1965-04-07

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I wish to inform the house of my decision to leave the ranks of the Conservative party.
The reasons I am taking that decision are well known to the members of this house and there would be no point in my repeating them here.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to sit as an Independent and I would respectfully ask you to assign me another seat.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member informed me of his decision this morning, and at his request I assigned to him a new seat.



BICULTURALISM AND BILINGUALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Is the Prime Minister now in a position to give an answer to the questions which were raised by the hon. Member for Marquette and the hon. Member for Mackenzie in connection with the investigation being carried on by the Royal Commission on Bilculturalism and Bilingualism and the interrogation of Members of Parliament with regard to matters which by no stretch of the imagination come within the ambit of the authority given to the B and B commission? [DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I have asked for a report on this matter, Mr. Speaker, which I have not yet received. But I will do my best to see that it is received in time to give a reply to my right hon. friend tomorrow.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Industry, but in his absence I wonder if I might direct it to the Prime Minister. Press reports indicate that Canadian-made Ford cars are now being sold in the United States at the same price as American cars. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister how soon we may expect that Canadian consumers will get the advantage of the U.S.-Canada automobile agreement, or is this consumer benefit to be confined entirely to American consumers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has already answered the latter part of the question and I have nothing to add to what he has previously said. In so far as the first part of the question is concerned, I will look into that report at once.



IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY OF FRENCH IN FEDERAL STATUTES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he could advise us when he intends to set up the special commission to undertake a complete investigation of methods for improving the quality of French used in federal government statutes, as shown by correspondence between him and the Premier of Quebec which was tabled in the Quebec Legislature.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration, and I will endeavour to get the results of that consideration before the house as soon as possible.



CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question

April 7, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell us what course the Government intends to pursue with regard to its proposed changes in the procedures of this House? Will its proposals be brought directly to the House for action, and will the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization be re-established so the Government's proposals can be referred to that committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under consideration. It was discussed this morning, and as soon as I can possibly do so I will make a report to the House on the procedures which I suggest should be followed in this important matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider consulting with representatives of other parties before a decision is made, in view of the fact that this is a House of Commons matter with which we are all concerned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good idea, and we should discuss it with representatives of all the parties.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In relation to the government's announced intention of setting up some kind of peace corps for young Canadians, could the Prime Minister tell the house what he envisages as the future role of the Canadian University Students Overseas, CUSO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the details of this matter have not yet been worked out, but I can say it is the hope of the government to include in the Company of Young Canadians those who are already working in this field overseas. It may be desirable to do this without interfering with the organizations under which they are now working to bring them into association with the other organization and give those university organizations-I can think of one -the support I think they should have.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would this mean that CUSO might be integrated, then, with this new corps?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would want to discuss that with those who have been responsible for CUSO and have done such fine work in building it up.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Does he intend to answer soon the request from the Quebec minister of agriculture for assistance to farmers in the Abitibi-Temis-camingue-Lake St. John area whose crops were ruined by bad weather last year?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF FREE TRADE POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises from a statement he made while addressing the Canadian Importers Association in Toronto last evening. He said, very briefly:
Canada, with its limited population, can evidently not support the entire range of diversified products demanded by its consumers. Nor can it afford the cost of entering into research in design and technological improvement for all product lines.
Is the government intending, with this assumption, to extend the free trade policy that is set out in the Canada-U.S. auto treaty to other industries such as clothing, textiles, appliances and aircraft?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations for further reductions in Canadian tariffs will be made in the multilateral negotiations now proceeding in Geneva under the Kennedy round. I am not in a position, of course, to reveal any negotiations which have taken place, which is the position taken by all participating countries.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question.
Would the Minister like to say whether arrangements have been made with the furniture manufacturers along this same line?
April 7, 1965


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do not understand the purport of the question. Perhaps it could be put in a different way.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Has the Minister been in conversation with the Canadian furniture manufacturers with respect to a free trade policy similar to that concerning the car dealers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not to my knowledge. The furniture industry were invited to make their representations before the opening of the negotiations under the Kennedy round. I gather they did, and I saw some of their representations.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the standing committee of this House on external affairs in the last session did a considerable amount of work and received a lot of important evidence on the subject of hate literature, and two private members' bills on the subject were referred to that committee, will steps be taken to refer these matters to the Standing Committee on External Affairs in this session as soon as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to consider that matter, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the Minister any information on the important Atlantic Development Board meeting being held in Halifax at the present time?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have anything I can communicate to the House. I have not yet had any official report.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question. Appreciating that it would not be desirable to report on everything the Atlantic Development Board decide, would the Minister give a report to the House on those matters which
Inquiries of the Ministry have a particular federal interest which may be decided upon? I think the Minister knows what I am particularly referring to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am always glad at any appropriate time to give a report on the wonderful work being done by the Atlantic Development Board.


Mr. Mandziuk:: Set up by the Conservatives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And financed by this government.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In her absence perhaps I could direct it to her seatmate the Solicitor General. Could the Minister inform the House whether she has received a brief from the Canadian Association of Optometrists, based on the views of the Hall Commission report, which they interpret as an attack upon the optometrists association? Has the Minister any remarks to give to the house on this matter?


Hon. J. Waison MacNaughf (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take the hon. Member's question as notice and refer it to the attention of the Minister; and I am sure she will make a full report, as she always does.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, recently I addressed a question to the President of the Privy Council asking whether he was aware of the fact that certain junior officers in the armed forces had been notified that they could not expect further promotions unless they were completely bilingual. In view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence is now in the house perhaps I should ask him whether he is aware of the circularization of such a policy, either by letter or verbally, amongst the armed forces?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have neither heard nor seen such a circular, and I am sure this is a lot of nonsense.

April 7, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would ask the Minister of National Defence to make a thorough check in his department, and perhaps more preferably an inquiry of his second in command, Mr. Lee, to find out whether such a circularization did in fact take place.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence?
Would it not be quite normal for this circular stating that promotions would be given to bilingual rather than unilingual Candians to have been sent to the armed forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there is an increasing emphasis being placed in the armed forces on the ability to speak two languages. It is well known that in our service colleges we are encouraging young people to acquire greater familiarity with both languages. We also point out to potential recruits the advantages of joining the armed forces in that they will have an opportunity to become more familiar with the two languages. We have also pointed out to all young people that it would be a wonderful idea for them to learn the two languages, particularly if they want to be generals ten or 15 years from now. I am sure we have not circulated any such announcement, as suggested by the hon. Member. If we have I am not aware of it.


Mr. Giiles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?


Mr. Nielsen:: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East who asked the original question on this subject.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether his expression regarding two languages necessarily refers to English and French, or does it apply to other languages as well?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as my friend is aware, the two official languages are English and French. We have a number of people in the armed forces who are trained in other languages for special reasons and positions, such as those individuals who are appointed as military attaches, or to special duties. If

some of our young officers have ability in more than two languages-and indeed some of them have learned three or four or five- they have an added advantage which makes them that much more useful in carrying out certain duties.


Mr. Ricard:: Identify the one you said is nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question I should like to address to the Minister of National Defence. I am sure he did not wish to mislead the house, but is he not aware that-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Caron:: You ought to know about misleading.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hull interjected that I should know what it is to mislead the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is why they set up the Dorion Commission, to find out about misleading on the part of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not take exception to that kind of statement, except to suggest that it is the common type of statement made on that side of the house. If the hon. member has any specific incident in mind let him make a charge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The report that was made to the Dorion Commission was quite different to the report made here in the house by the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Starr:: Does the Minister show you his reports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The word "misleading" seems to be having a depressing effect this afternoon. May we get on with the regular business?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary question I wish to ask is for the purpose of giving the Minister an opportunity to make a full explanation. Is he not aware that several months ago I put a question to the now Minister of Public Works, who at that time was Associate Minister of National Defence, with regard to whether an order had been issued from either the office of the Minister of National Defence or the Associate
April 7, 196S	COMMONS
Minister of National Defence to the Canadian army that with respect to staff officers and up, bilingualism was to be a promotional factor in that force?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is a horse of an entirely different colour, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so. Bilingualism is a promotional factor. The more skilful people are and the more talent they have, the more useful they are to the armed forces and the more likely they are to be promoted. Certainly bilingualism is one of those factors which are taken into consideration.


Erik Nielsen: One last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to give the Minister that opportunity to explain. At the time I raised the issue several months ago with the Associate Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question would he please ask it. We are getting into a debate and not asking questions.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that at the time I raised the original question with the Associate Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -I asked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. mem-mer, being a distinguished lawyer, knows as well as I do how to frame his questions without placing argument before the question.


Erik Nielsen: I was merely laying the
groundwork, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Minister of National Defence or his colleague, the Associate Minister, a question which was not answered at the time the Minister of Public Works held the office of Associate Minister. Has the same order now been extended to cover the two other armed forces, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force, on the level of staff officers and above?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would have to check the reference to an order. I do not think there is any such thing as an order. I think it has been circulated that amongst promotional factors bilingualism is one, which it should be, and certainly so far as I am concerned this factor would apply to all three of the armed forces.
It is an important factor, but whether this has been put on a piece of paper I could not say and I do not think it is really germane.
DEBATES	S3
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Since the Minister has said that bilingualism is a factor in promotion I will put my question to him in French. [Translotion]
Could the Minister of National Defence tell us whether the word "nonsense" he used with regard to bilingualism in the armed forces actually reflects the opinion of the present Liberal government? Does he mean that it is nonsensical to be bilingual in the armed forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the word "nonsense" was carefully applied to the rumour which was being circulated and which was. picked up by my friend opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I think the nonsense was supplied by the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While I enjoy these interesting exchanges, nevertheless it is my duty to point out that questions should be questions and not arguments.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence.
Could he tell us whether-


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is it the same question?


William Skoreyko: It is a question of privilege. The Minister of National Defence has charged me with circulating a rumour in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: There go the trained seals.


William Skoreyko: Eventually and at the proper time I am prepared to provide and will provide the evidence necessary to convince the Minister of National Defence that what I am saying is fact. I simply ask is he aware of a recent promotion in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, namely of the general manager of that corporation in Ottawa; and what are his qualifications? Would he answer that?

April 7. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry [DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I regret that particular organization does not come within my sphere of jurisdiction, but I am sure the gentleman in question was eminently qualified.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence.
Could he tell us whether the department has any language laboratories where the two official languages are being taught to officers and men in the armed forces of Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there are
language laboratories available for members of the armed forces who wish to take advantage of the language training that is provided.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether there are many who take advantage of the language laboratories available to the Canadian army officers and men?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: An increasing number of forward looking people, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: How about you, Paul? Mr. Hellyer: Including the Minister.


