the present Prime Minister has written and I do not think I am giving away any secrets when I say that he is not a man of ideas. He does have an eclectic approach to things. In a sense, he is a packrat who picks things up where they are. There is nothing wrong with this. It seems to me that if we had to wait for the virtue of a completely new idea we would be lost and would never get anywhere. I would agree with the hon. Member for York South (Mr. Gelber), who made this point.
What bothers many of us is that, like so many of the previous ideas, it borrows a kind of marketeering aspect from the United States. In other words, it was a good gimmick there in the political sense, so the Government say they will transfer it here. I think back to the truth squad, that noble effort headed by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), which again was a copy of an American device. It is this very matter of phrasing which is more bothersome, rather than trying to achieve the same goals President Johnson is trying to achieve with his war on poverty.
Another item in this part of the speech which intrigues me is the Government Area Development Program, which has already been of substantial assistance to industrial expansion in areas of high employment. This program is going to be extended. I should like to suggest that we created a new Department a couple of years ago, the Department of Industry, and whatever its achievements in connection with the automobile industry have been, its greatest failure has been in area development. We have the greatest collection of high priced, able civil servants, as far as I am concerned, sitting in a void with regard to area development.
I represent one of the great undeveloped areas in this country which is definitely an economic region and considered so by the Province of Ontario, but they have not even listened to us. I have a letter here addressed to the Minister from the Northwestern Ontario Development Association dated April 9, 1965. This letter welcomes the statement on area development, and in the context you will see that 15 months ago the Minister replied to their representations, in effect giving them the brush-off by saying that perhaps in a couple of months the Government will do something. I know many Members in this House, particularly on the Govern-
DEBATES	369
The Address-Mr. Fisher ment side, are fed up with this policy, this attitude of delayed indifference to area development. As far as I am concerned I welcome this paragraph, but I am wondering how we are going to get it, given the foot dragging and indifference and lack of idealism of the present Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). It does not make sense to me.
I suggest that one of the things which needs to be done-and I hope some hon. Members over there will withhold their applause for a moment-is to get a new, idealistic, driving Minister of Industry into the Cabinet, which will be necessary if we are going to have a real area development program.
I should now like to refer to measures to assist the re-employment of workers displaced by automation, and the question of workers moving to new jobs. I have enough experience-I suppose this is the case with almost every Member with a large Unemployment Insurance Commission office in his area-to know that the greatest weakness of our unemployment service and our National Employment Service is the fact that the majority of Canadians do not understand them.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
There was a survey carried out by the Ontario Economic Survey Council, which was recently published, with regard to unemployment in our area. We discovered that less than 15 per cent of the people who were unemployed or were recently unemployed were really informed about the opportunities open to them under existing legislation. One of the difficulties is that the legislation is so complicated and so lacking in interrelation that the people who administer it are never very constructive in its use. I certainly welcome this particular intention and I only wish we would get a clear outline from the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) with regard to it.
I do not take seriously this little spat he had with the Economic Council of Canada. After all, he was just defending his senior Ministers whose wisdom, I suppose, was called in question by the Economic Council's criticism of the manpower policy. But I can give all kinds of examples to demonstrate that this manpower policy is crazy. The railway run-through situation is one, where we had a wildcat strike and 2,800 men walking off the job, and a special inquiry had to be conducted. A development in that situation was that the Minister of Labour was advised,
370	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fisher or knew, that trouble was coming and he did not even have enough power or initiative to stop the Acting Minister of Transport from letting the railway go ahead with this unilateral action that was bound to lead to trouble. We did not even find any use then for the Manpower Consultative Service and as a consequence we had, in effect, a strike, we have had a long, expensive inquiry; and the actions, it seems to me, of the railway and the Ministry at that time are just indefensible in the light of what has appeared before that inquiry. I argue that as another point to indicate that we really need something in the area set out in this paragraph.
We are going to be given a fund for rural development and closer integration of ARDA. Again I welcome this. But one of the things we find in Ontario-and this is no discredit to Herbert Crown, who is the Ontario head of ARDA-is that we are not able to get a quick response and citizens are not able to get a quick response that gives them any leadership from the Federal Government in this matter of ARDA. I know that the response often is-it is from the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve)-that the Province has to take the initiative. I am sick of programs where the Province has to take the initiative and where the Federal Government has not enough leadership to get in and determine where projects can be started and worked on.
I am sick of the fact that in ARDA you have this peculiar relationship of Municipalities, the Provincial Government and the Federal Government, with the Federal Government unable to give a very strong lead. I would hope that for an effective ARDA program this is remedied. This is why I will live in some hopes with regard to that paragraph.
Next, we are going to have this Company of Young Canadians. I suppose the first famous company in Canada was the Company of Good Cheer; the next one was the Hudson's Bay Company, often referred to as "Your Company". I think the idea of the use of the word "Company" has a certain amount of Canadian tradition behind it. I don't know whether it will develop into very much. I think the potential is here amongst our youth.
I think all of them are looking forward to the opportunity of travel and getting out of the country. I think we should have a Company of Youth working on Canadian projects within the domestic framework. I think that a year in some kind of work within Canada should almost be a basic requirement before anyone in a Company of Canadian Youth has the opportunity to represent us and work for

DEBATES	April 13, 1965
us abroad. It seems to me this could be a very imaginative program. I look forward to seeing what kind of statute arrangement it has, particularly with regard to who is the leader.
I have heard that one of the hon. Members from Quebec, the hon. Member for Chateau-guay-Huntingdon-Laprairie (Mr. Watson), has been very instrumental in pushing this program, and I would like to give him credit for it; because if, as I have been informed, he is in a sense largely instrumental for getting the idea in front of the Government, he deserves credit for his persistence, because he suffers under the disabilities of not having been here very long and also being very young-and I know they are sometimes qualities that do not help when you are trying to impress the Ministry.
The next item that I find of interest, and which our Party thoroughly welcomes-particularly because the Prime Minister gave an elaboration of it in his speech-is this question of filling in the welfare assistance program in this country.
The next item is related to the Special Committee on Food and Drugs. It does not seem to me it is anything we are either going to get excited about, since it has already been in progress, or we are going to get discouraged about, because it is unlikely to come up with anything either very exciting or constructive.
The next section deals with farming. I was interested to hear the speech of our absentee landlord, or whom I might call, referring back to one of my earlier comments, the absentee whiner. I have never heard a man who spends less time in Parliament and yet can go outside of it and whine more about it than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays). He shows a facility when he is speaking in his own vernacular that I cannot help but admire. I only wish he could read as well when he gets into the House on those rare occasions when we see him.
The item I find most promising is this question of the Immigration Act and immigration policy. I have been finding that promising for the last eight years, ever since I came here. Every Minister is going to do something about it. I only say to my colleague the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), who is working as a Parliamentary Secretary, that I know he has some ideas that could do something and I would just like to tell him, with all due respect, that I hope at last this is the Session that some of those ideas bear fruit, because I think many of us are getting very
April 13, 1965

