1965-04-12

Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies of the usual Budgetary Papers in English and in French and I should like to ask the consent of the house to have them appended to today's Votes and Proceedings and also appended to Hansard of the day on which the Budget is brought down.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to announce that subject to emergencies and barring accidents-and I am thinking of the vote which is to take place on Wednesday or Thursday-the Budget will be presented to the House on Monday evening, April 26.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-94, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964, with respect to the Quorum of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the quorum of the House of Commons from the present low figure of 20 Members to the more reasonable figure of 50 Members.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. [DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand from the House Leader that it is agreed that we will take the first six Government notices of motions together?


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that we take the first six in one
group. It will shorten the procedure. The others are simply being transferred.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BANK ACT


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the decennial revision of the Bank Act and the extension of the charters of the existing chartered banks till July 1, 1975, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the decennial revision of the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the extension of the powers of the existing savings banks till July 1, 1975, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That the House do go into Committee of the Whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:-
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act. 1954, to increase-
April 12, 1965

Introduction of Legislation
(a)	from two and one-half billion dollars to three and one quarter billion dollars the amount the Minister of Finance may advance to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of making direct loans to borrowers to assist in the construction of houses and housing projects;
(b)	from one hundred million dollars to three hundred million dollars the amount the Minister of Finance may advance or pay to the Corporation to make loans and grants relating to urban renewal schemes and to meet obligations incurred under urban redevelopment agreements;
(c)	from fifty million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars the amount in the special account established in the Consolidated Revenue Fund out of which advances may be made toward public housing projects developed jointly by the Corporation and a province or any agency thereof;
(d)	from one hundred and fifty million dollars to two hundred million dollars the maximum amount the Minister may advance to the Corporation for the purpose of making loans for university housing projects; and
(e)	from six billion dollars to eight and one half billion dollars the maximum amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued under the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the retirement, upon attaining the age of seventy five years, of any person appointed to the Senate after the coming into force of the said measure; to extend the provisions of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to such persons; to provide for the granting of an annuity to any person appointed to the Senate before the coming into force of the said measure who resigns his place in the Senate after having attained the age of seventy five years or having become afflicted with a permanent infirmity disabling him from the performance of his duties; and to provide further for the granting of an annuity to the widow of a person who was granted such an annuity upon resigning his place in the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, chapter 12 of the Statutes of 1963, to permit a

refund of or deduction from tax or a payment of an amount equal to tax to be made in respect of designated goods described in section 10 of that act that are sold and delivered, or applied to a use resulting in the property in the goods passing, after December 31, 1964.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend certain Acts respecting the superannuation of persons employed in the Public Service, members of the Canadian Forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to give effect to the provisions set out in Finance Votes 18d, 21d and 23d of the Supplementary Estimates (D) tabled in the House of Commons on March 19, 1965.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order-Government notices of motions.
April 9-The Minister of Agriculture:
That the recommendations contained in the Report of the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration Commission of Inquiry, tabled on July 29, 1964, including the following two questions:
1.	Whether the permanent staff of the P.F.A.A. should be brought under the Civil Service Commission, and
2.	Whether there should be other changes in the operation of the P.F.A.A.,
be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization for such recommendations as it deems advisable.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the order-Government notices of motions.
April 9-The Minister of Justice:
That a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the Government of Canada and the plans of the Government in relation thereto with powers to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon: send for persons, papers and
April 12, 1965
records; adjourn from place to place; sit during sittings of the House; and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee, and that Standing Order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That 15 Members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as Members of the said Committee; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable, some of their Members to act on the proposed joint Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I have not given him notice, but possibly he can check on the matter and give us an answer tomorrow.
Has the minister received complaints from western Nova Scotia with respect to damage being done by planes presumably based at an American base in Maine breaking the sound barrier, thereby doing considerable damage to residences and tremendous potential damage to all the mink farms in western Nova Scotia, where the mink pups will be bom within the next two or three weeks and the mothers would prefer to eat them rather than have them die of an atomic bomb.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if any complaints have been received they have not yet been brought to my notice, but I will certainly inquire into the matter and reply as soon as possible.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: May I put
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Has the Minister of National Defence received any complaints from people of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area to the effect that Voodoos stationed in Bagotville have also broken the sound barrier around five thirty or six o'clock in the morning, causing some concern to the population of the Jonquiere-Kenogami-Arvida area?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONSTITUTION



CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE COMMITTEE OF AMENDING FORMULA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread interest in the proposed amending formula with regard to the British North America Act, and in view of the fact that the various legislatures are now discussing its terms, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has given any further consideration to the recommendation of the hon. member for Greenwood that a parliamentary committee be set up at the earliest possible date to which this whole matter could be referred, so that members of parliament may have an opportunity to discuss it before it becomes a fait accompli.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are giving consideration to this matter, but no decision has been reached yet as to the procedure that should be followed.



RIGHT OF PROVINCES TO WITHDRAW FROM CONFEDERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of everything we read in the newspapers and hear over television at present, would the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if, under the terms of the constitution, a Canadian province could, sometime or other, withdraw from confederation if it so desires?
In view of what we hear these days it is important to know if a province can withdraw tomorrow from confederation.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if a province has such a right?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is far too important a question to attempt to deal with on orders of the day. Our constitution speaks for itself in this matter.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to

April 12, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Finance arising out of the budget brought down in the Quebec legislature last week. There is an additional item of $13 million for the extension of outpatient care under the Quebec hospitalization plan. I wonder whether the existing agreement with the Federal Government takes care of this, or has a supplementary agreement been made with the Federal Government to pay a portion of this additional outpatient cost?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to take the question as notice and look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether, when he is looking into the agreement between Quebec and the Federal Government with respect to the cost of outpatient care, he would also look up the agreement between the Federal Government and Alberta to find out whether the Federal Government will be sharing in the additional outpatient costs which I think were approved at the recent sitting of the Legislature.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am now beginning to understand the purport of the hon. Member's first question. I will look into both these points.



TORONTO-REFUSAL OF PATIENT TO LEAVE HOSPITAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I should like to direct a question to the minister of health or to a representative of that Department, and inquire whether the Department will be taking any direct action to see that an appeal is entered in relation to an opinion expressed by the Ontario Supreme Court with respect to the patient at St. Joseph's Hospital, Toronto, who has refused to vacate his bed after being discharged by a body of doctors, thus imposing on Canadian taxpayers an unnecessary charge of $30.90 a day for the maintenance of this hospital patient.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: In the absence of my colleague I will be glad to take that question as notice and bring it to her attention.



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING AGENDA OF DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to

the Prime Minister with respect to the proposed federal-provincial conference set for May, I believe, on the question of health services. Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to table the correspondence with the provincial governments concerning the agenda of that conference, which on Tuesday of last week he said he would be willing to table?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we have received the permission of all the Provinces to whom correspondence has been addressed, but as soon as we have I would be glad to table it, and I hope to do this very quickly.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister now in a position to inform the House what plans are under way to re-establish those workers in the Canadian auto parts industry who are being and who will be dislocated by the new automobile agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I had a meeting with representatives of the automobile manufacturers as the first stage in developing appropriate programs. Further discussions will be held by the officials of the Department of Labour and the Department of Industry with the automobile manufacturers. Beyond that I have no report to make to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. As a result of his conversation with the automobile manufacturers is he in a position to give the House the same assurance the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave the Star in Windsor, that there will be no layoffs as a result of this agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The discussions with the automobile manufacturers on Friday last confirmed the statement already made that there will be a substantial increase in total employment and total jobs available in the industry as a result of this agreement. There will be dislocations, and the purpose of our discussion is to mitigate or minimize these dislocations where practicable and possible; that is the point of the exercise. However, it should be borne in mind that these adjustments will
April 12, 1965

take place within the context of expanding employment within this particular industry.