Mr. Jean Chrelien (Si. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
As he is going to speak in Shawinigan tomorrow, could the minister tell us whether he intends to speak in French?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is requesting estimates in the neighbourhood of $100 million, and in view of the fact that there is no indication that one dollar of this [Mr. Skoreyko.)
will be spent on the extension of very necessary services, will the Prime Minister assure the house that these estimates will be brought before Parliament at the very earliest date so this ridiculous situation can be dealt with by Parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we shall be glad to bring them before Parliament as soon as possible so that my hon. friend and others will be able to discuss this matter.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cashin for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas.
® (3:10 p.m.)
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, when we listened to the speech from the throne, or rather when we heard the news which preceded the reading of that speech in the other place, at the opening of this third session, we were told that this speech would be very long and thick. Then we found out that its volume was not very thick, but that it was quite thick respecting the proposed measures.
The members in this comer of the house had believed that during the last two sessions the government had taken cognizance of the needs of the people of Canada. We also believed that, after the contracts, discussions and arguments we had with other members of parliament, chiefly Liberal members, the speech from the throne would mention, for instance, that family allowances would be adjusted according to the cost of living index. Such a measure would have benefited everyone. As we all know, family allowances have remained practically unchanged since 1945; only in 1946 did the government raise them by one dollar and even at that only a limited number of recipients benefited from the boost.
We would also have thought that the government had taken into account the numerous requests and claims of older Canadians who complain about the inadequacy of their pension.
Naturally we expected the government to introduce legislation for the payment of a
April 7, 1965
$100 a month pension at age 60 because the Prime Minister and his cabinet know perfectly well that it is impossible to live anywhere in Canada on a pension of $75 a month. Yet that is the hardship we impose upon our older citizens.
The same situation prevails in the field of income tax. Two or three months ago, if not six months ago we were told that the government was prepared to follow the example set by the United States, namely to grant a reduction in income tax. We in the Ralliement Creditiste, had been asking for a total exemption for married people, whose income is less than $5,000 a year, and for a $2,500 exemption for single people.
At this stage I would say that we, as members, benefit from an income tax free allowance of $6,000 a year in addition to the $2,000 exemption granted to the Canadian people as a whole, which means that every married member of parliament benefits from an $8,000 a year exemption. And we find this situation logical in our case. We believe that workers, farmers, contractors and businessmen should have the benefit of the same privileges or, at least, of an income tax reduction.
Another act which should have been amended is the Unemployment Insurance Act. I notice that the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) just left the house. The Unemployment Insurance Act should be amended to enable our unemployed to be treated better than they are at the present time.
Indeed, when we meet government officials in their offices, they tell us that the drafting of the act is bad, that it does not allow anyone to assist the unemployed. Penalties are inflicted all across Canada. An employee is penalized when he quits his job because he is ill-treated by his employer. He is told: You will get nothing for the next six weeks.
Mr. Speaker, let us try to treat the Canadian people as they deserve. As members of parliament, we want to be treated like human beings. Well, as members of parliament and legislators, let us see to it that our legislation is such that people will be treated as human beings and that the individual will be respected in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I offer my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder (Mr. Chretien) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne-and for the ease-and it was really ease-with which they carried out a very thankless job.
The Address-Mr. Caouette
What strikes me particularly in the speech of the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche is the statement he made when he said:
Since Mackenzie King and under the Liberal party, Canada has turned more and more toward collectivism.
This is the nice statement that our children will perhaps read in Canadian history when it deals with people who did not know too much what to say because they were members of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, when one remembers the social teachings of the Roman Catholic church, one knows that collectivism as advocated by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche is as worthy of condemnation as the individualism he seems to despise.
Pope Pius XII in his immortal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno stated:
There Is, therefore, a double danger to be avoided. On the one hand, if the social and public aspect of ownership be denied or minimized, the logical consequence is individualism, as it is called; on the other hand, the rejection or diminution of its private and individual character necessarily leads to some form of collectivism.
When the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche takes pride in belonging to a party leading Canada toward collectivism, I am only too happy to state in the House of Commons that I am proud not to belong to that party and glad to belong to the Ralliement Creditiste whose policies aim precisely at freeing the individual from the socialist and collectivist policies applied by the Liberals who intend to enlarge upon the scope of such policies so that Canadians will be servants and slaves of a strong and all-powerful state.
Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche has admitted to being a collectivist, let us record for posterity, for our children as well as those of the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, what has been recognized by the Liberal government in the speech from the throne prepared by the Liberal government and presented Monday by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps for the first time since the beginning of confederation 98 years ago, a government in power makes disturbing admissions which it would find shocking if they were made by political opponents, if we were making them ourselves as we already have; then, Liberals would say that this is demagogy and nonsense on the part of Creditistes and of the Ralliement Creditiste.
Listen to this enumeration which I would describe as unpleasant and which presents Canada as a land of desolation, distress and

66	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Caouette extreme poverty: alarming international situation-it is written in the speech from the throne-crisis in Viet Nam, financial difficulties in the United Nations, poverty, illness, ignorance and lack of training of many Canadian citizens, poverty among the people, inadequate incomes-
What have we said over and over again in the House of Commons during the last three years? Inadequate incomes in Canada. The needy people are given a public assistance plan. Blighted and congested areas in our cities and what not.
Mr. Speaker, this is a gloomy speech, a speech in which the party in office recognizes the distress of Canadians, their poverty and the bad housing conditions.
Yet it is not the Creditistes who have been in office for the last 98 years, but the Liberals or the Conservatives. And when two political parties have made such a mess of things they are no longer worthy of the people's confidence and the latter should get rid of them as quickly as possible. I hope they do.
It is all very well for the Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), to introduce a non-confidence motion against the government, but he deserved the same thing himself when he was in office.
Mr. Speaker, we shall try for a few minutes to follow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), who, Monday, before the television cameras, divided into three categories the measures proposed by the government in *the speech from the throne.
To begin with, the measures meant to boost our national pride.
Second, economic measures.
Third, social measures.
Among the measures intended to satisfy and stimulate our national pride, the speech from the throne mentioned a bill which would make "O Canada" the national anthem of Canada and an address to the Queen to authorize Canada to amend its own constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste will entirely agree that "O Canada" should be adopted as the national anthem of this country. In the programs we submitted to the electors of this country we asserted that the Creditistes intended to give Canada a distinctive flag and to officially recognize "O Canada" as our national anthem.
All we ask of the Liberal government is not to make the same error as last year when it asked us to vote in favour of a double mo-
DEBATES	April 7, 1965
tion proposing the adoption of a maple leaf flag and of the union jack.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
If the government wishes to avoid another long and bitter debate, it should separate the two proposals concerning the national anthems so that supporters of a single national anthem may be able to vote in the affirmative, a thing they would not be able to do if they are asked to recognize, at the same time, another Canadian official anthem. As far as we, the members of the Creditiste party, are concerned, we will vote for a single Canadian official anthem just as we have voted for a single Canadian official flag.
The other measure meant to arouse our pride, according to the government, concerns the repatriation of our constitution, including what has been called the Fulton-Favreau formula.
Mr. Speaker, until the members of our group put forward the comprehensive views of the Creditiste party, may I give some indications as to what our stand will be on the repatriation of our constitution.
First of all, we feel it is utterly wrong to talk about repatriating the constitution. It would be possible to bring back to Canada something which had once belonged to Canada, something which had once resided in Canada.
Well, the British North America Act never belonging to the people of Canada, never belonged to Canada, and moreover never was approved by the people of Canada.
The British North America Act was born in Great Britain, passed by the government at Westminster, given to us by a foreign government over which we have no control. The British North America Act is a foreign statute created by foreigners and which belongs to foreigners. There is therefore no need to repatriate it.
I think that to accept freely a constitution which was never ours, which is not suitable for Canada and Canadians, which is not proper for the provincial states that we call the provinces of Canada would be to perpetrate a colonial mentality that is being forced upon us.
Let us leave that dusty document in the Westminster colonial office and if we are free people, if we are a free country, if we have on autonomous and free government, let us give Canada a truly Canadian constitution wrought by Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, what we need is not the repatriation of the present constitution. And

April 7. 1965	COMMONS
neither do we need, to use the euphemism contained in the speech from the throne in the following terms:
[DOT] * to provide that the constitution of Canada may be amended in Canada by the procedures which have been agreed between my government and the government of all the provinces.
What we want and what is needed by Canada and the provincial states is a new constitution on the basis-please note that- of the acknowledgment of an equal partnership de facto and de jure; of two nations having the right to shape their own destiny, to take the decisions concerning them.
But on the other hand, we want no special status. Such an expression implies a concept of dependence of submission. As was explained the other day on television by the president of the Montreal St. Jean Baptiste society, the concept of a special status for Quebec implies that we want to be treated differently from the others or that the others will be treated differently from us. That is not what we want.
For instance, we want what the premier of British Columbia often repeats: equal treatment for all, special treatment for nobody, or no injustice for anyone. What we want is be treated like the others, receiving no more and no less.
We do not want a treatment better or worse than the treatment given to others; we do not want others to be placed on a level inferior or superior to ours; we want a real equality status, equality of rights for all Canadians, equality of rights for all Canadian provinces, equality of rights for everyone living in Canada.
We do not want to take anything away from others, as we have so often said, but we do not want others to take away our wealth, our rights. French Canada, Quebec is a real entity; it is the French-Canadian nation. In order to be true to itself, to develop freely according to its needs and aspirations, Quebec must have certain attributes which are the prerogatives of a free nation which wants to develop freely.
The first of these attributes which Quebec needs and that we members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste claim, is the control of our credit.
It is the control of our credit in the province of Quebec, and, for that matter, we suggest the other provinces do the same thing for themselves.
Would anything be taken away from Canada if the province of Quebec had the control of its credit in order to be able to proceed to the development of its own natural resources,
DEBATES	67
The Address-Mr. Caouette to the development of what we have in Quebec?
But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) told us the other day that he would never grant credit control to a province, precisely because this matter comes exclusively under the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, if we had a constitution organized and arranged to grant the provinces their rights on credit control, we would not have complaints on the part of the province of Quebec or of the other provinces, because we could look after making financially possible at home what is materially possible, desirable and morally good.
A nation cannot be free when it has to go abroad and ask for the right to live, for the financial means to develop its natural resources. A nation cannot be free when it has to kowtow to the London, Paris or New York financiers in order to get the credits necessary to its development and survival.
The credit of a nation rests on the ability and the will of its people to produce and deliver goods in sufficient quantities and at the time and place chosen by the prospective consumers. In short, real credit is the resources of a country, of a province expressed in possible goods and services.
One realizes therefore that real credit involves two factors: the production capacity and the needs to be met. Therefore, if real credit rests on producers and consumers, it rests, as it were, on the whole community, on the whole society. The real credit of a country is therefore something in common, something social, it is social credit. That is why we are Social Creditiste.
If real credit is social, financial credit, for its part, should reflect social credit. Financial credit should be created as abundantly and as rapidly as is required by the production of those goods and services wanted by the community, in order to meet all the needs of its members.
If we have natural resources and manufactures, if we have workers to produce goods, brains to manage production, then money and finance should not impede that satisfaction of the needs of all the members of the community.
There are needs; if the material wealth and the capacity of production exist, there should also be enough money-no more but no less- to satisfy those needs.
We ask that the province of Quebec be given the power to control its own credit so it can ensure its economic and social development. We want Quebec to enjoy all its
April 7, 1965

The Address-Mr. Caouette rights, so it can develop according to the needs and aspirations of the French Canadian people of Quebec, as we wish the other provinces to develop according to their needs and aspirations. That is what we call a status of equality.
Respecting a new constitution, the Cre-ditistes also request for the province of Quebec: control over its foreign trade; control over its immigration and finally control over its tax sources.
I do not wish to discuss those claims in detail, but, Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that this government did not suggest, in the speech from the throne, any measure to hand back to the provinces those taxation fields which belong to them. Not 25 or 30 per cent, but a complete handing over of their taxation fields, of those rights which are theirs.
During the period which preceded the second world war, it seemed that the sharing of the fiscal basis among the various governments was more equitable, particularly when the provinces and the municipalities indulged in a policy of laissez-faire.
From 1926 to 1939, Ottawa got 46.2 per cent of all tax revenues; the provinces 17.9 per cent, and the municipalities 35.9 per cent.
During the war, at the request of Ottawa, as stated by Right Hon. Mackenzie King and the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), the provinces and the municipalities gave up or leased their taxation fields to the federal government.
But with the war and greater activity by the other levels of government in various sectors of the economy, the revenues of all governments registered an increase in the use of the gross national product. For instance, between 1926 and 1939, that is a period of 13 years, total revenue of all three levels of government accounted for 14 to 22 per cent of the gross national product.
This proportion exceeded 28 per cent during the war and reached 30 per cent of the G.N.P. in 1962.
The federal government kept for itself practically all that increased income. While its income was equal to almost 7 per cent of the G.N.P. before the war, it had reached 17 per cent in these last few years. Before the war the percentage of the G.N.P. available to the provinces and the municipalities was equal to that of the federal government; but since 1947 it is less than 5 per cent. The increase in direct and indirect taxes favoured almost solely the federal government to the detriment of the provinces and the municipalities.