suspicious of this failure to conform. I know that the hon. Member knows, as I do, that the procedures and attitudes are in many cases inadequate. One of the points I notice here-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I wish to challenge the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who, during the first ten minutes of his speech, endeavoured to reactivate and rehash all the supposed scandals which were blamed on the present administration. I think this is merely a storm in a teapot. I will soon start reading the book entitled "Douglas in Saskatchewan." I am told that it is better than "The Renegade in Power" written by Paul Newman. I am anxious to read it because it seems to be very interesting. I cannot pursue the same line as the hon. member for Port Arthur who tried to demolish the Speech from the Throne. Knowing him as we do, we could hardly expect him to congratulate the present government.
May I now add my congratulations to those addressed by the previous speakers to the mover (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder (Mr. Chretien) of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne for the brilliant and eloquent way they discharged their functions.
We already knew that they were gifted; we were convinced that they would do their duty honourably. Their constituents must be proud to have elected men of that caliber to represent them in the house.
Most newspapers, Mr. Speaker, are practically unanimous in stating in big type that this speech from the throne is one of the most comprehensive ever presented by a government. It is true that it deals with all sectors of national activity.
Special mention is made in this speech of international and domestic matters, in the economic and industrial as well as social fields. Every field is mentioned, which prompt certain members of the opposition to suggest it is an electoral manifesto. Whether it is or not, one fact remains: the government
The Address-Mr. Loiselle is ready and willing, after due consideration, to submit to this house the legislation required to improve living conditions in all fields. It is a frontal attack on all problems facing the Canadian citizens and what pleases me most, it is a war on poverty that the government is determined to launch. On the whole, about 30 different items are put forward in this speech.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to belong to a team which gives the people of Canada a government which is concerned with the welfare of its citizens, which has the courage to face all the problems which Canadians, young and old, have to face.
In the course of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I intend to comment on only two or three of the main items in this impressive speech.
One of the proposed measures deals with the need to reform the procedure of the House of Commons so that the legislative work can be done more quickly. We all know in what atmosphere this house has worked over the last 12 months and, personally, I am not proud of it.
In spite of the foul punches it got and the obstruction and delaying tactics it had to put up with during the last session of parliament, the government did more for the advancement of Canada than any of its predecessors did for a good many years.
Very often during the last session, long and useless speeches were made for the deliberate purpose of impeding the proper functioning of this house. For the past several months, in talks on the radio during the program "Report from parliament hill", I have advocated a change in our rules which is called for now more than ever. One thing which proves it clearly is that everyone has heard certain members of the opposition state, when they were asked about their impressions on the speech from the throne, that parliament now has worked for two years to come.
The government has certainly work for two years to come if things go the way they did during last session. I would not perhaps say two years but more; this is why we should amend our rules.
A maximum of eight days is now provided for the throne speech debate and a maximum of six days for the budget debate. Why could the same time limit not be set for the discussion of other government legislation? I am in favour of freedom of speech, but freedom of speech of certain persons or groups must not interfere with the freedom of action of the government.
April 13. 1965

The Address-Mr. Loiselle
A government is elected with the assent and consent of the people. The people who elect all members of the house have no use for dull speeches which do nothing to improve legislation. What Canadians want is serious work, painstaking so that all may benefit by the legislation which the members of the house are called upon to vote. If the present government proposes legislation that is not in the interests of the population, it will be up to the people, at the next election, to express their views on the laws already voted and on the measures the government will have brought before the house. In other words, I eagerly hope, Mr. Speaker, that, upon our return from the Easter recess, the question of procedural changes will be brought before the house.
One of the major concerns of the Prime Minister and the members of his party, is national unity. All the actions of the government during the last two years prove it. In the speech from the throne we find that same interest for unity which, in spite of the opposition of some people, and some groups, will shine brightly and forever.
As soon as this government was elected to office, after the election of April 1963, there was a sigh of relief in anticipation of the future, of happier days compared to those we had lived through in the recent past.
In fact, everyone can notice-even those who do not support the government, those who, for the last two years, have been criticizing, rightly or wrongly, any legislation proposed by the government-an expansion of trade, an increase in salaries, an increase in our exports, which is but the beginning. It is said that figures do not lie; let those who are prompted to criticize look at those figures. They will see for themselves a substantial increase in all areas.
Mr. Speaker, another matter which is of great concern to me is unemployment. Although unemployment is at its lowest level for years, the government does not think that the problem is solved by any means. We know that the percentage is still too high. That is why the government is taking steps to remedy the situation; it shows its willingness to take action in order to reduce the number of unemployed. Unemployment is now at its lowest level since 1957.
In the field of industry, there has been new expansion for the last two years. The forecasts are to the effect that 1965 will be one of the better years yet.

[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
As far as old age security is concerned, the situation has improved. I admit that it could be better than it is now, but in any field progress must be gradual. "In order to give with one hand, one must have something in the other".
Even if in the last two years of the administration of the business of the country, progress and a better social security have been achieved, even if all spheres of our Canadian society have known, for the last two years, a better lot, this government, aware of its responsibilities, admits in its speech from the throne that there is much to do. Here I would like to quote a paragraph to that effect:
Our country Is achieving a higher rate of economic growth. Trade is expanding. With growing industrialization, Canadians are enjoying rapidly increasing employment opportunities; incomes and living standards are rising: the number of people out of work has been reduced to lower levels than for many years.
All the great potentialities of our economy are not, however, being realized. The talents of some of our people are wasted because of poverty, illness, inadequate education and training, inequality in opportunities for work. To combat these problems, to improve the opportunities of people who are now at a disadvantage, is to put new power into economic expansion and to enhance the unity of our country.
Some have criticized those who express an awareness for those problems still facing our country, but I do not see anything wrong with the admission that, despite our many achievements, there is still much to do in order to provide better living conditions for one and all and not only for a part of our society. It is a recognized fact that a part of the population has much difficulty in finding work necessary to meet their needs, due to automation and their lack of training to adapt to our modern industries.
Being the representative of a working class district, one of the oldest wards of Montreal, I am aware of the difficulty workers experience in finding employment. I welcome the proposals announced in the speech from the throne to correct this situation. I hope that all my hon. friends, being aware of the seriousness of this problem, will support this legislation which will tend to the welfare of the working class.
The worst tragedy for the head of a family is to lose his job or to be unemployed; this prevents him from providing for the needs of his family and he suffers even more when he is forced to refuse to his children certain amenities which their friends have. Knowing the problem and its effects on society, I wel-
April 13. 1965