Reid Scott: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the widespread uncertainty as to the precise plans of the government in the area of dislocation, can the Minister tell the House when he will be in a position to make a firm statement of Government policy in this regard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The purpose of the discussion, Mr. Speaker, is to isolate and pinpoint as accurately as possible the sources of dislocation. Until that is accomplished more accurately it would be impossible to develop plans such as my hon. friend suggests. This is one of the purposes of the further consultations. I think it is fair to say that it would be wrong to create apprehensions and fears at this stage about potential displacement.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which arises out of the very serious ship collision on the St. Lawrence River over the week end, in which one ship burned and subsequently sank. Does the department plan an investigation into this collision and if so, in view of the number of serious collisions on the St. Lawrence in recent years, will the investigation also look into the question of whether the river is carrying more ship traffic than is warranted by its size?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The usual investigation will be made.


Hon. A. J. MacLean (Queens):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Will the Minister say what action, if any, his department is taking to lessen the hazards of ship collisions in the St. Lawrence which, it would appear, are fairly great?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to look into the possibility of making a statement on the subject on some future occasion. It is not a matter I can answer on orders of the day.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
Inquiries of the Ministry
While conducting his investigation, could he check whether the pilots of the ships involved in the accident on the St. Lawrence river came from the maritime provinces?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a question I would have to look into at some length.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture in a hopeful vein. Does the Secretary know whether the Minister has received representations from the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association for an amendment to the Farm Credit Corporation Act or other legislation so that tree fruit growers may borrow long term low interest funds in order to renovate their orchards by cutting out trees of low market varieties or low volume root stocks in order to replace removed trees with varieties acceptable to the consuming public of high volume production?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will assist the Chair by putting this question on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Prime Minister as the result of a telegram I received a few minutes ago. It says:
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
Fifty eight employees to be laid off at Louisburg project April 20. Are these men to be the first prisoners in the war on poverty or are there plans to place them in other jobs?
Executive The Fortress of Louisburg Employees
Association.
Since the Prime Minister has at this late date personally become interested in poverty, would he be so kind as to investigate the contents of this telegram and report to the House?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the preamble to this question, but the rest I shall be glad to look into.
April 12. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



PREPARATION OF PAMPHLET ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to address to the Minister of Justice but in his absence I shall address it to his Parliamentary Secretary. On Friday the Minister referred to an information sheet which his department is going to prepare with regard to capital punishment. I would like to ask him whether those of us who still have some respect for the moral law and believe in the retention of capital punishment will have an opportunity to look at the contents of this pamphlet before it is printed, so that both sides of the question can be presented fairly to the public.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest this is a question for the order paper.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Ten o'clock.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Perhaps in his absence the Parliamentary Secretary would have the information. It deals with the report of the Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and I am wondering when the report of that Committee can be expected.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: My understanding is that the report will be ready within a month or so.



ALBERTA-TRANSFER OF PRISONER TO B.C. INSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: My
question is for the Minister of Justice, but perhaps in his absence the Parliamentary Secretary could take it as notice. A man by the name of Talbot was given eight years in the Prince Albert penitentiary for stealing at least $200,000 from the Alberta Cancer Association. It has now been reported that he has been removed from that penitentiary to a minimum security institution in British Columbia. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would give us a full report on the circumstances.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be glad to take the question as notice.