This is how during the 1957-62 period the federal government took over 62.7 per cent of all the taxation revenue while the provinces received 20.8 per cent and the municipalities only 16.5 per cent.
Mr. Jean Lesage was, therefore, justified in stating at the 1963 federal-provincial conference that the fiscal arrangements which brought about this situation were supposed to be only temporary and were to be revised.
In 1963, there is no longer any state of war and the economic problems are different from those facing Canada after 1950. Since then, the needs of the provinces have gained prior claim over those of the federal government.
And what had been the requests of Quebec? Here are the very words of Mr. Lesage:
We are asking once again as minimum taxing powers: 25 per cent of personal income tax; 25 per cent of corporate income tax, and 100 per cent of the estate duty taxes, since estates come under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, it is logical that taxes on donations inter vivos should devolve on the provinces, since such donations are of the same nature as estates.
Mr. Lesage asked for little compared to what we are entitled to. If he had acted in the true interests of his province, it is not 25 per cent of what belongs to Quebec that Mr. Lesage would have claimed, but indeed 100 per cent; that is what was claimed by the Creditistes.
Actually, Mr. Lesage claimed $150 million; he got $40 million, with the promise that he would get more in the years ahead.
As Franpois-Albert Angers wrote in h'Action Nationale:
Mr. Lesage has come back empty-handed from the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa.
And why did Mr. Lesage come back empty-handed? Simply because he recognized the priority of centralization mechanisms, as Mr. Angers says.
Mr. Lesage, in negotiating with Ottawa, always offers two alternatives. He asks Ottawa to give him more money for his own purposes or to grant him additional powers. Ottawa's reaction is immediate. It gives in on monetary questions but keeps the rest, powers included. Meanwhile, Mr. Lesage places himself in an illogical position right from the start. On the one hand, he asks for more money under the equalization formula and, on the other, he takes away from the federal government the sources of revenue necessary for the equalization payments.
Mr. Lesage had asked that Quebec be allowed to withdraw from certain joint programs and that it receive a fiscal equivalent instead.
April 7, 1965

In fact, Ottawa granted his request and in January 1965, Quebec was able to opt out of 29 of the 46 joint programs in which it participated. As a compensation, it got an amount of $220 million which included a percentage of the personal income tax, the equalization payments and cash adjustments.
On February 27, 1965 before the Montreal Junior Chamber of Commerce, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) had this to say on the subject:
To avoid this type of "trusteeship federalism'' our government in Ottawa has suggested that the provinces opt out of the joint programs and take over themselves their administration. Quebec, we know, intends to opt out of about 75 per cent of those programs (in terms of dollars)-but without lowering the national standards set by the programs-this constructive and flexible system has been called "co-operative federalism".
What should be our reaction?
What is most ridiculous in this whole situation is the fact that the federal government which called trusteeship federalism this joint program scheme is now prepared to set up some more.
For instance, the speech from the throne mentions such measures as a cost sharing area development program; a cost sharing plan to assist the re-employment of workers; a cost sharing plan for fuller rural development or "rural displacement"; a joint plan under which people can be assisted on the basis of their need; a joint plan for urban renewal; a joint plan for public assistance; a joint plan for health services; a joint plan for improvement of the dairy industry.
The speech from the throne is stuffed with these joint plans which mean a trusteeship over the provinces by Ottawa, the control of provincial expenditures by civil servants from Ottawa and the end of provincial autonomy.
We of the Ralliement Creditiste disagree with this policy of joint plans because they mean a double bureaucracy, one in the provinces and one in Ottawa. The people are fed up with paying for bureaucrats in Canada. What the people need today, is the right to live in peace in their own country, Canada. [DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron, High Park):: Order. I have to advise the hon. Member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron, High
Park): Do hon. Members give unanimous consent?
69
The Address-Mr. Caouette


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the house for these few supplementary minutes I need to conclude my speech.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is crammed with these joint programs. We are opposed to the policy of joint programs for many reasons. I have just given one; here is another.
It is always Ottawa who takes the initiative of legislating in various matters, especially with regard to winter works affecting the municipalities. This is a direct encroachment upon the constitution. Ottawa controls every action taken by the Quebec government within an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour are well aware of that.
Ottawa still levies direct taxes in the province of Quebec, contrary to subsection 2 of section 92 of the constitution. It is the same with regard to the other provinces.
This opting out formula does not give the province of Quebec a greater fiscal freedom and increases in no way its taxing powers.
According to the policy of the Ralliement Creditiste, the province should opt out of all these joint plans and regain its full freedom in the field of taxation. Ottawa should give up these joint plans and let our province look after its own management. Ottawa should withdraw and respect the autonomy of the provinces.
Because of those one-sided deals and also of the greater needs of Quebec, the province, which has to look after a whole nation, a whole culture-its priority needs in the field of education, development of its natural resources, compensations to give its labour force which cannot find employment-is now forced to levy greater taxes than the other provinces.
In conclusion, let me quote the statement delivered by the premier of British Columbia, Mr. W. A. C. Bennett, on November 25, 1963, at the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa:
The Fathers of Confederation wished to create provincial governments that would be independent in the fields concerning their respective responsibilities and able to co-operate effectively to the national growth. To this end, the efforts on the part of the provinces, in time of peace, since 1867, have constantly been directed to the maintenance of their effective taxation powers without double taxation for otherwise, the powers of the provinces to govern independently would no longer exist.
April 7, 1965

The Address-Mr. Caouette
When British Columbia entered confederation in 1871, it accepted the terms and conditions laid down in the British North America Act. Under this act, the provinces had to assume certain responsibilities. A number of those responsibilities, especially those pertaining to education and to the development of natural resources, became more and more important.
However, the constitution has not merely imposed responsibilities upon provincial legislatures, but it has also specified their taxation rights in order to enable them to meet these costs. One of those rights which was supposed to be an exclusive power was direct taxation within the province.
The agreement accepted by the provinces when they joined confederation and gave up their indirect taxation powers representing four fifths of their income in return for a per capita income or fixed subsidies soon compelled them to use their exclusive powers of direct taxation within the province under section 92 of the B.N.A. Act. The exclusive use of income tax by the provinces was respected during the 50 years preceding the first world war.
Federal intrusion in this field, in 1917, was explained as a temporary measure to face an emergency. The recognition of the provinces' right to impose direct taxes was confirmed by Sir Thomas White, who was then federal minister of finance, when he said:
Income taxes come under provincial jurisdiction and are a form of taxation suited to provincial needs. I have not set any deadline for withdrawing from this field of taxation, but I suggest, and I should like this suggestion to be recorded in Hansard, that, at the end of the war, this tax measure be immediately reconsidered.
The emergency created by the second world war compelled the provinces to abandon their powers of taxation and Ottawa entered the field of estate taxes.
However, it has been understood that the provinces would recover their rights in peacetime.
In conclusion, the province of Quebec wants to recover its taxation powers and one of the main tasks, if not the foremost one, of a Creditiste government, will be to request that Ottawa withdraw from the taxation fields that are not within its jurisdiction, such as direct taxation on personal and corporate income, and estate duties.
These are the policies we will follow during this session, Mr. Speaker. These policies are highly different from those introduced in the speech from the throne. Those are the main remarks we want to make with regard to these measures that the government intends to pass during this session.
The fight will begin next week. We are open to agreement. We are ready to accept mutual understanding, yes, but we shall not agree, for instance, to diminish any province for the benefit of Ottawa. And if at that time we are threatened, as was done in certain quarters, with a general election so that the voters may express their views, I say that we are ready to go to the people and

ask a public expression of opinion about what is going on in Ottawa at present.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, it is traditional to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, but in addition to that I take great personal pleasure in complimenting both the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafieche (Mr. Chretien) on the exceptional high quality of speeches which they made.
I am sure that every Member who rises for the first time in this honourable assembly is moved, as I am moved, by a sense of the occasion. It is perhaps a comment on the real strength of our traditions and on the deeper character and meaning of the Commons that such an emotion should exist.
The occasion has a triple meaning to me. I am not only speaking here for the first time, but rising proudly as the first woman ever to have entered this chamber from the very old Province of New Brunswick, and I am sitting in that place so recently vacated by my husband. I hope that it may not be out of place to say that while I hope my efforts will honour the memory of the former Member for Westmorland and carry on his work, it is my intention to serve and represent my constituents in my own way and to the fullest degree of my competence.
May I through you, Mr. Speaker, thank all my fellow Members for the warm and thoughtful tributes paid last summer to my husband. May I also, Sir, thank you and my colleagues on both sides of the house for your warm welcome to me as a new Member.
In our part of the country where we take politics very seriously a Member is kept in close personal contact with all the issues which disturb constituents. I am learning this very quickly during my visits home. I sometimes wish that those who manage the affairs of the country at a higher level could always see these realities as intimately as private Members do.
The hon. Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene), whose constituency has many of the problems of my own area, has had the experience of being with me on some political excursions in my riding. He would agree, I am sure, that some of the high-flown abstractions occasionally heard in Ottawa generate little enthusiasm among some in my area who have real difficulty in achieving even a measure of the affluent life.
April 7, 1965

My introduction to the Commons came at an exciting time in our Parliamentary life. There must be few who have experienced the harsh baptism of political fire so soon after arrival. It was at the same time an historic moment when this country took a decisive step forward in the future of the nation; a time when a strong democratic majority adopted a flag to fly proudly before the world.
The constituency which I am honoured to represent is a very old part of Canada, but one which has a very new outlook on the new Canada which is developing. It is clear from the Westmorland by-election results that a very substantial majority of its constituents believe the Government which I support is competent and equipped to handle their affairs. The fact that the Liberal majority was doubled from the general election surely indicates that the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is thoroughly approved.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to devote too much time refuting some negative remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, or to comment to any great degree on the subamendment that he has placed before the house. It is logical though, I suppose, that the hon. Gentleman seized upon medicare as the basis for his subamendment, because it is obvious that in the field of social welfare this Government-the Liberal Government-has once again lived up to its reputation as the party that is concerned about the well-being of the people of this nation; the party that introduced and transferred into legislation every significant piece of social welfare legislation at the disposal of the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that this Government does intend to introduce a public medicare program at the earliest possible moment. What is also obvious, Mr. Speaker, is that we have no intention of running roughshod over the Provinces, as was suggested should be done by the Hon. Leader of the N.D.P. in his speech last evening. Indeed, to suggest, as he suggested, that the Government act in this field without first consulting the Provinces, is to deny the undeniable rights the Provinces have in the area of social welfare. To further suggest that certain Provinces are setting up phony medicare programs, without specifically mentioning which Provinces and without substantiating this charge, is a reflection on them at a time when we need to maintain the full confidence and co-operation of the ten great Provinces that make up this nation.
22620-6J
The Address-Mrs. Rideout [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The record of the Liberal Party in the past in the field of social welfare and our willingness as indicated in the Throne Speech to continue our efforts for the increasing security and welfare of our people are proof of the sincerity of our intention to introduce a comprehensive, public medicare program at the first opportunity after full and free consultation with the Provinces.
The constituency of Westmorland, which I have the honour to represent, is one of the few places in our country where the two founding races have lived together from the beginning. We know the value of mutual understanding and harmony. The Acadian French were in the eastern border area of the riding before 1700 and Yorkshire English families settled there as early as 1720. Descendants of both have spread, and remain throughout the constituency, and their numbers are almost equal today.
The whole Province of New Brunswick is an example of the way Canadians can maintain the best traditions of both founding groups while welcoming others of different origins. We have proven that the two distinct original groups can become a single people while keeping their individual cultures, their languages, religious beliefs and political ideals.
We are old historically in my constituency, but one would not know it from the spirit which has marked the province in the last three or four years. Once we in the Mari-times were known as nagging complainers, and there was some justification both for the complaints and the reputation we had. We have still far to go to reach the employment and economic standards of some other areas, but we have found a way to start catching up. Henceforth, by our own efforts ye shall know us. These efforts will include a continued drive to have our special problems recognized, but we shall not sit idly by in frustrated hope.
The present Canadian Government has taken steps long ignored by previous Governments which go a great distance in permitting us to help ourselves. These measures, chief among them the lifegiving financial blood infused into the Atlantic Development Board, recognize that if we have the chance at all we can make our own way and compete with anyone in any place. More has to be done, of course, and I shall come to this again; but I want to emphasize that we are in a generation which got tired wating for things to come to us; we went out after them, and we are getting them, slowly.
April 7, 1965