come the action of the government which is determined to tackle this matter. It is a fact that, rightly or wrongly, too many people do not realize why they are unemployed. They expect that the higher level of government will provide them with the job they want. There must be co-ordination between the municipal, provincial and federal administrations and also suggestions of reforms by large and small businesses to correct the social evil of unemployment.
These last few years, the winter works subsidized by the federal government have contributed to reduce the number of jobless in winter. It is the duty of every administration, whatever its level, to provide for the future of our workers. At present, unemployment strikes those who have not enough education or no trade, the so-called labourers.
The city of Montreal is going through a period of fantastic development in the field of building, road and subway construction and the preparations for the 1967 world fair. In spite of all that activity, the unemployed who do not have the necessary training to adapt themselves to modern equipment cannot find work to provide for their needs, for their own welfare and that of their families. Consequently, I am happy to foresee better times for all those who will benefit from the action the government intends to take in that respect.
In another field, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne states that the government will give special consideration to the problem of urban renewal in several communities.
I have always been concerned with that and, during the very first session I had the pleasure and the honour of representing my constituents here, I considered it my duty to call it to the attention of the government then in power. On several instances, both here and at the municipal council of the city of Montreal, I mentioned that question which is of vital importance for the people of my riding. As a Montreal alderman, I sat on the committee which prepared and realized the only low rental housing project in the province of Quebec and which was carried out in Montreal under the name of "Habitations Jeanne-Mance".
On many occasions, I stated publicly my regret that no other such project has been executed since. All those who are familiar with Montreal know that the administration must face that problem. Renewal projects should be carried out in several parts of the city, and I could add especially in my riding. As I said previously, the problem of urban re-
The Address-Mr. Loiselle newal in Montreal is of such scope that to make a complete job of it, that is to expropriate, demolish and rebuild, it must be tackled on a 20 to 40 year basis, at great expense to the city.
I now raise the problem of urban renewal in Montreal, knowing that the minister responsible for C.M.H.C. is fully aware of it. He even held discussions with the Quebec minister of municipal affairs and with the municipal authorities on the subject. The town planning division of the city of Montreal, composed of competent men, has been making thorough studies for more than a year to promote the type of renewal most appropriate to the present needs of Montreal.
This renewal program now proposed by the city council has been known for some time, but it has some special characteristics, in that it does not comply with all the beneficial provisions of the C.M.H.C. legislation. Therefore, I intend to submit this problem to the House in order to suggest amendments to that legislation so that this program might be carried out.
The renewal program suggested now by the administration is brand new and it is, I think, the only one to have ever been proposed by the municipal government of any city in North America. What allows me to bring this problem to the attention of the house is the fact that the area now designated for renewal is located in the municipal district I represent at City Hall; besides, the major part of that area lies in my federal riding and that of my colleague from St. Henry (Mr. Lessard). This pilot area covers 265 acres; it has been called "Petite Bourgogne". After all the necessary inquiries and studies required under the C.M.H.C. legislation, it has now been recognized as a renewal area by that corporation and by the Quebec minister of municipal affairs.
It is of the utmost importance that some amendments be made to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to encourage the renewal which is so badly needed in Montreal and to ensure at the same time the welfare of all those families who live in the said district. An agreement has already been reached by the corporation's office and the municipal administration, and the city has already taken advantage of the act to set up in that area two new recreation parks.
Unfortunately, with the passing of time and due to circumstances, that 265-acre residential section had only one very small park
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Loiselle which will be expanded, and the creation of two new parks in that area augurs well.
I rejoice also at the fact that the amendments made to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act last session made possible the beginning of that renewal project called "Petite Bourgogne".
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Everything leads to the belief that, very soon, the government of the province of Quebec will establish within the municipal commission a department which will be responsible, as in other provinces, for promoting urban renewal in municipalities and towns of the "belle province". Such department will be able to offer to the municipalities and towns willing to avail themselves of the benefits of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act the co-operation and the financial contributions of the government of the province, which are essential to the success of any program of urban renewal.
Such renewal program, presently put forward in the city of Montreal, will be for the province of Quebec a prelude to improvements for several municipalities interested in this matter and, especially with the help of the government of the province, other similar programs will very soon be implemented in several areas.
I would like to give some particulars about the area picked out for renewal, in Montreal, which will indicate the importance and the need to act, and to act quickly.
For instance, it has been found after a survey had been made in the area chosen, that 84 buildings had been built prior to 1874. The whole range follows: Between 1875 and 1884, 347 buildings; between 1885 and 1894, 430; and among the most recent constructions, 16 were erected between 1935 and 1944; 35, between 1945 and 1954; and 20, between 1955 and 1964.
Out of a total of 1,495 buildings, in this area, 1,281 had been erected prior to 1914. Needless to say that these buildings no longer meet today's requirements. This proves immediately the urgent need to renew this area and, also, an urgent need for provincial and federal assistance.
Even with such assistance from higher level governments, the city is assuming a heavy burden for the municipal budget. The magnitude of the additional charges imposed on the Montreal taxpayers are an added responsibility.
The alarming aspect of the situation, which creates an urgent necessity, is the fact that for