CONSIDERATION OF EARNED REMISSION WITH RESPECT TO PAROLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice could I pose a question to his Parliamentary Secretary and in this way give notice of the question, because it may require reference to some files and documents. I base my question on a letter which I have just received, and it is necessary to quote two brief sentences from it in order to make my question intelligible. The letter relates to a former inmate of the British Columbia penitentiary, one Raymond Johnson, and according to the letter:
In Johnson's case he was sentenced to ten years in 1957, was paroled in July, 1962, found that because of the new Penitentiary Act 468 days that he had earned under the old Act was added to his parole period, thus in effect he was having to serve this time over again. He claimed in the writ-
That is a writ of habeas corpus.
-that earned remission under the old Act could not be considered statutory remission under the new Act. Johnson appeared before Mr. Justice Ruttan and was ordered released.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, what the Government or the Department is doing in respect to all other inmates who find themselves in a similar position, or all other exinmates who have been released on parole since that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was going to direct this question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in reference to Indians, but in his absence I would like to direct it to the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is right here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, I am sorry; he is here. Would the Minister consider setting up a Royal Commission to examine the fact that Canadian Indians are living on reserves in a state of destitution, and the medical attention they are receiving is totally inadequate?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give the suggestion consideration. I
April 12, 1965

might say, however, that as the House knows we already contemplate the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission, and there is an interdepartmental committee already being set up to study part of the subject matter referred to in the hon. Member's question, but I will take his suggestion under advisement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think maybe I misunderstood the Minister, but surely he is not suggesting the Claims Commission will be the answer to the Indians' poverty and the inadequate medical attention they are receiving?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am not suggesting any such thing. I am simply reminding the hon. Member that a bill to establish a Claims Commission for Indians is largely drafted, and that an interdepartmental committee has been set up to study many of the matters he has mentioned. In addition to that I said that I would take his suggestion under advisement.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Minister correctly he said the interdepartmental committee has now been established. If so, can he tell us its composition?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The names will be announced at an early date. I might say that five or six of the members have been appointed. I am not sure whether the chairman has been agreed upon, but this will be announced within the next day or so.


Frank Howard: Could the
Minister tell us how he is progressing in proposing or developing amendments to the Indian Act, based upon the recommendations of the joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on Indian Affairs which reported in 1961 and have since been lost sight of?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Air Lines have achieved agreement on domestic fare structures, can the Minister advise the House when we may expect him to announce the regional air carrier policy for Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as the relationships between the
Inquiries of the Ministry two main line carriers and international carriers are concerned, I hope it will not be very long now.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has there been any communication from the Government of the Province of Alberta to the Government of Canada with respect to a motion passed unanimously by the Legislative Assembly of Alberta on April 8, strongly urging the commencement of negotiations between the Government of Canada and the United States Government, with a view to early commencement on the paving of the Alaska Highway?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of any communication, but I will have to check.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State, but in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. On Friday last the Secretary of State announced that a meeting would be held to determine the result of discussions with regard to Kitsilano R.C.A.F. station.


Mr. Winch:: Don't forget who asked the question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Can the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary tell me what conclusion was arrived at?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of staying up late tonight, may I say that the answer is no.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I do not find that too informative, Mr. Speaker, and would like to
debate the matter at ten o'clock.
April 12, 196S

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



USE OF FORM 1000 BY CHINESE IMMIGRANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On Friday last the hon. member for Pictou inquired about the use of Form 1000. In reply to the hon. Member's question, I said that this form had been used for some considerable time in connection with people of the Chinese race who were returning to Canada, and I added that its use had been done away with in connection with Chinese Canadians returning to this country after visits to China.
I should have stated that the use of the form would be continued for identification purposes for people of the Chinese race coming to Canada in the first instance. However, its use has been discontinued in respect of naturalized Canadians, or Canadians domiciled in this country, who return to Canada after a visit to China.



PEACE RIVER-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE RESPECTING DAMP WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I regret I could not give him notice; I have just received some telegrams. Will the hon. gentleman consult with the Canadian Wheat Board to find out whether anything can be done to alleviate a serious situation which has developed in the Peace River country because, with the approach of spring, large quantities of damp wheat on the farms are rapidly deteriorating?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be happy to take up the question with the Canadian Wheat Board.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that we have not had a report from the Minister for some time on the state of the Canadian dollar, can the House be advised whether he feels the Canadian dollar is being maintained at a desirable level?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, I do.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: 
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I seem to have difficulty in getting this thought across. I have said on several occasions, and I am perfectly prepared to repeat it now, that it is in the interests of the country to maintain the value of the dollar at its present level.