The Address-Mrs. Rideout
In this House, Mr. Speaker, you may allow me to say it was no coincidence that much of the new attitude in New Brunswick has developed since Louis Robichaud became Premier in 1960. Nor is it a coincidence that our bettering position has raced ahead since the present Prime Minister of Canada became national leader in 1963 and made Federal-Provincial co-operation a vital new fact. His recognition of a change in our country's social and economic structure calling for full co-operation between the Provinces and the Federal Government made possible the new era now upon us in the Atlantic area.
In our Province we had the resources but we were not making the best use of them. Without the ground support of a co-operating national Government and an understanding of our needs and intentions, we could not develop what we had. Furthermore, changing world conditions have given us openings which require action from a higher jurisdiction to exploit fully. We were sick of handouts and headache pills to get us from one economic hangover to another. This Government has given us the first tools to let us help ourselves, tools to build the foundation. With a little more material we can finish the job and build thereafter for ourselves.
The transportation and distribution centre for the Maritimes, the city of Moncton, makes nip about half of the constituency of Westmorland. Here we have felt both the beneficial and disruptive impact of modern change. Some [DOT]are hurt by transitional changes; others benefit. On the over-all scale we are growing at a rate which would not have been imagined 10 years ago. New kinds of industry and business are interested in our area, modern industries such as chemicals; but we must increase the attraction. Iron ore and steel prospects on the Province's Northeast coast will affect my constituency very strongly. It will take a little time for all this to show but it gives us a great new hope.
In our region we have discovered that whereas once geography was our enemy, it is now a friend. With our resources we can produce for a world market at our doors because of our access to the sea. Again, this cannot be fully achieved without the harbour facilities for deep water ports which exist in Westmorland. These things are within Federal jurisdiction. Some of our facilities of all kinds are old and in need of restoration. Others we have never had, but require urgently. Some are now being provided or discussions about their provision are going ahead.


One natural resource we have developed very much on our own is lobster fishing, packing and shipping. Shediac, in my constituency, is the lobster capital of the world and is in the midst of the most beautiful coastal resort country anywhere. It is attracting more and more tourists to help the Canadian balance of payments.
If I mention lobsters it is not only to invite all of you to come and share this gourmet delight, but to mention that my constituents have found new methods of shipping lobsters which put them on the tables of Europe daily as well as those of California and intervening areas. I say this to show that where we have a traditional resource or commodity which we can develop with self-promoted efforts, we can do so and will do so.
While some of the farming areas of Westmorland are advanced and prosperous, others are in urgent need of the kind of study and assistance which the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Administration is pursuing. I want to compliment the Minister for his aggressive efforts in ARDA and assure him that in no place more than New Brunswick will the Government's measures be of greater help or be more genuinely needed. If a war on poverty is to be fought, there is no better place to start the war than in our hard struck rural areas where people have just not had the chance of those in other places.
Small farmers make up a substantial part of our population in New Brunswick and this applies notably in my constituency. In the past farm policies have largely passed them by, while helping the bigger operators. They need feed grain assistance and cheap fertilizers. They also need a major change in the matter of animal subsidies. Benefits for quality rather than quantity might best serve the small farmer.
In this respect I might also mention rail freight rates because changes in the transportation structure must be made with a view to protecting our special Atlantic area needs. The Premier of Nova Scotia said recently that "railways here are relatively more important still than in the central part of the country". Not only do I concur in this but I must add that the changes which are to be made must get back to the original purpose of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. The City of Moncton, which is such an important part of my constituency, is of course closely concerned with railway matters. Mr. Grayston, the Vice President for the C.N.R.'s Atlantic region, has reported that 1964 was a record year for traffic
April 7. 1965

in that area. Freight traffic was up 13 per cent over the previous year and passenger traffic was up by 10 per cent.
One of the most important developments has been the movement of ore from the mines and concentrator in the Bathurst area. This is but the beginning of massive developments in that part of New Brunswick which will continue to help the whole coast and will be of major importance to our railway centre and to our shipping ports.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am pleased to compliment the C.N.R. management on its conclusion of an arrangement in Moncton by which a valuable and large commercial complex is to enhance the core of the city. This includes a major shopping centre, and the development of railway property which has been an eyesore to the city. Indeed, the C.N.R.'s downtown development program as a whole has restored to Moncton some of the character it had in earlier days of railroading, when the city owed its life to transportation.
Fortunately our economy is now much more varied, but distribution and retail trade remain our chief local industry.
We are of course much in need of productive industries and more employment opportunities. A chemicals complex is being developed by a Provincial agency within the constituency, at Dorchester Cape, and this is the kind of thing where the Atlantic Develop-men Board can help. This is a superb location for Maritime Province distribution by water and land, and it is superbly situated for deep water shipping to Europe, the United States, South America and the newly emerging countries. Already major private chemical industries have completed agreements to establish on the site and construction is well advanced.
Atlantic Development Board assistance has made possible the start of the greatest power development yet undertaken in the Atlantic area. The actual power site is distant from Westmorland, but will serve the east coast area where our greatest resource industries are developing.
Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to be appointed to the House Pension Committee, especially because pensions are highly important to my constituency. We have a substantial proportion of aged, and there are special needs of those in middle age who require the protection of a sound national contributory pension plan.
While we have a large number of Federal and railway employees covered by pension
The Address-Mrs. Rideout plans, we have a much larger number of people, especially in rural areas, who have little or no coverage of any kind. Unlike the heavily industrialized parts of the country where private plans are more general, we must depend on a national system. As well as helping individuals, the Canada Pension Plan will improve the economy of our region, give a lift to consumer spending and help distribute the wealth of the country. I want to mention also the new Labour Code which will govern standards of wages, hours and holidays for employees within Federal jurisdiction. There are many in Westmorland who will benefit directly from this legislation and others who will do so indirectly as standards rise.
In particular, the emphasis in the code on the importance of technical training means much to our people. The Provincial Government has taken advantage, to a proportionate degree not exceeded anywhere in Canada, of the Federal assistance given for technical education. Five major technical schools are now operating, where one existed three years ago, and trade training schools are also established in appropriate areas. This kind of thing will, in the long run, be of greater value to us in New Brunswick than most projects which have been developed or discussed.
We have always been concerned about education, and the loan policy for university students reaches my part of Canada with special impact. Our young people have in the past been at a serious disadvantage, which is now being partially overcome.
I am proud to say that my constituency has within its boundaries two universities, that of Mount Allison at Sackville, which continues to produce outstanding graduates and to expand its services. Requests for admittance from Central Canada are higher than can be accommodated. The other institution of higher education is the new University of Moncton, which is the first integrated French language university in the province with requisite university facilities. This university is already having its effect on our city which will grow as it develops. Major new construction is under way and more is planned.
Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the constituency of Westmorland is a miniature of this country, with similar divisions of national origins, language and religions, and with a mixture of urban and rural population. It has such varied indus-
74	COMMONS
The Address-Mrs. Rideout tries as fisheries, farming, lumbering, transportation, manufacturing, and now chemicals.
We have foundaries in Sackville, where stoves and furnaces have been made for more than a century, and which are now competing effectively with the most modern anywhere. I was interested to learn last Fall that they are even making components for United States aircraft companies. We also build boats in Westmorland and we have a major tourist trade which is growing constantly.
We have also a Federal penitentiary, and I am pleased to have noted the Minister's announcement last Fall of new facilities at Dorchester for maximum security prisoners. It will give employment during construction which will be helpful to the immediate area.
While I am in a thanking mood, I want to express also our appreciation for assistance which has been announced for a new crossing of our famous Petitcodiac River at Moncton. This river has a world phenomenon in its tidal bore-and I trust its only bore-which hon. Members would find fascinating on a *visit.
Moncton has grown extensively in recent years and its over-the-river suburbs have created serious traffic problems. The river crossing is a direct route to the magnificent Fundy National Park, a major tourist centre. These and other considerations make an additional river crossing a vital economic necessity, so that I hope no delay will result in implementing the scheme.
Mr. Speaker, in recent months there has been an interesting discussion proceeding in the Atlantic Provinces about the subject of Maritime union. The Premier of New Brunswick raised the prospect in an appropriate place and at an appropriate time, upon the centenary of the Charlottetown Confederation meetings.
Discussions will start soon, which may one day lead to the union of the Atlantic Provinces. This is a far-sighted and imaginative scheme which may not be so distant as some believe. It may be more difficult than if it had been done a hundred years ago, when first attempted, but the economy of our day will in the end make it more logical and more feasible.
Already, we have achieved a good deal of co-operation in various ways; some of it economic co-operation and some of it social. This is almost certain to increase, and the very fact the central Government is treating the Atlantic Provinces as a unit through the
IMrs. Rideout.]
DEBATES	April 7, 1965
Atlantic Development Board is an indication of the direction being taken.
Until all the factors concerned are studied deeply and widely, I would not want to take a firm position. I think that is the attitude of the Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which are now approaching the study.
It may well be that the first step toward complete union would be an economic union of the four Provinces. On the other hand, the first step may prove to be the union of the two largest Provinces, which will lead to a more complete union later.
I would be remiss as the representative of Westmorland if I did not at once claim my home City of Moncton as the capital of the future united Provinces. It is the geographic centre, the transportation and distribution centre, and will soon be the economic centre. Since, Mr. Speaker, there are almost certain to be other claimants, and perhaps some little debate over such a delicate decision, I rest my case at this point with the entry of Moncton as the logical candidate.
As I said in the beginning, we are an old part of Canada which is very much a part of the new Canada this Government is doing so much to build. A lot of this new spirit may be attributed to the Leader of this Government. No man understands this country better; none better knows its place in the world and what it can do in the world. We in this country are in what might well be called a reconstruction area.
There have been strains in our national fabric, but this is no new thing for Canada. As a federated country, we have never been without them, but strains do not need to result in tearing if the fabric is strong. Our basic fabric is strong, because our people are strong, because we have learned the value of weaving quality materials into the fabric- mixed materials which are the stronger for being different.
If ever there was danger of Canada flying apart-a condition to which I would not subscribe-that danger has been minimized by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. No man in our time is better fitted than he is for the diplomatic job of holding this country together and making it a great country. No man has had the courage to move as he has done to act on the convictions which he believes will cement our nationhood. As against those whose ambition is only to divide us-and to divide is to destroy-he has been a force for unity and hope. I am proud to be his follower and supporter. With him, and
April 7, 1965