the last 20 years, the resident population of that district has been decreasing from year to year. The area to be renovated is only a few steps from down town and it will become one of the best residential sites for those who want to take up residence there. I am therefore pleased to note in the speech from the throne that special attention will be paid to the renewal of the blighted and congested areas, which will promote the welfare of the residents.
Finally, the object of urban renewal in that 265-acre area can be carried out in seven stages:	1. Redevelopment of some small
islands; 2. Demolition and reconstruction of some buildings on various small islands; 3. Restoration of houses which may be economically repaired; 4. Application of measures for the preservation of buildings in good condition; 5. Low rent housing; 6. Necessary adjustments to the infrastructure of the area; 7. Adequate collective equipment.
All this cannot be paid for by the taxpayers of beautiful Montreal without federal and provincial government assistance.
Needless to continue to prove that such renewal is necessary; it is a moral obligation and, in this connection, I should like to make the following suggestions to the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, so that this renewal be carried out expeditiously without neglecting renewal of other areas where it is equally warranted.
It would be advisable, in the future, in order to speed consideration of each new area so that it may be approved by both the department of municipal affairs of Quebec and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that the Montreal district office, responsible to the corporation, be empowered to approve a definite area, after having summarily examined the site, without waiting, as the act requires today, for every examination reports to be submitted. This would help speed up renewal of future areas. Furthermore, the act should be amended to favour such renewal: 1. By accepting the principle of grants for renewal purposes; 2. -grants for demolition and rebuilding; 3.-grants for rents.
In the latter case, it is a monthly grant intended to make up for the rent, the value of which would be determined by the difference between the rental value roll of the city of Montreal and the rent an individual may pay according to his income.
When considering the high cost of urban renewal, we should also take into account that price is no object when the welfare of
April 13, 1965	COMMONS
almost half the population, the normal development of family life and liberty of community life are involved.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, may I touch lightly on the project for a harbour station in the city of Montreal.
When the main estimates were tabled recently by the Minister of Finance, an amount of $1 million was provided for the construction of a harbour station in Montreal. This need has existed for several years. At the present time, passengers have to embark and disembark by going through sheds that are being used as warehouses. Such a thing is inconceivable, especially when it happens in this country's metropolis. The building of a harbour station in Montreal is urgent; we have heard about it for years and now we have almost reached the goal.
I should like, at this stage, to emphasize certain facts which would favour the building of this harbour station at the lower end or in the vicinity of McGill street. Other places have often been mentioned, but I do not think there would be a more appropriate place than the southwestern part of Montreal, namely on the western side of the harbour; it would be the ideal place, a short distance from the centre of the city, from hotels, department stores, railway stations, the entrance to the world fair or from the approach to the bridges giving access to all the main highways in the province.
I have in the past made representations to the proper authorities, and I wish to state that I hope to see that harbour station erected in the southwestern area of the city of Montreal which is in every way an ideal location.
I trust that in the very near future the Government, through the Department of Transport, will announce the site selected for the construction of that station.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I hope that all the members of the house, as representatives of the people, will promote their welfare by supporting all the measures proposed in the throne speech, in order that all Canadian citizens may be happy and proud to live in that beautiful and great country of ours.


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, if the house is ready for the question, I will be pleased to co-operate.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
DEBATES	375
The Address-Mr. Beaule


Jean Robert Beaulé: As we have not reached unanimity, I will make a few remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
As usual, I associate myself with those who preceded me in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) for the way in which they carried out their task.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
We read the speech from the throne very closely and several members, especially on the government side, seem very pleased with it.
The people are wondering if we are not slowly moving toward socialism with all the measures proposed in the speech from the throne.
As stated in that speech, the provinces will be called upon to approve an address to the Queen to allow for the amending of the constitution in Canada. That constitution was written a hundred years ago by people who were not Canadians, adopted by others who were not Canadians, kept by others who are not Canadians; as a nation, we have reached maturity and are able to shoulder our responsibilities. Why not leave that constitution where it is and write a new one taking into account the needs and aspirations of Canadians and remembering the two nations that built Canada.
I need not list all the points which, in our opinion, should be included in the constitution, because in my speech on the supplementary estimates during the last session, I dealt with those four points. Besides, our leader set them forth very effectively in his speech.
We learn in the speech from the throne that the government intends to set up a federal public welfare program. At the end of last session, the house passed Bill No. C-142 enabling the provinces to opt out from joint programs.
This legislation has been enacted only a few days ago, and the government has already decided to intrude in the provincial field and, what is more, this time under the pretext of helping the poor. Once again, the federal government is undermining provincial autonomy. Every attempt is being made to violate the constitution.
On many occasions we took a firm stand against the federal government when it inter-
April 13, 1365

The Address-Mr. Beaule fered in provincial fields and we intend to keep on doing just that this session.
If we want a strong Canada, a united Canada, a prosperous Canada, if we want to create a climate of unity in Canada, the federal government must stop infringing upon provincial jurisdictions; only then will we be able to say that a giant step has been taken toward unity.
Another item which caught my attention and that of all hon. members, is the one advocating war on poverty.
It is very difficult to understand how the Prime Minister will be able to declare war on poverty when the Premier of Quebec decides to fight to add new burdens to family budgets, particularly those of the Quebec workers.
How do you want to fight poverty with a premier, as in the province of Quebec, who levies taxes at will? Who is going to be affected the most by that new taxation other than the labour class?
In Ottawa, they have finally realized that there are, in Canada, some poor and destitute people. The government has just realized that action was necessary to fight hardship in Canada. While here in Ottawa they are getting ready to introduce legislation to cope with that ticklish problem-and we are anxious to know what kind of legislation the house will be called upon to discuss and vote-the Quebec premier, has not yet realized that there is hardship in Canada and also in his province.
In his ivory tower and in his jet plane, his head in the clouds, he drops a bomb filled with taxes on the province of Quebec.
If that is what we mean by fighting poverty and hardship; if that is what we mean by helping the little people and commiserating with the poor, then I am wondering if we are not laughing hypocritically at the people.
If the government really wishes to fight unemployment and poverty, it must enact spectacular measures, proclaim a broad public works program, reduce income tax, increase family allowances in keeping with the rise in the cost of living, increase veterans' allowances, raise the basic exemptions of individuals and grant a pre-salary to students.
Mr. Speaker, such spectacular measures would give a great impetus to the Canadian economy and increase our purchasing power.
Why wait until another war breaks out? We are asking the government to do in