CONSIDERATION OF BILL INCREASING QUORUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Government's interest in the procedures of this House, and in particular in view of the Prime Minister's stated interest in improving respect for Parliament, I wonder whether the Government would consider either making Government time available for, or taking over, the Bill I introduced this morning calling for an increase in the quorum of the House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to give consideration to that matter but first, I think, I had better read the Bill.



INQUIRY AS TO REDUCTION OF VOTING AGE TO 18

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question which is based on the Government's well known desire to honour its commitments. I am wondering when the Prime Minister will be honouring his commitment of last year to introduce legislation lowering the voting age to 18.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any commitment to that effect, but I do recall a statement of approval on the part of Members on the Government side for a reduction to that age. The matter will certainly receive very serious

April 12, 1965	COMMONS
consideration, but it is not of immediate priority.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question which arises out of the answer given by the Prime Minister to the question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in which the Prime Minister said he would first like to study the bill. Would the Prime Minister consider whether the bill makes provision for improving the attendance of N.D.P. members?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps the Prime Minister would also do something about the attendance of his own party members, as witness the number of members on that side present this morning.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There seems to be a little too much agitation for a Monday morning.



BICULTURALISM AND BILINGUALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I refer to a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition and others last week in regard to the nature of a questionnaire which was sent to certain Members of Parliament by the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission seeking on a voluntary basis certain information from Members.
I agree that the Commission should naturally seek all relevant information on the bilingual and bicultural aspects of the work of our institutions, including Parliament. I agree that a Government should not tell a Royal Commission what it can do and how it should do it within its terms of reference. But so far as this particular questionnaire to Members of Parliament is concerned, if I were asked to answer it in its present form I would not, as I consider many of the questions irrelevant and some highly inappropriate.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of his statement respecting this questionnaire by the B and B Commission, has
DEBATES	217
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister brought this matter to the attention of the B and B Commission and asked them to desist from proceeding any further with this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have, Mr. Speaker. They have naturally been following this matter in the Commons Debates, and I have taken it up with the Minister who speaks for the Commission in the House. I have also been in touch with the Commission myself.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I am pleased to hear that he agrees with me and others that a lot of these questions are inappropriate, but would he tell us-and if he cannot would he find out-whether this inquisition will be continued with the rest of the members? Because so far, as I understand it, some 40 or 50 members have been canvassed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interfere improperly with the business of a Royal Commission, but I would think, after reviewing what was said earlier this morning in the House of Commons, that the Royal Commission might wish to have another look at this questionnaire.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the house if the federal government intends to defray the costs of necessary repairs to the roadway of the Jacques Cartier bridge which has become impassable; if so, when will such repairs be undertaken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the National Harbours Board that they are well aware of the need for certain repairs being made to the Jacques Cartier bridge. The matter is under active consideration, and the necessary steps will be taken very shortly.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cashin for
April 12, 1968
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Rondeau an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder (Mr. Chretien) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have performed their tasks singularly well; they praised the speech to high heaven. Both their speeches were magnificent examples of a torrent of words devoid of any ideas.
The speech from the throne we heard last Monday was merely the icing covering the budget cake to be served to us in a few days. What will the budget speech contain, we do not know as yet, but it will reflect the future policy of the country's financiers put forward by their go-between, I mean this government.
This speech is particularly noteworthy not for the solutions it brings but for the acknowledgements it contains.
Upon careful reading of this speech, I mean the speech from the throne, one wonders whether the Liberal party awakening from a bad dream is not telling us this bad dream is about the results of its policies which have lacked administrative foresight during the 33 years it has been in office in the last 45 years of the country's administration.
We have at least learned one thing from this speech from the throne: Poverty does exist in Canada. For the past 25 years the Credi-tistes have repeatedly pointed out that poverty existed in Canada and have succeeded at least in opening the eyes of the Liberals who finally have admitted and acknowledged that poverty does exist. After having been in office for 33 years out of the last 45 years of the country's administration, the Liberals have finally admitted that poverty does exist in Canada and that the Creditistes were right in speaking about poverty.
The worst off in all that are the poor themselves who had to live for those 33 years under a Liberal administration and who had to live and suffer from Liberal policies.
I should like to quote here a few lines from the speech from the throne in order to show how ridiculous it is:
Our country is achieving a high rate of economic growth. Trade is expanding. With growing industrialization. Canadians are enjoying rapidly increasing employment opportunities; incomes and living standards are rising; the number of people