with his Government, the constituents who have sent me here may know that their future will be better than their past.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: I should like to add my congratulations to those which have already been extended to the Mover (Mr. Cashin) and the Seconder (Mr. Chretien) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I congratulate them not only on the manner in which they expressed themselves but on their sincerity of purpose. I would be remiss if I did not congratulate, too, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) on her maiden speech. I thought it was an outstanding contribution. I think I echo the sentiments of everyone in this House when I say we all admired and respected her late husband and the great contribution he made to this Parliament.
I understand it is usual for a Speech from the Throne to be couched in vague generalities. It seems to me the particular example we have before us is no exception to the rule. It would be more sensible and a lot easier, I think, if we were to talk not so much about what it contains as about the things which are left out. I realize that these speeches are prepared by the Cabinet. I know, also, that these individuals, who should be among the "Blue Bloods" of our Canadian society, would not stoop so low as to be partisan. However, I am concerned about some of the things which are contained in the Speech and I am wondering whether it does not contain a considerable proportion of election or preelection propaganda.
I have listed the main points of the Speech, some 31 in all. Out of these 31 major points I failed to find any which had not been mentioned previously, either in the Speech of a year ago or in the Speech of two years ago, with the exception of nine. So I am bound to say that this is a nine-point Speech from the Throne, not a Speech containing 31 points as one might be led to believe by lists published in different places.
About two years ago at this time of year during the Federal election campaign a great deal was said across this country regarding a scheme to offer 10,000 scholarships. I am particularly interested in this undertaking because we have in my riding in the City of London one of the finest universities in the Dominion of Canada. All those connected with the University of Western Ontario are interested in this program. We are wondering what happened to this program. Why was it swept
The Address-Mr. Irvine under the rug? Has there been another retreat on the part of hon. Members on the other side of the House? Is this another of the many election promises which have been broken? Was the Student Loan Fund considered sufficient to look after this need. As I say, we are all very interested in knowing exactly what happened to these 10,000 scholarships.
One thing which interested me a good deal in the Speech from the Throne was the paragraph on the formation of a Company of Young Canadians-I am quoting the actual words used. I do not know where this idea came from but I have begun to wonder whether it was not shoved in at the last moment. We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was visiting with the President of the United States over the past week end. Was this the source of the Right Hon. Gentleman's inspiration, or was it merely an afterthought? It may be that the idea is a good one but I believe that Canadians, as befitting the people of a nation which has grown in stature, should surely come up with their own ideas or at least with their own phraseology.
I know we are all proud of the friendship we have with the great nation immediately South of us. We are proud that for 150 years we have lived together in peace and harmony. The border between us, an almost invisible border not guarded by guns or forts, has not separated our two peoples. Rather, we have been drawn close together almost as one great race on the North American continent. This is a record which I know is regarded with envy by many of the free nations throughout the world today and possibly by a number of nations which are not so free.
With regard to the youth movement to which the Speech from the Throne refers, we cannot help but look back 25 or 30 years and think of the great youth movement which Hitler established in Germany as a means of brainwashing children and bringing them up in accordance with the way of life which the people in power at that time wanted them to follow. There was a similar movement in Italy. Let us hope that this will be something on an entirely different plane and in an entirely different league.
I should like to direct the attention of the House to an article which appeared in the London Free Press, one of the largest newspapers in the Province of Ontario. This newspaper has a very large circulation and employs some 700 people. The article to which I refer appeared in that paper on March 13,
76	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Irvine 1965, a contribution from its Canadian Press service. It reads as follows:
If Canada's "romance" with United States capital continues, the result could be a "shotgun political marriage," Beland H. Honderich, editor-inchief of the Toronto Star, said yesterday in an address to U.S. and Canadian members of the International Press Institute here.
Mr. Honderich said that while Canadians like U.S. people, they are also worried about them.
"American cultural, economic and political influences so pervade our way of life that we have begun to wonder if our relatively small nation can retain its independence in face of strong pressures generated by our giant neighbour to the south."
I bring this to the attention of Hon. Members because it is of great concern to me and I am sure it must be of concern to every red-blooded Canadian. The report shows that through investment in Canada, Americans control 60 per cent of our petroleum industry, 52 per cent of our mining and smelting, 35 per cent of our pulp and paper, and 45 per cent of our manufacturing. This is a condition that should be of great concern to every Canadian. This is a very serious state of affairs.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Following this up, Mr. Speaker, I did not notice anything in the Throne Speech with regard to any future plans in trade and commerce. I am sure everybody here must be concerned about the imbalance of trade that we have with the United States, which runs into approximately $500 million a year; an unfavourable imbalance, I might say. Then we must take a look at some of the other countries, like Japan, Russia and China, where we have a very favourable trade balance. But some day, perhaps in the not too distant future, these nations are going to want from us a greater share of our import business. We have to now prepare something to correct these little differences and big differences that we have in the imbalance of trade. I think this puts us in a very bad light, unless we are prepared to do something about it now.
Recently we had tabled and delivered to each Member of this House the 1965 spending estimates. Sir, I am going to tell you that I was amazed to think there was such a great amount of money involved. The general amount is $7,400 million; but then we must add to this loans and investments and advances, which amount to another $202 million. We must add to that old age security payments of another $905 million. Then we must add to that the supplementary estimates that will be coming up during the fiscal year, and the total spending we will

DEBATES	April 7, 1965
have during this fiscal year will be something in the neighbourhood of maybe a little more than $9 billion.
I am just wondering how long a small population of something less than 20 million people can stand this kind of spending. This represents $450 for every man, woman and child throughout this country of ours. Let us look back for a moment, Sir, to 1950 and the expenditures we had at that time. In 1950 our expenditures were $2,300 million, less than a quarter of what they are now; in 1955 they were $4,700 million; in 1960, $6,600 million; in 1963, $7,400 million. Sure we are growing; but are we growing that fast? Then in this year, 1965, the figure is approximately $9 billion.
Then, sir, if we look back to the national debt as of March 31, 1964, we find that it was something in excess of $15 billion. Let us just for a moment review the amount of interest on this debt, because we are in the position that we are ballooning our debts; we are paying interest on interest on interest. In 1950 the interest was $427 million; in 1963 it was $867 million, almost twice as much; in 1964 it was over $1 billion; and this year it is $1,101 million. Sir, I would say that this should be considered, not as a debt to be passed on to future generations but as a great, oppressive charge hanging over the heads of our taxpayers at the present time.
The business that we operate in this House is the biggest business in Canada, and as a businessman I ask this: How could any business, large or small, continue to operate and flourish with this type of management? We are now in an era of great prosperity. I am not going to say to anybody here that this prosperity started under the previous Administration, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) has made that quite clear. He said here-I cannot give the exact date-in about September or October of last year that the upswing started in 1960. So I will leave it with him. However, sir, I would say that on the basis of the great debt that we have, we should be setting aside so much every year to pay this off during these periods of prosperity, in order that we might come to the aid of the needy in times when perhaps things are not quite as good as they are today. There is no reason for us to have a feeling of confidence in the present Government's handling of our national accounts.
Mr. Speaker, in going over the Speech from the Throne, there is nothing in there to indicate that anything is going to be done about basic exemptions for income tax. I
April 7, 1965



believe this was mentioned yesterday by one hon. Member. I think this is a very important matter because it is of great interest to those people who do not have quite as much as people who have a higher income. I am wondering if there is going to be a change announced in this regard perhaps a little later. Will this be held out and dangled in front of the electorate as a political plum? But this is a most ridiculous tax structure, when you stop to figure that a single girl or a single man pays tax on every cent he or she makes in addition to $21 per week; when you consider that a man may have to look after a family, as a married man, and pay tax on everything that he makes over $41 per week. Surely these people are entitled to an absolute minimum of $60 per week, in order that in this land of plenty they may live with a certain amount of dignity.
I would say, Sir, that these figures are old fashioned; they are antiquated, and were arrived at or accepted at a time when the value of the dollar was a great deal more than it is today. I think this is one of the lowest exemption foundations in the entire world. It is, I say again, unjust; it is unrealistic, and I would like to know when something is going to be done about it. I would also like to suggest that this exemption be raised for single people to $2,000 and for married people to $3,000. This would give them an opportunity to get a little bit ahead, that they might own their own homes and be good, respectable citizens of their respective communities.
I received a letter recently form the City Council of the City of London; the original was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and a copy was sent to me as the Member for that city. For the benefit of those who are not acquainted with it, I would like to inform the House that the City of London is the finest city in the world, and certainly has the finest people in the world-or else I would not be here.
I am going to quote, if I may, just the main, meaty part of this resolution, which goes like this:
Therefore be it resolved that the Federal Government be petitioned to amend the Income Tax Act to allow all municipal property taxes levied against owner-occupied residential property to be claimed as a deductible expense when filing income tax returns.
That is signed by the City Clerk of the City of London and was moved, seconded and accepted by the City Council. This, to me, Sir, seems to be a very sensible approach. Some years ago even Joseph Stalin said in
The Address-Mr. Irvine one of his addresses that individual home ownership and individual enterprise makes it very difficult for Communism to make much headway or to gain much of a foothold on the North American continent.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This brings me back to an old pet subject of mine: What are we doing to assist the small businessman? I see nothing at all in the Throne Speech which will be of very great assistance to him. Certainly I hope there will be something in the Budget. The small operator gets smaller; the big operator gets bigger. As I said a moment ago, these people actually are, or should be, the backbone of our very democratic society.
Then, of course, these people are loaded down with all kinds of administrative duties, and many of them do not have sufficient help to look after these little details. They are things which cost them money and for which they get no compensation at all. First of all they have to make the deduction for unemployment insurance. They have to make the deduction for income tax. In some instances they have to make the deduction for the 11 per cent sales tax. Now starting in January 1966 the deduction will have to be made for the Canada Pension Plan payment. In many cases these firms are small with perhaps only 10, 15 or 20 employees; but out of their own treasury they have to hire an extra man to look after these details. If they are late in filing some of these returns they are fined. If they underpay through an honest error, they are fined for that. If they overpay, then eventually they are repaid, but with no interest. That is one of the strange things about these payments; it seems to me to be a one-way street.
I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the deductions they will have to make under the Canada Pension Plan. I should like to make it clear, in the first instance, that I am very much in favour of a Canada Pension Plan, and let us say that the one we have set up is a good step in the right direction. But we must think of those not covered by the plan. Let us for a moment take the word "contributor" and analyse it. A contribution, to my way of thinking, is something you give voluntarily. This is not a contribution; this is something you must give, and therefore it becomes a tax. Then farther on in the Bill we find the words "in order that all people might live in dignity". Now, Mr. Speaker, not all people can do that because not all people are covered by the plan. How can a man making $3,000 a year live in dignity when,
April 7, 1965

The Address-Mr. Irvine after paying into the plan until his retirement, all he qualifies for is a pension of $62 or $63? How can a family live in dignity on $62 or $63 per month? I sincerely hope there will be many amendments to this plan, and there must be if it is going to be the kind of comprehensive plan which the people of Canada envisaged, and which some of them still envisage. However, they are gradually becoming acquainted with what are the actual benefits.
I also mentioned deductions which had to be made in regard to the 11 per cent sales tax. I am not going to say too much about this because I spoke on this subject when the Bill was before the House, but I do think that it was a very unfair tax. I think it directly affects a very sensitive part of our general economy, and I hope and trust that this tax will not have a derogatory effect on our future business.
In 1962, Mr. Speaker, at the time when the then Government in power saw fit, in the interests of Canadianism, to devalue the Canadian dollar, there was a great hue and cry all across this country, asking why do such a thing, and imputing that making our dollar into a 92J cent piece was a terrible thing to do. I fail to find, Mr. Speaker, any indication in the Throne Speech that there is going to be any change in this regard, and I am just wondering what has happened. If the then Opposition thought that that action was so bad and that we were committing such a crime then I say that today by not changing the situation they are simply compounding the felony. But there is no mention of that matter, Sir.
I should also like to mention one other very important item in connection with the Civil Service Commission. I have here a letter from a man-I will be very pleased to give his name and address if so desired-dated 19th September, 1964, which says in part:
Many Civil Service employment competitions provide, through the Civil Service Act, a statutory preference for veterans. This I am led to believe applies only to those veterans who qualify under Overseas Service. In many cases during a national emergency, volunteers, through no fault of their own, possibly because of specialized skills and by orders of higher authority, were never posted outside of the country; this of course disqualifies them from the previously mentioned Veterans Preference. At the close of World War II these veterans, whose contribution to the war effort was as vital as many of those who served outside of the country, received less recognition through reduced gratuities. Is it fair that this discriminatory policy continue in employment opportunities?
I would say, Sir, that this Commission seems to be in need of a good general overhaul.