peacetime what it can do in wartime to the advantage of the Canadian people.
The first report of the economic council of Canada was published a few weeks ago. It is an important survey of the Canadian economy and I do hope that it will not rot on the dusty shelves but that the government, the labouring classes and the business men will go through it and take appropriate measures.
In this report, the council is endeavouring to determine objectives and practical purposes for Canadians so as to secure, as much as possible, full employment, a fast rate of economic growth, price stabilization, to bring the balance of payments back to normal and to provide for a fair distribution of revenues. The thing to do is not to concentrate on one of those objectives, but to make all the necessary efforts in order to reach them all.
It is essential, I think, to secure a balanced development of the economy.
We have here in Canada specific problems that are not to be found elsewhere. For instance, in the field of labour we record a larger increase than any other industrialized country.
If the government wants to prevent the rise of unemployment above 3 per cent, it should endeavour to create 1,500,000 new jobs by 1970. To reach that goal, the Canadian economy will have to expand quickly and tremendously.
Another point contained in the brief, which is not the least, is the tax problem. If we reach our objectives, obviously, government expenditures will increase.
But the Canadian economy should expand more rapidly than government expenditures and, in this way, bring about a rapid and considerable increase in income, which would give the government the long awaited opportunity to alleviate the burden of taxes while spurring on the economy of the country.
This report from the council is not a planning report but one in which it is trying to place the facts in their true perspective.
I hope the government will duly consider this report.
I will now deal briefly with our relations with foreign countries.
What action will the government take regarding economic and cultural pressure exercised by the United States which we have heard so much about? It is high time we thought about it and prepare a plan of action. Is it necessary or desirable, in present circumstances, to divorce completely and drastically our economy from that of the
April 13. 1965

United States? Is it possible? Have we the necessary determination, courage and understanding to take decisions in this matter and abide by them?
What about our relations with China, Russia and other communist countries becoming important outlets for our wheat and other farm products, countries also interested in our industrial production? Can we carry on business with Red China while refusing to recognize its political existence?
What about our responsibilities toward the United Nations, NATO, GATT and other international bodies to which Canada belongs?
Considering the rapid economic, political and military evolution of the world today, Canada should be able to act quickly and firmly to protect its own interests and fulfil its commitments on the international scene. Are we so much preoccupied by our domestic problems, our regional and local issues, that our capacity to take some decisive action at the international level is hampered? Of course, those are questions which cannot be answered forthwith. However, they underline the complex problems and the difficult alternatives which are facing the country today.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
On the other hand, we are in a better position than ever before to create an economic and cultural climate favourable to all Canadians and to contribute to a considerable extent to peace and welfare in the world. Let us not forget that our problems must be faced and solved by a mature and united Canada having faith in its destiny.
Mr. Speaker, there is now another problem of tremendous concern to several members, organizations and Canadians: it is the peaceful revolution taking place in Quebec, and the Ralliement Creditiste has something to do with this ferment.
Whatever the Anglo-Saxons in our province might say, we are not extremists. And our so-called extremism is not, any more than history, the reason for our disagreement.
I am not aware in my time of a stranger and more appalling phenomenon than this desire to depreciate us morally and to accuse us of all the sins under the sun especially those we are not responsible for.
Our people have certainly been hurt and harassed in the last 150 years. We have often been deceived, humiliated and oppressed. But we can proudly assert that we have remained free from hate.
We have never given back blow for blow. We do not entertain the slightest desire for
The Address-Mr. Beaule revenge, we only want our little share of justice.
Nothing will be changed as long as no decision has been made to go to the root of the problem.
The first charity English and French Canadians owe each other, the prerequisite to good understanding is frankness.
The two races do not agree because one wants equal rights provided that it gets the lion's share. Deep down some English Canadians do not want to recognize and accept the French fact.
It is no longer necessary to wonder how the right to think, to feel, to act as French Canadians becomes in some people's opinion narrow provincialism.
Each time one of our rights was challenged, some of our political leaders asked us, for the sake of peace and national unity, to give up part of our heritage. And, for the sake of peace and national unity we yielded every time.
There was always members of Parliament, senators, ministers charged with rallying their compatriots, to take away from us, shred by shred, our heritage and our dignity.
Political history since confederation tells us that most of our so-called great men were primarily yes-men.
What remains to be done? We do not have to prove that we want national unity in Canada more than anybody else, since we have made more sacrifices for it than anybody else. We always keep our hand open and outstretched, but we no longer outstretch a limp hand to be crushed.
We do not refuse to co-operate, but cooperation must be mutual. Our co-operation is no longer inspired and directed by the slavishness of parties, but by the interests of the province and of our nation when those interests do not conflict with the general interests.
Let us be strong and conscious of our geographical position. In 1867, confederation would not have been possible without us, and we are still indispensable to the maintenance of confederation. We are the bridge linking east and west.
On the St. Lawrence we have the most beautiful harbours, and railway lines must go through our territory. The province of Quebec affords air lines their easiest landing fields.
Our lands are the best in Canada and in America. Let us no longer offer this wealth to foreigners for a mess of pottage.
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Beaule Let others day in and day out inveigh against provincialism.
To sum up, we will be respected the day we have our economy well in hand.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote an excerpt from an article by Andre Langvin which was published in the April 1965 issue of Le Magazine Maclean concerning the fame of our national institution:
It is obvious that all those turpitudes have fostered some sort of fatalism which, like a cancer, eats away at what we are bound to call our national conscience. That is the worst that could happen to us because to believe that, as an ethnical group, we can only engender dubious politicians or that the latter are such only because they come from our group is to believe that immorality in public affairs is connected with a biological phe-nomen.
Then, any attempt at cleaning up becomes an illusion and, worse still, seems to be the typical gimmick of the system. When our young men and women say openly: "All politicians are alike, they are only interested in making money", it is not so much the cruelty of their statement that is shocking as the kind of cynical submissiveness behind such a statement; it is a terrible admission of helplessness.
Therefore, on the one hand, those young men and women must be convinced that they will not necessarily inherit a sort of original sin, because there is no collective guilt and, on the other, that they will be encouraged to fight a rotten system instead of accepting with resignation the fact that it will only produce dishonest politicians. The system did not only permit this avalanche of scandals where so many of our fellow citizens were involved, it also encouraged their proliferation: a system which gives hidden powers to those who fill the electoral coffers, which forces the representative of the people to act as go-between in order to obtain preferential treatment, for his supporters, which stuffs the Senate and the legislative body with directors of large companies, which leads dozens of lawyers into conflicts of interests, confusing their duties as members of Parliament and their duties as professional men, permitting so many officials trained in government service to take advantage of their contacts and of their knowledge to secure employment with private firms, and which, finally, makes so many appointments and requests for services to the state dependant upon political allegiance.
All this of course can be remedied and legislation can be passed regarding all those matters in order to establish standards giving less leeway to elastic consciences. Every political party should be made to show the amount of its funds and the nature of contributions. Nobody will really believe in a complete reform of the provincial Liberal party as long as the Premier is against transferring the full and open control of the fund to members of the federation. The administration can be brought closer together, geographically as well as humanly, and a control agency could be created to which any citizen could appeal who considers himself wronged. Senators, legislative councillors and members of parliament could be forced to declare publicly their sources of income; the nation is too generous with them that they