out of work has been reduced to lower levels than for many years.
And immediately after this, we find that:
All the great potentialities of our economy are not, however, being realized. The talents of some of our people are wasted because of poverty, illness, inadequate education and training, inequality. in opportunities for work.
The measures to correct that misery, as set forth in the speech from the throne, are yet unknown. But the adoption of "O Canada" as the national anthem is mentioned in order to enable all Canadians to sing officially their national anthem, including those who are in misery and poverty because of Liberal policies especially, and also of Conservative policies for that matter; indeed, at the rate debts, taxes and poverty are increasing at present it will soon be more accurate to sing: "O Canada, our home and taxing land".
In 1963, at the time of the last federal election, everyone remembers the dirty publicity campaign launched by the Liberal party against the Social Credit to the tune of at least $5,000 a day, in the newspaper La Presse. Those full page ads were headed:
Social Credit means poverty.
But it is not the Social Crediters who have been in office in Ottawa since 1963 and yet one can read in the Liberal government's speech from the throne that there is poverty and want in Canada.
The poverty which is mentioned in the speech from the throne did not spring up overnight among the people. It results from the administration of the two old-line parties which have succeeded one another in office since confederation. Poverty is the offspring of past governments which, through their systems, sowed and today are reaping poverty and want. They have never had any policies to prevent hardship and poverty. On the contrary, they have always allowed hardship and poverty to grow worse from day to day.
What with taxes and debts, the two old-line parties do their utmost to drive people to poverty and keep them there. Every day and in every way, we are told that our country is tremendously rich in all sorts of things. That is true. So much so that we hardly know the real value of our natural and other resources. And yet, this same country, in spite of all its wealth, is forcing its own people to live in insecurity, sickness, poverty, unemployment, to such an extent that they need unemployment assistance, public welfare and charitable institutions. The people know what bankruptcy and poverty are.
April 12. 1965

We have a rich, an affluent country, due to our national resources and the labour of our people, but we have poor and indigent people because of the political and economic system of the old-line parties.
While Ottawa was considering waging war on poverty, the provincial budget made public last week in Quebec brought us a shower of new taxes, an increase in taxes which will increase the number of poor and poverty in the province of Quebec. Poverty in Ottawa and taxes in Quebec. Liberal in Ottawa, Liberal in Quebec. Grits in Ottawa, Grits in Quebec.
I would like to quote an article by Leslie Roberts published in the Montreal Star, Saturday, April 10, 1965, page 5:
[DOT]	(11:40 a.m.)

Between Ourselves Dirty Word "Thrift"
What makes me dubious is the fact that as a people we have totally abandoned all notions of respectable frugality, all ideas of pay as you go, nowhere more than at the highest levels of government.
When Mr. Gordon, the Minister of Finance, tabled his estimates for the Federal Government's new fiscal year which began on April 1, his proposed spending figures for the period which will end on March 31, 1966, topped $8,000,000,000, with more to come later in what are called "supple-mentaries."
Assuming a population of 20,000,000 Canadians, what this means is that the federal authority alone plans to spend $400 for every man, woman and new-born babe in the country.
If you proceed from this point to regard five people as comprising the average Canadian family, you arrive at a figure of $2,000, representing what Mr. Gordon proposes to spend per household this year-and in most households I would guess the bite is carved out of one income.
This is just the federal tab. After that the province and your municipality still have to collect their share.
As Quebec has just budgeted for expenditures of approximately $2,000,000,000 and we are 5,000,000 Quebeckers that's another $400 per household of five.
Another fascinating item here is that of Mr. Gordon's eight billions, at least $1 in every eight he raises (whether in taxes or new borrowings) will go into what is politely called "servicing the national debt."
[DOT]	(11:50 a.m.)
What this means, in the kind of language laymen use to communicate with each other, is that $1 in every eight Mr. Gordon acquires by taxes or new loans will be expended solely to pay interest on money we already owe. This is $1 billion for which the Canadian people will not get a damned thing in return-a steadily rising total which you may as well jot down on your reminder pad as the high cost of deficit financing.