There is nothing in the Speech that indicates that the Government are even going to take a good hard look a it.
One other matter concerning which I saw nothing in the main estimates or in the Throne Speech is the plight of the retarded child. I went through the estimates pretty thoroughly and I found under the Department of National Health and Welfare that the Canadian Association for Retarded Children are going to receive a grant of $25,000. I contend, Sir, that this is grossly inadequate. It is just a mere drop in the bucket. Many of these children, with proper training and a little bit of spending on our part, could be brought up to be very useful citizens in our society. I would hope that that Department might take another good look at this question and perhaps do something in the future to help this very important work. Perhaps through the suggested Canada Assistance Plan the Government may take a look at this problem, and I hope they will come up with something which will be very worth while.
I have received, Mr. Speaker, a very heartbreaking letter, the sort of letter that Members of Parliament regularly receive, and I think it raises a very important matter, important to every person who is a Canadian. This gentleman writes to me under date March 10 as follows:
I took my family to the U.S. Consulate, Windsor, January 26, 1965, to obtain our visas. My wife and daughter were examined together, Barry my son was examined separately from myself. He was asked by the medical officer what age he left school and was told 17 years. The doctor then asked what grade, and my son told him grade 5. The doctor asked Barry what 6x8 were and he answered 48. He also asked how many days there were in a year.
And the young lad told him 365. Then there was a delay for a while and the writer of this letter had to go and see the U.S. Consul. He continues:
I was advised to get a letter from Mr. Mason at the Workshop. I also got a letter from our doctor. Mr. Speare from the Board of Education phoned the doctor at the U.S. Consulate and also wrote a letter. Mr. Speare has interviewed Barry and knows his capabilities.
Then further on in the letter, Sir, he says that he and his family were allowed entry into the United States but that his son, because of this incapacity of his, was not allowed entry into the United States. He was allowed to enter, Sir, but without a visa and he must come back every six months for one day.
April 7, 1965

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I think this is something that we should work out with the United States authorities, perhaps on a reciprocal basis, so these young children, in many cases, can be with their families and enjoy the love to which they are entitled.
In closing I should also like to say that I am very serious about this subject. I am not going to say anything about certain bad odours which might pervade certain sections of this House. These are things that any good Canadian does not want pushed too much. We are all elected here as Members of Parliament and each of us has taken an oath, and each of us has certain responsibilities which we owe to this country and, in particular, to our ridings. However, everyone knows that an obligation is only as good as the man who assumes it, and unless he be honest and sincere, and unless he really places a high value on his word of honour, an obligation means absolutely nothing.
Since the inception of representative Government, it has been the idealistic ambition and general intention of individuals to elect to office men and women of honour who are believed to have a high sense of moral value. But conscience is like intelligence: It is very unequally developed among men and among women. This is an unfortunate thing, because perhaps their true sides can only be known to a few of their most intimate acquaintances.
One of the purposes of democracy, and a duty with which each Member of this House should be charged, is to guard against this naturally easy way out-apathy toward vital matters of national importance. For the first time in the history of man the conflict between pure intelligence and moral values has become a matter of life and death. As citizens of this great country of ours we are faced with the problem that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are ours for only as long as we protect them against the dangerous onslaught of a formidable enemy, and I think you ail know to what I refer. This is an enemy who is without a conscience, who knows no morals and is fantastically obsessed with the purpose of destroying all men and all nations who do not subscribe to the forces of evil. This is our big challenge now facing us as Members of this House. Let us first be Canadians; and second, let us be politicians. Let us get on with the business of running this country, a country that each of us should be partic-
The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe ularly proud to have the privilege of representing.


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence by adding my words of congratulation to the Mover and Seconder of the Throne Speech.
It sounds platitudinous to say that the New Democratic Party is dedicated to a new national health plan, but one proof of the sincerity of this dedication is the leadership in both hospital and medicare plans introduced by our colleagues from Saskatchewan. The aspiration to a genuine national health arrangement is not unique to the New Democrats. It is clear, however, that alone among political parties we have the conception of a national health plan, Government-sponsored, comprehensive in both items, coverage and those covered.
The terms "medicare", "national health plan", and "Government-sponsored health plan" have been so bandied about by politicians, a royal commission, insurance companies, the Press and medical associations for so long that the health needs of Canadians have been nearly lost in verbiage. It is much like our search for a national identity. We have been so preoccupied with what we are not that we have lost sight of what we are, or what we should be.
In assigning guilt for our medicare confusion, the Liberal Party, the National Liberal Party, merits the largest measure. It is the most guilty of all because it has promised for the longest, has had the most opportunity to act and has done nothing. Again, in this Throne Speech of 1965, the rosy promise -vague, tantalizing and unsupported-has been resurrected. This strikes us as tawdry politics. Has not the government the advantage of the Hall Commission Report showing the need, the urgency and the right kind of medicare? Of course it has; but even so, the Liberal Party has not assumed the responsibility required by the Hall Report. One can imagine medicare as a nettle that the Liberal Party will parade around with on a platter but refuse, for the poorest of reasons, to grasp in hand and carry.
The Liberals have promised a Government-sponsored health plan since 1919. They have been in power 33 of the past 46 years. I have here a copy of the Toronto Star dated April 21, 1948, from which I should like to quote. This Liberal newspaper is so old that it may fall apart, just like the Liberal promises.
The article states:
Health insurance at once said plan of Premier King.
April 7. 1965

The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe
In the body of the article appears the following statement:
The goal of the national health insurance and the social security scheme is that all Canadians will be covered by it and all Canadians will be contributing toward its cost.
This sounds very modern, much like what we are asking for today, but still we are waiting.
Another pamphlet that I should like to quote from is one that the Liberal Party itself brought out during its campaign in 1963, and which is entitled "The Policies of the Liberal Party". At page 15 appears an article entitled "Caring for Health".
Underneath that heading the following is stated:
Establish, in co-operation with the Provinces, a medical care plan for all Canada.
It also states:
The Liberal plan for student scholarships and loans will enable more people to become doctors.
Then it speaks of more people becoming doctors; but the student loan legislation brought out by the Liberal Government, because of its excessive costs and the longevity of the course-and of course there are still no scholarships-does not encourage students to study medicine.
Another 1963 Liberal publication is entitled "Health Care as Needed", and sets out a promise for prepaid care, which is available to everyone, on terms which everyone can afford. It says that all Canadians should be able to get health care at the time they need it, without the anxious fear of bills they cannot afford. Again, this was very modem in its conception and is related to something that has been going on since 1919. But it is still nothing but a promise.
In June of 1964 the Hall Royal Commission Report on Health Services was tabled in the House of Commons. Even its most urgent recommendations have thus far been ignored. There have been many promises, and more thousands of words, but still no action has been taken. The Minister who should be responsible talks a good game on medicare. We suspect she has thought out the course ahead and has had the tactical ability to foul it up, even more adequately than she did the National Pension Plan. From the original promise of 1919 to the "health care at once" of 1948, to the party platform in 1963 and to the words in the House of Commons in 1964 and 1965, how does one go about orientating oneself in these Liberal semantics?

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The New Democratic Party has always stood very clearly for an all-inclusive, completely comprehensive, compulsory, Government-sponsored national health plan. The plan includes doctors' care, dental care, drugs, glasses and prosthetic appliances. It postulates increased educational facilities for doctors, nurses and technicians, for preventive medicine and badly needed research facilities. The New Democratic Party stands firmly in support of all these provisions. We stand firmly against high cost partial plans, against deterrent fees and particularly against the indignity of means testing.
I should like to take the Hall Commission Report and quote from the actual charter set out in the Report:
The achievement of the highest possible health standards for all our people must become a primary objective of national policy and a cohesive factor contributing to national unity, involving individual and community responsibilities and actions. This objective can best be achieved through a comprehensive, universal, health services program for the Canadian people implemented in accordance with Canada's evolving constitutional arrangements, based upon freedom of choice and upon free and self-governing professions and institutions, financed through prepayment arrangements, accomplished through the full co-operation of the general public, the health professions, voluntary agencies, all political parties, and governments, federal, provincial and municipal, directed toward the most effective use of the nation's health resources to attain the highest possible levels of physical and mental wellbeing.
Within this report, however, there are certain recommendations considered to be urgent enough that the Commission advised their implementation within six months of the tabling of the Report. They are as follows:
1.	A Federal-Provincial conference. This is what the Government now suggests in the Speech from the Throne 10 months after the report was tabled, in which it was said that this was something urgent that should be done within the first six months. We should be working on the recommendations of such a conference instead of discussing its inclusion in the Throne Speech.
2.	The inclusion of mental and t.b. care under the Hospital and Diagnostic Services Act.
3.	A crash program of health personnel training and education.
4.	A children's dental program.
5.	The provision of services to crippled and mentally retarded children.
6.	Expansion of the Medical Research Council into a Health Sciences Research Council.
April 7, 1965
The urgency of these steps was stressed. It has been underlined again and again by Mr. Justice Hall. Nine and a half months later no action on any of these urgent matters is yet in sight. In its more specific recommendations the Report goes on to stress the following necessities: First, crash programs to provide personnel, hospitals, research into mental illness and retardation, drug addiction and alcoholism; a long list of medical services, including medical, surgical, maternity, preventive, ambulance, etc.; dental personnel, facilities and free care for children and expectant mothers and the fluoridation of municipal water supplies; the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs and the provision of prescription drugs over $1; free optical services for all, including free glasses for children; greater facilities, scholarships and salary funds for all phases of medical education, and vastly increased medical research funds, which recommendation, incidentally, has been echoed strongly by the Medical Research Council.
The Report recommends strongly against partial, non-compulsory plans, against means testing and against deterrent fees. Yet, Mr. Speaker, in the presence of these urgent recommendations this Government is standing by and watching Province after Province come up with schemes which this report has so strongly recommended against. It is hard to blame the Provinces for this variety, this developing crazy quilt. Why? Because the Federal Government continues to abdicate its responsibilities.
To this date, half the Provinces of Canada have established or announced plans for establishing their own medical care schemes. Under the C.C.F., Saskatchewan set up the first and only universal, comprehensive, medical care scheme, now functioning well and covering 99.8 per cent of its population. This scheme would readily fit into a comprehensive Federal plan. Alberta's plan, better known as "minicare", fails to cover the low income groups which need it most. It employs a form of means test and the benefits supplied are minimal. Both Ontario and British Columbia have given up waiting for Federal action and have outlined plans for coverage similar to Alberta's, again with a means test and a subsidy to those unable to pay premiums. Needless to say, the private insurance companies are delighted. They will now have Government subsidized profits. Most recently Quebec has announced its intention to establish its own health scheme. In at least three Provinces, Alberta, Ontario and British
The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe Columbia, the schemes are or will be such as to conflict seriously with a Federal, universal, comprehensive plan. The Government's delaying tactics have only intensified the problem.
What a fantastic anachronism that anyone today should suffer the indignity of a means test. Such a concept extends both indigency and indignity in providing our fellow Canadians with charity. Ask yourself the question: Should there be a means test in education other than the means test of ability? Of course not, and it is even less defensible in health. Our fellow Canadians do not want charity. They simply want the advantages of the best medical treatment.
For now, for the future, is quality medical treatment only for those with the financial means to afford it? This is the present attitude of medical associations in North America. It seems to be, for the want of a clear expression of intent, the present policy of the Government.
What are the barriers which prevent the full institution of the recommended national health services program? I believe there are two. Each is a pressure group, a lobby, an influence against coherent, constructive change.
First there are the private insurance companies. No one in politics nor in the insurance game has ever denied that the two old parties get much of their financial support from them. I should like to quote from statements made by such company spokesmen when the Hall report was tabled. Remember that the predecessors of these men opposed the first old age pension plan, unemployment insurance and government directed hospital insurance. Mr. G. L. Holmes, the manager of the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, said:
I don't like anything to be given free to people if they can pay for it or part of it. This is what happened to hospital insurance and now people are using hospitals too much. We will all have to pay increased taxes.
J. T. Bryden, Vice President of the North American Life Assurance Company, said:
I do not agree with the philosophy of full medical care for all out of the public purse. Each citizen should shoulder his own responsibilities.
Vice President T. E. Gill of the London Life Insurance Company said that a medicare plan would just be another strain on the economy and that private enterprise can do the job cheaper. Vice President W. J. Adams of the Canada Life Assurance Company said that he doubted that the government could finance medical care cheaper than private companies, and that the universal hospital