might consider evading a mild obligation such as this. High officials might be prohibited for some time to enter the service of a business dealing with the department where they were employed. Finally, a non-political organization might be created to scrutinize the appointments made by the government and the list of persons called upon to render service.
It might be argued that this would hinder greatly the politicians and civil servants, and that this would be demanding more from them than from ordinary citizens. But whoever chooses to serve in the public service chooses also to be responsible for his actions, and the nation expects him to obey this code of ethics. The fact that this code is written in part can only reassure him. It is only at this price that the function of the politician will be revalorized, that we will escape this false collective guilt some are trying to pin on us, and that our young people made cynical by various happenings will be convinced that democracy does not necessarily mean corruption.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. J. B. Morison (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of brevity may I quickly pass over the traditional compliments on the excellence of the members' speeches, with the suggestion that we remember what has been said over the last seven days, and in the days to come try to live up to the ambitions which have been expressed. If this is the case, I am sure that the sentiments expressed earlier this afternoon by the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), that the opinions of this House have possibly been overlooked by Provincial-Federal conferences in the West Block, will not be overlooked in the future. If we can contain ourselves and express ideas, instead of just making noise, then we will make a contribution to the Government of his country.
The Speech from the Throne dealt with many problems of the day and proposals for higher standards of living, proposals which will affect the lives of Canadians in all walks of life and in all areas of this wonderful country. I intend to touch on just a few of them which I feel are most important to my constituents and to Canadians of the nation.
First, I would like to draw hon. Members' attention to a lecture which was given by Mr. Peter F. Drucker, of the School of Business at the University of Toronto, last March. Professor Drucker's remarks have been widely publicized in the Canadian press and have created great interest not only among industry but also the professions. His remarks dealt with entrepreneurship in business. He stressed that certain companies do well year after year, that they consistently
April 13, 1965

outperform their competitors in good times or bad. One of the chief reasons for this was entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship has a specific subject matter, a specific concern. It is effectiveness. Entrepreneurship is not concerned with efficiency; that is the concern of management, or we might say, in the case of Government, the civil service. It is the subject of managerial discipline. Efficiency attempts to do things the right way. It deals with quality, rather than the quantity of results and output.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Efficiency of course is not unimportant, but no business or government can continue to survive or give the leadership required of it because it is efficient. Unless it does the right things, unless it has a degree of effectiveness, it cannot live at all, no matter how efficient it may be. It is also true that a Government that does the right thing can tolerate inefficiency, it can tolerate abuse, and it can tolerate these things without suffering too much. Entrepreneurship, then, is knowing what things to do; it is not how to do them. Mr. Speaker, if the continued success of the Liberal Party over the last 30 years is to be attributed to a special ability, then surely that ability must be the art of doing the right thing.
Many Canadians have said that the Liberals were just plain lucky to be defeated in 1957. I believe there are a few Ministers on the front bench that can be excluded from that group. Many Canadians said that the forces of recession were building up and could not be stopped. They said it was a product of Liberal administration. Whatever the cause, whatever the case, it was a situation that had to be met. It was a time for entrepreneurial decisions; because unemployment was becoming a national problem at that time and it was top editorial material, instead of flags or furniture or fighting, interparty style. I remember a statement that was made by the Labour Minister at that time. I am thinking of the winter of 1961-62. As I remember, he said that the Government had done all it could; now it was up to industry to correct mass unemployment. Well, Sir, that lacks entrepreneurship; it lacks imagination; it lacks the art of being able to do the right thing. That was just one example, and there are many that I am not going to quote this evening because of the time. But, contrast, if you will, the simple move, the oh so effective move, the $500
The Address-Mr. Morison winter building bonus. In one stroke winter unemployment in this country was well on the way to being licked.
There are other examples; the Columbia River Treaty, the Seaway project, the Crown Corporations and the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, the latter both being set up by Mr. C. D. Howe, with his exceptional flair for being able to do the right thing- possibly politics might be excluded from that. Each and every example I have given is one of doing what was required at the right time.


Mr. Pugh:: You had better call an election, John.


John B. Morison: The Unemployment Insurance Fund was an example of doing what had to be done. Unfortunately, through Government inefficiency, which I mentioned earlier-I am thinking of the previous Government, of course-its effectiveness has been hampered.
Let us look, Mr. Speaker, to entrepeneur-ship in the future; the proposals in the Throne Speech. First I would like to mention the lessening of international tension. I do not know what confidential advice was given to the President of the United States by our Prime Minister. In fact, I do not know if L.B.J. really knew he was getting advice-


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Entrepreneurship.


John B. Morison: -but I do believe that with the deft ability of our Prime Minister-and this is his forte-the message of doing the right thing got across to Mr. Johnson and I do believe that a contribution has already been made in the touchy area of international peace. Second, is the matter of the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to discuss the expansion of trade and the establishment of a Commonwealth Secretariat. We in this Government, Mr. Speaker, are vitally aware of the changes that must come in our trading pattern with Great Britain. For years past this great and bountiful mother country has favoured us at every turn with trading privileges; always giving, always asking very little in return. Today this generosity is no longer possible. England is struggling for her economic life, combating trade deficits, financial problems and inefficient production. We in Canada, taking only 12 per cent of her exports, contribute to almost 23.5 per cent of her trade imbalance. England can no longer afford to tolerate this situation and she must seek from us a new trading pattern.
April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Morison
I support our automobile agreement. In this vital segment of our industry there is the greatest opportunity for the increased employment of Canadians. But as we ratify this agreement, let us produce an equally brilliant plan so that the United Kingdom industries will not suffer; and if this is not possible, let us not be shackled by old ideas, by trading defeats in the past. There are new markets. Is industrial trade with the Soviet Union out of the question? They buy our wheat; why not our machinery and technology? Britain, France and other western countries have the major part of a new billion-dollar market that has emerged from Russia in the last few years. As I say, this is a new market. Why cannot Canada lead into new market areas and ideas, where success is to be found ahead of those who wait in hopes of an easier path?
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but recall the many letters I received during the flag debate concerning traditional ties, allegiance to the mother country, the breaking of honourable connections. They were just words, Mr. Speaker. Our Government's proposal to form a secretariat to bring England and the Commonwealth closer together and work to their mutual advantage is more than that. It is constructive work. It is the ability to do the right thing, to seek accomplishment through deeds and not words.
We must be entrepreneurs if we are going to find the wealth necessary to finance our war on poverty, which brings me to my third observation. At the outset let me say that I am aware that in an affluent society, as we have in Canada today-the third wealthiest nation in the world; a nation which has an average income per capita of $1,800; a nation that is on the threshold of an ever more expanding and technically sophisticated economy-there is going to be a widening gap between the honest hard worker and those who are not-


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Just words.