This article criticizes the financial system which we have unceasingly denounced for
The Address-Mr. Rondeau more than 20 years. We are now subject to an inflationary system and it is because we have known this inflationary system that we of the Ralliement Creditiste move today an amendment in order to balance one aspect of our national economy, family allowances.
The Family Allowances Act was passed on August 15, 1944, more than 20 years ago, and the first benefits were paid under this act on July 1, 1945. This was an act for which the Government of the day had reason to be proud. It was the same party as the one which is in office now, the Liberal party. We are wondering if the present Government does not regret the enactment of that piece of legislation since it has let the purchasing power of family allowances fall to nothing or practically nothing. In fact, the cost of living has tripled since 1945. Everything has gone up and increased threefold and often more, such as the indemnities of members of parliament and of members of most provincial legislatures. Only family allowances have remained at the same level as in 1945, which means that they are only worth one third of their original value.
Whereas they permitted the purchase of a quart of milk for children, in 1945, they now permit the purchase of only one third of a quart. It is the same thing all along the line. Milk which sold for 10 cents a quart in 1945 now costs 25 cents.
In 1945 a 24-ounce loaf of bread sold for 10 cents while it now sells for 25 cents in 1965. Compare the cost of living in any area and you will realize that what cost 100 per cent in 1945 has gone up 300 per cent today.
In 1945 an hon. member's indemnity was $4,000 while it is now $12,000 in 1965. Hon. members' expense allowances were $2,000 in 1945, while they have gone up to $6,000 in 1965.
Family allowances have remained at the same level since 1945. When an employer cuts his employee's salary by half it is because he is not satisfied with his services and he would have no regret if he were to quit his job. Should we conclude the same thing in the case of family allowances whose value is reduced to one third of their initial value? And to think that the Liberals would prefer that such a legislation had never been passed.
I see government members vehemently denying those charges. Why, then, do they leave family allowances at the same level as in 1945? Why did they reject every year motions to raise family allowances in order to give them back their initial value? Every
April 12. 1965

The Address-Mr. Rondeau session we of the Ralliement Creditiste made new attempts to have family allowances raised to put them in line with the cost of living index.
There is no electoral approach in this plea. We are only concerned with the welfare of families raising children. The party in office does not care for the welfare of families between general elections, but waits for the eve of new elections to give a thought to family allowances. Why wait until the next election to think about children and families? Thereby, the Liberal party proves once more that its hunger for power is stronger than its concern for the well-being of this country.
The government knows where to find young people when it launches a military crusade, but it cares a lot less about the families where are born and will grow those who will be 20 a few years from now.
The amount paid as family allowances should be tripled to meet family needs and to counterbalance cost of living increases since 1945. By so doing, families could buy three times more products than they can now afford. Stores have a surplus of products, industry is always ready to produce more, farmers find it difficult to sell their products. They are all waiting for orders from the families who need this production.
If the government has compromised itself with financiers who control it, if it cannot make capital serve production by taking money from the Bank of Canada in order to satisfy production and if, out of respect for financiers who had it elected, the government has to resort to taxation, well, it should dip into the national defence budget, into the armaments budget, in order to increase family allowances.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latu-lippe):
That the following words be added to the address:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose legislation to adjust the family allowances according to the rise of the cost of living index since 1945, and no longer enjoy the confidence of the house and the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: I have had an opportunity of reading the proposed amendment and I should like to hear from one or two Members if they would care to speak on the point of whether or not it is in order. I would call the attention of hon. Members to