April 7, 1965

The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe insurance scheme had cost four or five times more than was originally anticipated. It is obvious where the interests of these people lie.
The second and stronger source of opposition to a genuine national health porgram is the doctors themselves and their associations. Doctors arguing against a medicare plan consistently reveal only selfish motives rather than concern for public needs. A Globe and Mail editorial puts it this way:
Many persons have become suspicious of doctors' opinions in this matter, believing that in some cases their self-interest may outweigh their humanitarian principles.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The most frightening aspect of doctors' intransigence is the blindness of doctors to logical trends within their own profession. And by their blindness they also set themselves apart from and superior to all other professions. For example, is there any greater responsibility for integrity and dedication than that of the teaching profession? Relative to doctors, have teachers failed in a professional sense to adjust their functions and ideals to developing society? I do not think so. Yet teachers have done their work almost universally in Canada under the protective guidance of government administration, both municipal and provincial. There is nothing in this contention of organized medicine, that a Government-sponsored comprehensive plan is innately destructive of their professional ethics. And, of course, Saskatchewan in a short time has proved it is not a blight on their pocketbooks.
Another aspect of doctors' astigmatism is their inability to see how the development of "clinic" medicine and the enlargement of hospital services have been in response to the doctors' own refusal to carry on with the old idea of the all-purpose doctor working alone. In co-operation with the multi-division of responsibility has come advances in research, technique, quality, and much better working conditions for doctors.
The doctors rehash the old argument of quantity rather than quality as a real danger in our projected health program. This is an admission that the needs of the people are greater than we are able to supply at present. How will they meet this ideal? The only answer seems to be by the vagaries of the market's attractiveness to potential doctors and dentists.
Does this mean that only those who can afford it should get the latest and best treatment? Does this mean that we have two classes of citizens, and that second class

citizens do not deserve the best of care? This may have been great, believable stuff in the old days of Queen Victoria when the theory was that the poor are always with us. It is indefensible today.
Rather than restrict the care of these people, would it not be more to the point to provide more facilities for the education of doctors, so that we can provide full care for all who need it? Evidently this Government does not think so. Replying to a question on September 16, 1964, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) indicated that, in view of the fact that any new medical school would take eight years to produce doctors, "this matter will have to wait for an announcement on over-all Government policy". How does one follow such negative reasoning?
Doctors speak of potential excessive demand for services. Would the demand really be excessive? Is this not simply an admission that present care is inadequate?
It is my considered opinion that present methods, costs and facilities, do not allow everyone to get the medical care that is necessary. If they were provided as they should be, one could not consider such usage as "excessive demand".
So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say that any Government that is genuinely responsible to the people it serves cannot do less than this: to give them the most basic of all services in a way that does not grant charity, that does not destroy human dignity, and provides the best in modern medical care to all who are ill. Surely this is the least that can be done.
This can only be done by a Government-sponsored, universal medical care program, not eight years from now, not four years from now, but immediately. Procrastination, the refusal to care and dare, eternal compromise; these are qualities that have become the fetish of Liberal politicians in the health field. The New Democratic Party insists it is not good enough.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to take part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I would be remiss if I failed to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder (Mr. Chretien). They carried out their task magnificently and did honour to their constituents.
April 7, 1965

[Text}
I also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) on the marvellous maiden speech she made this afternoon.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, in view of the great number of measures proposed to us in the speech from the throne, we cannot but rejoice and also congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his cabinet for preparing such a wide and far reaching program. We see there an indication that the government does not want to shirk its responsibilities and after two years in office it shows its vigour and determination to tackle all problems. Everyone seems to agree that Parliament has a tremendous amount of work to do and yet all are unanimous in saying that almost all the proposed measures are necessary and urgent.
Once again the present government shows that it is a responsible government and it challenges all hon. members to face up to their responsibilities and, for the general good of the country, to pass without delay this session's program.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) called the speech from the throne an "election manifesto", stating further that it was full of "nebulous promises" taken from previous election platforms and even from other countries. Personally, I do not need to know who are the promoters of some of those measures; I am only interested in seeing them there, included in a program soon to be implemented by an active, even though a minority government, anxious to serve the best interests of the country by carrying out in a responsible way the mandate given to it following the last general election. The press generally had been rather critical of the government in the last few months, accusing it of inaction, backtracking and indecision. But it was comforting last week end to read the comments about the results achieved in the past two years.
It is much to the credit of the Prime Minister, a man who is recognized as an authority on international affairs and who every day shows that he has all the qualities of a great statesman when it comes to solving our domestic problems. Some do not like his method; they would like him to make more noise and indulge in great controversies as some others do. But we, who are close to him, cannot but appreciate the kindness and
The Address-Mr. haniel humanity he brings to the study of great and small problems and rejoice to see the results he achieves.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the very basis of that heavy legislative program is one of the measures included in it, namely the reform of the parliamentary procedure and the adoption of some recommendations made to the house by the committee on procedure and organization. These changes would certainly result into a more expeditive dispatch of the business of the house, and indirectly they would give us the opportunity to show the people that we are able to carry out the business of government as real administrators, without for all that jeopardizing democracy. I hope that this reform will include a suggestion I made in the house on July 15 last to allow the members who wish to do so, to leave their speeches with the Clerk so that they may be taken as read as it is done in Washington.
It is a custom with which the house is not completely unfamiliar since this occurs regularly when the ministers ask for the unanimous consent of the house to table answers which are too long or in the case of long statements.
This way we would avoid a prolonged debate and a continuous repetition of arguments after a number of speeches.
At the time the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said that my proposal was ridiculous under a British-inspired parliamentary system, but I am entirely at variance with him, especially since we already have a few restrictions and limitations. The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is limited and so is the speaking time allocated to each member. Occasionally, we also limit the duration of certain debates on the consensus of all the various parties. Why should we not be free to change our rules? Why balk at evolution? The Leader of the Opposition is considered as a parliamentarian of great experience but he should not, by refusing his consent to a change in the standing orders, run the risk of finding himself practically isolated here some day.
Many young members have come here full of enthusiasm and you can be certain that the long debates of the last session and the complexity of our parliamentary system are such that some of them wonder how long they will continue to belong to a Government organization which is too often more disappointing than satisfactory.
Mr. Speaker, during the forthcoming months we will continue to hear the voice of
April 7. 1965

The Address-Mr. Laniel those who claim that the present government wants to destroy confederation and divide Canada, but I am satisfied that their number is decreasing constantly. The population realizes increasingly that our government has assumed its responsibilities with regard to the problem of Canadian unity and has already asserted unequivocally its intention to do its utmost to develop a better understanding between the two founding nations. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission has not yet found a magic formula, but its recent report is a warning to those who pursue an ostrichlike policy and attach no great importance to the urgency of finding a solution which would bring all Canadians closer together. Following the recent hearings of the commission in Montreal and Toronto, we have noticed an improvement over last year's situation and the various briefs submitted are an indication that the people as a whole are more conscious of bilingual and bicultural problems and of the importance of a dialogue. Let the Laurendeau-Dunton commission pursue its task, let us stop criticizing it, and let us be confident that 1967 will be noted for this sense of unity and understanding which is everyone's wish.
The dialogue is open at the level of the people; it is making great progress at the level of the federal and provincial governments where the responsibilities are scrutinized and where the fiscal problem is being considered thoroughly.
During that time we are all evolving toward a greater Canadianism which takes into account each one's claims. This is the best safeguard against some dangers referred to by opponents of the formula for repatriation of the constitution. I believe it represents a first step which will serve as a basis for the development of this constitutional agreement between the ten Canadian provinces. I do agree that the British North America Act must be rejuvenated, and this as soon as possible, but between this and saying that a new constitution can be written overnight, there is quite a margin, and I am inclined to believe that words are easier than deeds.
I wish to congratulate Mr. Faribault and Mr. Fowler for their recent essay on the constitution entitled "Ten for One". Their proposals may offer a basis on which other constitutional experts could continue the dialogue and finally put forward ideas which will give our governments the way to find a solution. It should, however, be recognized that Canada presently is changing at a dizzy speed and that some ideas expressed today are often

made obsolete the day after by events and numerous problems that arise. This is why I am rather inclined to believe we are presently writing the new constitution, that we are in the process of writing it every day and that our rapid evolution will lead us to a position where we may more easily agree on most of the provisions which may define the jurisdictions, the responsibilities, each other's rights and the sharing of taxation powers. I agree with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska when he says, and I quote:
An entirely new draft of the 1867 act appears to me, at the moment, when everything is under discussion, where everything is fluid, not only impossible, but dangerous. Even if co-operative federalism does not reject it for the future.
Theorists in constitutional matters do not agree on the formula for repatriation, but I place my trust in our Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and the experts from the ten provinces who, after lengthy consultations, have agreed upon an amending procedure which will allow us to Canadianize the B.N.A. Act. The dialogue is opened on the evolution of Canada, and it will become livelier as soon as we show our good will by making this first step which is a start toward the adoption of a new constitution or the improvement of the present one.
Those who do not have any responsibility for the affairs of this country may very well advance many theories. The time for intransigence no longer exists; we must trust one another and we must not neglect the advantages of a gradual evolution which will lead us toward better results without upheaval or turmoil.
In his speech, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition tried to ridicule the Government position, he put the emphasis on the differing views of those who do not approve the Fulton-F'avreau formula. And yet, he has not given any indication as to whether he supported all the views of those people, and even less, whether he had the confidence of those people on this problem of national unity. Our Prime Minister has proven more than once his concern for this problem of national unity and he has shown his sincerity in bringing about these measures which, in the long run, will strengthen Canada.
I admit that the adoption of a distinctive national flag will not solve all our problems, no more than the adoption of "O Canada" as our national anthem, but, there, we have the recognition of our sovereignty; those are small things that play on our heart strings
April 7, 1965

and prepare us for a better dialogue. Those symbols are factors of unity which Canadians will increasingly endorse while trying in an exchange of views to understand and appreciate each other better.
On April 1, 1965, in the British House of Commons, Prime Minister Harold Wilson said and I quote:
Nobody here has the monopoly of concern-
Those words apply especially well to the members of this house. Some could surely ponder over this sentence, because the opposition seems to feel sometimes that it is the sole depository of the truth, the only one to see things clearly and to be qualified to pass judgment on Canadian as well as on international problems.
Well, on the Government side, we put action before words. Our achievements up to date show it and the speech from the throne is a still more tangible proof. It covers everything, from international affairs to the war against poverty, from the repatriation of the constitution to a public assistance plan, from the creation of a science council to measures intended to increase sharply the income of our farmers, from assistance to depressed areas to increased assistance to workers displaced by automation; I could go on for quite a while.
All these measures are considered realistically; none will be taken on the sly. Some of them, however, call for negotiations with the provinces and the speech from the throne is a clear indication that it is the intention of the Government to keep on improving the methods and practices governing federal-provincial relations, so that all Canadians can feel they get their fair share out of confederation. This means that we want to intensify our talks with the provinces and seek solutions with them.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, quite disappointing, of course, is that program of action to some of the Members of the Opposition and to their party. The Conservative amendment did not take anyone by surprise. What else could they say? They did not succeed in five years in giving our country any good leadership, and they cannot suffer any action by others which pinpoints more precisely their inaction during those five years.
I was more surprised by the subamendment from the New Democratic Party Leader. He surely has noticed in the Speech from the Throne "the intention of the Government to
The Address-Mr. Laniel meet with the Provinces in order to discuss with them the way in which Federal and Provincial action can most effectively contribute to programs that will provide health services to Canadians on a comprehensive basis". Is this not an indication of positive action to be taken afterwards by the Federal Government in view of giving the lead in that field toward a solution that could be approved by the Provinces? We succeeded in making the Pension Plan a national one because of consultation, and it could not be otherwise for any medicare program.
The speech of the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) gave me the definite impression that he does not approve of consultation with the Provinces. This is quite a different attitude from that of the Leader of his party in the Province of Quebec, Mr. Robert Cliche. Mr. Cliche in all his recent speeches takes the attitude that he is promoting a complete dialogue with the Provinces, and he tries very hard to show himself as the great defender of Provincial autonomy. If the National Leader of the New Democratic Party expresses opinions the way he did yesterday toward consultation with the Provinces in regard to the repatriation of the Constitution and concerning the establishment of a national, complete health insurance program, we are inclined to have doubts about his whole attitude toward Federal-Provincial conferences.
Taking these facts into account, I come to the conclusion that his subamendment is not less than a vote of confidence on the whole principle of consultation with the Provinces and also a vote against the positive actions of this Government in that field. Because of the principle involved, Mr. Speaker, this subamendment should be defeated by a roaring majority.