John B. Morison: -or those who, for one reason or another, just cannot compete in the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, those remarks on the other side of the House almost make me wonder whether I should not be addressing my remarks to them.
Into this gap the three levels of Government, Federal, Provincial and Municipal, poured almost 4 billion last year, almost twice as much as ten years ago. I do not believe there are twice as many poor in this country or that they need twice as much

welfare; but I do believe that a complete overhaul of our welfare programs is necessary.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Today welfare is a part of our society. It must provide the basic needs for its people or they will turn to socialism. We have had welfare programs of a spotty character for years. They have been expensive but they have not always been adequate. We needed family allowances in this country. We needed assistance to education if our labour force was going to meet the modern challenge. We must help the disabled, the blind and the old, or we will have a social revolution on our hands. But we must do this for another reason too, and business must understand this as well.
We must try to raise the standards of our people. If Government does not do this, business will suffer. Business, if consistently asked for charitable contributions to community chests, to universities and to all kinds of charitable enterprise to assist the needy, the helpless, the sick, will really wonder whether or not it is helping worthy causes. The Speech from the Throne recognizes this problem. The Government plans to review with the Provinces the whole picture of the welfare field. This plan is not to instal Socialism; it is to avoid Socialism.
I have not dealt with specific areas like the Labour Code, the Pension Plan or medicare. Perhaps I should, because nobody thinks that the Labour Code is perfect. The minimum wage is certainly not out of line and the hours of work provisions, generally speaking, are found in collective agreements, although there are some industries where they do not apply. The Minister has authority to provide the necessary exemptions in these cases, and I think he will do so.
The Pension Plan is needed, in my view, and too many people have no opportunity to help provide for their old age. The Pension Plan now provides for a minimum, and an employee in order to achieve this minimum will contribute less than $80 a year.
Medicare is a very involved subject. The Federal authorities cannot undertake it alone. This program must be developed cautiously, through experience and by working with the Provinces. It cannot be developed in a way which will slow down the economy, and in this regard we must be prudent.
My fourth observation deals with the agricultural segment of the population. It was
April 13, 1965
revealing to me when campaigning in rural "Wentworth to hear on many occasions that old question: Why vote Liberal, they never do anything for the farmer. Not being a farmer or a student of agricultural history, I found this a rather difficult point to debate, especially when I knew the western boys were getting fat. Wheat payments were being made, and although the local press did not give that fact much publicity, the word did get around. On my next trip to the farms of Wentworth I will be able to refer to the many good things that have been done for farmers. Who is a bigger entrepreneur than Harry Hays? He knows what the farmers *vant and is impatient to have the Govern-nent carry out his programs. These programs vill not be give-aways, but based on sound jractical policies to assist the Eastern farmer ,o become a part of an efficient and profitable farming community.
Originally the word "entrepreneur" referred to a single individual, and we might still think of such a man as an isolated individual. On the other hand, as soon as an individual has attained the slightest amount of success, he builds an organization for continuing success.
Mr. Speaker, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that the latter half of the 20th century belongs to Canada. May the Liberal Party continue to be the entrepreneur to fulfil this prophecy.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Morison) indicated that he would be brief, but as it turned out he did not keep his promise. I assure this House that I will be extremely brief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This makes two Tory speakers in a row.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be brief because I do not believe that traditionally a supporter of the Government should conclude this debate. Perhaps that is not a good reason for speaking, but let me say that I do have a few remarks I wish to make.
At several points the previous speaker bragged about the Liberal record, particularly with reference to the $1,800 per capita income. I wish the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) had been present in the House when the hon. Member made that statement, because it is precisely in this regard that the Minister of Agriculture has failed as an entrepreneur. That Minister may know 22620-25
The Address-Mr. Winkler what the farmers want in some respects, but he has not manifested good sense as far as the incomes of Eastern farmers are concerned.
I asked the Minister a question this morning regarding the price of cheese. His reply indicated at least to me that the producers of cheese milk will receive less this year than they did last year. It is my humble opinion that the Government is making a determined effort to avoid supporting this particular segment of the dairy industry. One can only wait to see what will happen in this regard, but I hope my words will have some bearing on the Government's attitude toward the producers of this product in Eastern Canada.
The Speech from the Throne was an exercise in the creation of hypocrisies. The Government has brought forward a great number of promised programs, but it remains to be seen whether they will carry them forward in the form of legislation. The secret right now, as to whether this will happen, lies in the knowledge of what will be contained in the budget which is to brought down the Monday following the Easter recess. I am sure that if it contains as many hypocrisies as are contained in the Throne Speech an election is imminent. I am not afraid of an election, but realize that it is an old Liberal trick to fill the Speech from the Throne and the Budget with all kinds of promises in the hope that the electorate will believe in them. It is well known on this side of the House that some of the Ministers went out of their way a couple of nights ago to keep Members out of the House, with the hope that the Government would be defeated, and they would be forced to call an election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It was obvious that these Ministers wanted to go to the country, but could not convince the old guard that this was now a propitious time or that this was a good tactic. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who is an enthusiastic individual, holds the key to this situation. He holds that key and we will wait to see what comes out in the Budget.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
As I look over the items in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, I note, as other Members have noted, the reference to the Government's war on poverty. This is a great big joke to me, when I think of the whole mass of Government members standing up and voting against $100 old age security for people 65 years of age and over, when they knew full well they could have done