Mr. Speaker, the government is setting steadily to work again and its forward looking policy does not make it forget the present issues. It is endeavouring to co-ordinate all efforts to make Canada a united, strong and prosperous country, where poverty will be enemy number one. It wanted its operations to rest upon a dialogue and we are now faced with a subamendment that condemns, in itself, the principle of true federal provincial relations. We owe it to ourselves to defeat it with an overwhelming majority, in the hope that the members of the party that moved it will realize that they still do not understand the problem of Canadian unity.
April 7, 1965

The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my congratulations to the hon. Member tor St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) for their contribution in opening the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I want particularly to pick up a segment of the speech of the hon. Member for St. John's West in a minute and dwell on it for a little while. But first of all I want to make a few general remarks with regard to the Speech from the Throne.
It seems to me that this is a Speech which came out of the Liberal Univac machine or computer. It seems to me that they went around with their mandarins and their eggheads, had some questions asked and put the answers into a computer. There is a little bit of doubt as to where the computer is located; whether it is here in Ottawa or in Washington. It would seem that this Speech from the Throne is, sort of, the left-over breakfast from President Johnson's Great Society Campaign. It is a little bit sad to think that the Liberal Party could not devise some sort of platform for Canada that was not based on Americanism, that was not brought up and hatched in our neighbour to the South.
It seems to me that this Speech from the Throne, as others have said before me, is remarkable for what it has left out; it is remarkable in that it has not done anything or has not suggested anything to cure the rampant Liberal inflation that we have at all times with a Liberal Government. The cost of living is rising faster than ever before. There is the intractable position of the Government in refusing to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on the one hand, while on the other we see Ministers [DOT] trying to encourage production in Canada, and export trade. Yet this Government persists in penalizing our manufacturers and penalizing the producers in Canada with this most atrocious tax. It seems to me that we are providing for low prices to primary producers, and this coupled with rising inflation and the cost of living has left our primary producers in Canada in a sorry state indeed.
Also, Mr. Speaker, they do not say anything in their Throne Speech as to what they are going to do about the economic situation in this country. They seem to be preoccupied with the cultural and welfare aspects and fail to realize that somebody has got to pay for it, somewhere, some time. Our friends in

the Social Credit Party have been true to form. The hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), who at the Christmas recess said he was going to topple this corrupt Government unless they did something about reorganizing their Cabinet, now comes before us and in his speech on six occasions commends this Government. They were the ones who were going to topple this Liberal machine. Then, of course, we have our friends in the New Democratic Party. I think they are going to go along with the Government, too.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I would like to quote very briefly from the Globe and Mail of this morning, "Looking Into Business", by Fraser Robertson. I think it is rather a good way to start on the criticism of this Throne Speech, this Univac attempt to gather votes. He starts out like this:
Any businessmen who had maintained until yesterday a conviction that business could be carried on as usual in Canada, or even businessmen who had lingering hopes that the entrepreneurial system based upon a market economy could survive in this country, surely must know better now that the Government has presented its legislative program to Parliament...
The wording is slightly different, but the measures are lifted almost intact from the manifesto of the New Democratic Party.
Then he goes on to make reference-and this is important-to the changes in rules and the procedural improvements which might be brought in, and I think all of us should keep in mind what he has to say in this regard:
Cynics might interpret that as a declaration that debate and criticism of Government measures is tolerable only if it does not impede passage of what the Government proposes.
The moral of this so far has largely been missed by business. It is that opposition to Government proposals, no matter how soundly based upon experience, largely is a waste of time.
Is that what we are coming to in our new rules changes? Is it going to be a waste of time to bother even opposing what a Government is going to insist upon? So we have this "Univac" Throne Speech, thrown out not to help the country but to try and improve the political image of the Government. We have a welfare approach to an attack upon poverty, but this welfare approach to poverty cannot be anything more than a stopgap. Production in Canada must pay for the welfare. There is precious little in this Speech for the people who are paying the bills.
I am going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has been wrong in its approach to this problem, not only now but perhaps for a long time. For years we have been trying the wTelfare approach. This is
April 7, 1965	COMMONS
fine, and it meets immediate needs and ameliorates suffering. But it does not do anything about the basic problem. What about the one million jobs we are going to require? What about the jobs we need now? What about our productive capacity? What about medicare?-and I will have something more to say about that in a minute. What about ARDA? Whatever happened to the words the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) often used two or three years ago-"boldness", "imagination"? They are strangely lacking in this Speech.
I am convinced there is another answer to the problem. There is another position which the Government should take with regard to these problems. I do not believe that a "Big Daddy" type of Governmental system, in which the Government has to sit on the people like a setting hen on her chicks, will ever produce a great Government or make a great country out of us. We are so far behind in research and development in Canada that this minor item in the Speech from the Throne about a Scientific Council is like a drop in a pool of water. I do not mean we need any larger bureaucracy; Heaven's above, we have enough now. We have too many bureaucrats and we have precious little action. The Economic Council which this Government set up has cost a lot of money in order to provide some advice which the Government has largely ignored. We are losing right now, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), $2.8 billion a year in lost production.
What do we need in Canada? What should the Government's approach be? In my opinion we have to go back to what was said by the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) in his opening address. What is really needed is some kind of drastic action like that which motivated us during wartime. There is no drastic action in this Speech. I am suggesting that we should think about having a $2 billion research fund which could be spent over the next five years to help business to pay for this welfare program. We need research and development.
The hon. Member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) talked about a medicare program.
I want to remind him that the major difficulty with the teaching profession is that they are all like square pegs in round holes. The difficulty with our educational system is that merit pays and individual initiative is forgotten. If we are going to have quality medical care let us not forget about individual initiative, because as both you and I
DEBATES	87
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner know, Mr. Speaker, so well, we will not have quality medical care without it.
What do we need before we achieve all this? We need a tremendous amount of regulation in Canada. We need a tremendous amount of money put into educational facilities to make available the medical personnel and technicians who are going to give this kind of care to all Canadians. Apparently the Government have no recognition of some of the problems which have to be looked into before we can achieve our objectives.
We in this Party have always stood for a national medicare plan based on freedom -freedom of the people who are providing the service and freedom of the patient to go to whom he pleases to get the service. We need tremendous amounts of funds to be made available to our universities and private enterprise for research into medical fields. This will do two things right away. It will provide the jobs which we need now and it will keep more of our best brains at home in Canada where they can do this type of research.
We also need research into our national resources. We need research into the matter of production, into the matter of marketing, into the matter of land use. We have had a Committee study land use, yet we know very little about the productive capacity in Canada of any of our soils. People talk about a population explosion, yet we are ignorant of what this really means in Canada. So this Government comes along with another welfare approach, instead of putting some money into a program of development and research which could stir up the country and do something to provide the one million jobs we are going to require very shortly. This research would provide some jobs immediately and would set the pattern to give us the one million jobs we are going to need in the next few years.
Coupled with this research we need development. I know the Liberal Party has been a stagnant party and does not like development. Their Members voted against a railway in Northern Alberta. They do not seem to think that this type of development is worth while. This is where government should be involved in initiating development and research, in getting private companies to go to work-because they are the people the Government is asking to pay the bills. We cannot keep taking a welfare approach to the question of poverty, because in the long term this will solve nothing. You can pay pensions and you can provide medical services, but unless you are going to provide
April 7, 1965

The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner the initiative for the great majority of Canadians to get out and develop the country then you are not going to have the money or the material wealth to undertake all of these welfare programs which everyone would like to see.
Very briefly, Sir, we need development along other lines in this country, and this Speech from the Throne is totally lacking in any of these directions. We need development of our human resources. We need some studies made with regard to leisure time and other social problems. We need development of our transportation system and research into transportation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has gone part way in this connection with his announcement the other day about airports. But we need more than that in Canada. We need landing rights for Canadian Pacific Air Lines in other cities in Canada, particularly Calgary and Edmonton. If we are to continue to be able to afford some of these welfare measures we need further development of our trade and marketing apparatus. We will have to get up off our fannies again and produce and package, market and sell. I do not see anything in this Speech from the Throne which will help us to do this.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)	-
The Speech from the Throne deals with international affairs. The best way that Canada can contribute to international affairs, in my opinion, is by setting an example here at home. Before we go rushing off into spheres into which we should not be, we should clean up our own backyard.
We need development in immigration. We need people in this country if we are going to develop our resources and have an adequate standard of living for all. We cannot do that through welfare projects. We cannot do that by adopting the superficial Univac political approach which this government has taken.
There is no doubt in my mind that we will support the subamendment because we have lost all confidence in this Government. They have bungled, they have led us up the garden path and they are completely inept as far as developing the country is concerned. We have no room in Canada for the Socialism of the Liberal Party; because with that Socialism we will have stagnation, and instead of raising the standard of living of the people of this country it will go down, because we will not be able to afford all these delightful welfare services which this Government would like to promise.
We need responsibility in Government and we should like to think that this Government would provide some leadership, but I am afraid there is no leadership there. There has not been any leadership provided by this Government for the great majority of the people in Canada who are paying the bills. This Government has not even suggested that it is going to do something about these problems. If we are not going to have production, if we cannot have employment and if we cannot have development, then we are not going to go very far, and we would be far better to take the $2 million and set up a research program.
The Department of Industry is not doing anything at this time. It could take over this research program and put it into effect through private establishments and we would then have a real start toward the development of this country. We must have this research and we must have it immediately, not only in respect of medical sciences but in respect of agricultural development and many other things. Let us stop putting the cart before the horse and return to some basic reasoning in this country, because we cannot continue to adopt welfare projects as a solution to poverty. Such a course will stagnate this country and will in the long run increase poverty.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I have lost any feeling that there is any semblance whatsoever of responsibility on the part of this Government. We therefore have no alternative but to kick them out and get back on the right road for the development of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty pursuant to section 3 of Standing Order 38 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the subamendment now before the house.


Mr. Smith:: I did not vote. I was paired with the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve).


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: I did not vote. I, too, was paired.


Mr. Mackasey:: I was paired with the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. McCutcheon:: I, too, was paired.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



Thursday, April 8, 1965