April 13, 1965

The Address-Mr. Winkler so without charging the taxpayers one cent. This was possible. It was spelled out. Even my friends on the left voted against it, and that does not matter to me, but the fact is that now the Government talks about a war on poverty.
I said once before in the course of this session that if they want to come along with me and look at some of the cases I deal with on week ends they will see how people have to live on $75 a month in this Liberal Government high cost of living era. I hope the Member for Hamilton, whatever his riding is, or Wentworth, will take that home with him because he will have exactly the same experiences. If he had to live on $75 a month he might have decided to stand up and vote for the responsible amendment put forward by our party at that time.
Another thing that is very topical this evening is something that the Government missed. They have covered everything else. I think the Member for Wentworth said that the Government has recognized every problem, and certainly the Speech from the Throne would appear to cover every problem; but they have missed one. What the Government should have said in the Speech from the Throne is: My Ministers believe it is high time that the Press Gallery be removed from the Centre Block. Tonight the members of the Press Gallery have got their answer. They have got to get out. This would have been the fastest action that this Government ever took. I understand that the members of the Press Gallery were advised today that their time in the Centre Block is finished. I believe this is going to ruin a certain fundamental tradition around here which everybody more or less appreciates. I think arrangements might have been made to retain that particular facility in this building. However, the Government is acting in its usual dictatorial manner and it is going to fix everything and kick them out of the Centre Block. That is the fate of the Press Gallery this evening.
I promised to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make a few remarks about my constituency. The Speech from the Throne has indicated the desire of the Government to expand the development program for low income areas. No one likes to brag about coming from a low income area, but I have a letter here similar to that referred to by the hon. Member for Port Arthur. It comes from the Georgian Bay Development Association which encompasses a number of counties running all the way from Bruce right up to the top. I

would imagine it goes right up to the Prime Minister's constituency.
The letter is signed by the president of the Association, a very well known Liberal in the area. He pleads with the Government to take action. He even thanks them for what they have set forth in their Throne Speech, and I wifi too if they carry it out; but this has not been the case in the past. There are a number of counties in that area, Mr. Speaker, that are eligible in every sense of the word to be named designated areas, but where do these designations occur? If the Government were acting responsibly they would take this entire area from Lake Huron right around to the north end of Georgian Bay and make it a designated area, so that at least the people would have the opportunity to offer something to industries that might come there.
Even the agricultural people of these counties, who are well known in almost every field of mixed farming endeavour, are experiencing a continuing decline in their income, and I have also mentioned that before in the House. They rarely reach the level of $1,800 mentioned by the hon. Member for Wentworth. He should come with me and see what these people have to say. Since this Government took office the incomes of agricultural producers in this area have gone down and down and down. We have these great promises in the Speech from the Throne and I hope the Government lives up to them. I will be one of those who will vote for them, if they can show me a program that is going to increase the income of farmers.
We have a few very basic indigenous industries there that we want to retain, because they are very prosperous. The Government knows why they are prospeous. I have mentioned this to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). He knows the problem very well and I hope he does not place them in an embarrassing position such as we fear by reason of what might happen through further movement toward free trade.
As a matter of fact, I have a clipping of a speech made by the Minister in Kitchener during the Christmas recess, which indicates he is beginning to have second thoughts about free trade, and I hope he will keep the industries of my constituency closely in mind. We will support him as long as he does not sell us out.
At the time that the Government changed there were two major projects under way in our area that could have helped the whole area financially and economically. One was
April 13, 1965	COMMONS
the establishment of a national park in Bruce County, and in my humble opinion this still remains a very important factor in regard to the economy of that area, which is now one of the black areas on the map of Ontario. In other words, it is a poverty area. I promoted this park. I do not know what is being done about it today. I almost had it to the point of being consummated at the time the Government changed. I have discussed it with the relevant Minister and I hope he will read these words and do something about the matter, because now it is not just something we would like to have but rather almost a necessity.
I must also make reference to the visit of a few weeks ago of the Prime Minister and his entourage to the County of Northumberland.
I have forgotten the name of the town, but he turned the sod there for a new penitentiary. It happens to be one that the Liberals stole for patronage purposes from the constituency of Grey-Bruce and placed in the County of the hon. Lady. The hon. Lady has a little more influence than I thought she had, but I can tell you that the people of Grey-Bruce will not forget it, because the Liberal Association of that riding supported every move to have that penitentiary located there, for economic reasons. It was the subject of the first letter I wrote after going into opposition and I informed the highest authorities m the Government accordingly. I would also say in conclusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: -that the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) should act in accordance with the wishes of his Liberal friends in that area, and in particular the President of the Georgian Bay Development Association, and give that area those advantages that accrue to designated areas so that at least it will have tnose advantages in endeavouring to induce industry to locate in that section of Ontario. Before I resume my seat_


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: You are good for another half hour.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am but I will not take it- may I say everyone on this side is waiting with anticipation to see the developments that are forecast in the Speech from the Throne. We will support those things that are right for the country and those things that will re-establish the integrity of Parliament, the honesty of its Members and the course that should be followed for the good of Canada.
DEBATES	383
The Address-Mr. Herridge Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West): Mr. Speaker, I rise seething with indignation to bring a question of privilege to the attention of the House. I have in my hand a statement issued by Davidson Dunton and Andre Laurendeau, co-chairmen of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, under date of April 13, 1965. You will remember the excellent attitude taken by the Prime Minister toward a certain questionnaire. I will simply read the concluding two paragraphs. A great deal of the statement is explanatory but this is what it has to say in part:
We believe, therefore, that the survey should continue on the same voluntary confidential basis as before. If refusals become too high the interviews, of course, will be stopped. Sixty seven Members have already been interviewed and only eight others have refused to date. As long as a high response rate continues, the interviews will go on unchanged.
The Commission has been charged with carrying out an inquiry; and that in fact is precisely what it is trying to do.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Surely in all good sense it should not be hampered or blocked as it endeavours to fulfil the purpose for which it was established; nor be called on continually to justify the methods which after careful consideration it deems suitable. We believe this would be a dangerous precedent from which the work of this and other royal commissions could suffer.
My point of privilege is that I think this is a gross piece of impertinence with regard to the Prime Minister of our country and his efforts to protect the rights of Members of Parliament of all parties, and his efforts to protect their privileges and their privacy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Langlois:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Do I
understand that there was no division?


George Clyde Nowlan: No division.
Motion (Mr. Cashin) agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That the Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the Honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
April 13, 1965
Ways and Means SUPPLY

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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved:
That this House will at the next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.


George James McIlraith: That when this House adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Monday, April 26, 1965.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 9 p.m. until Monday, April 26, at 2.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 26, 1965