Beauchesne, citation 200, subsection 1, which reads in part as follows:
An old rule of Parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House."
While it is true that the amendment proposed by hon. members of the Social Credit party covered a great many other items, this amendment would appear at first sight to be a subsection or a part of their original amendment which was subsequently negatived. However, if any hon. members have anything to say I will be glad to listen.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the language that was used in the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, which reads in part as follows:
.. .having thereby failed to raise family allowances in keeping with the cost of living...
That was part of his amendment and one of his reasons for asserting lack of confidence in the Government. That amendment was voted on last Friday. The amendment now offered attacks the Government and proposes want of confidence in that the Government has failed to propose legislation to adjust family allowances according to the rise of the index of the cost of living. In other words the two motions are identical in that respect. They both invite the Members to show lack of confidence in the Government because the Government has failed to raise family allowances. This is the allegation in the two of them. It is true that the subamendment on Friday added other things, but on this point they are identical. The amendment merely takes part of the subamendment that was offered on Friday, and which was rejected by the House, and brings it forward again. I therefore ask that you rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Do other members wish to take part in this debate?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, citation 200 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules And Forms states:
An old rule of parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house".
The beginning of that citation reads as follows:
That a question being once made and carried-
April 12, 1965
On the other hand, the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) reads as follows:
-having failed to carry out an economic and financial program such as would have been possible through the facilities of the Bank of Canada-
That is the question submitted to the approbation of the house. I continue:
*-having thereby failed to raise family allowances in keeping with the cost of living-
That is a second question in the same subamendment; I continue the quotation:
-and been unsuccessful in establishing a balanced economy and in lightening the burden of the public debt and the interests thereon-
That is a third question in the same subamendment, which continues as follows:
-so as to provide every Canadian with a standard of living consistent with the value of this country's natural resources; not having considered it advisable to invest a huge amount of debt free social capital through the Bank of Canada-
That is a fourth question in the same subamendment which goes on as follows:
-with a view to financing the training of an adequate staff to deal with medical and hospital care, do not enjoy the confidence of this house.
Thus, the subamendment included five different questions.
It is recognized that such a subamendment should normally have been found out of order, but it was not.
As the said subamendment included five different questions, it might have occurred during the vote that certain members would have been in favour of one of the five proposals contained in the subamendment, but opposed to the others. Furthermore, some hon. members could have been for the second proposal and against the fourth and thus they would have voted against it in the house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of Beauchesne's citations states that when an amendment is incomplete, and I am trying to find it-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gilles Grégoire: In any case, Mr. Speaker, the citation I am trying to find specifies that when an amendment is not clear enough to permit the house to vote on each proposal, then it can be amended.
That is exactly what has happened in the case of the subamendment presented by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency which contained five completely different questions.
This means, therefore, that hon. members who intended to vote for increasing family 22620-15
The Address-Mr. Rondeau allowances based on the cost of living index but who, for instance, did not want to vote for using the potentialities of the Bank of Canada or for the investment of large debt-free social capital through the Bank of Canada, did not really have any opportunity, as a matter of fact, to vote for increasing family allowances because they had to vote, at the same time, for using credit through the Bank of Canada. I think that would have been unfair to hon. members as a whole and that is why I maintain that the house has not yet been called upon to vote on the specific matter of increasing family allowances. In fact, the house was called upon to vote, not on the first question, but on a series of measures one of which could have been accepted by some and rejected by others.
That is why I say that citation 200 of Beauchesne which reads as follows:
A question being once made and carried-
-does not apply in this case, because the subamendment of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency contains five different proposals. Consequently, it is not each individual proposal which has been carried but the five of them as a whole, and this was done by a subamendment to another motion, the one dealing with the scandals within the government.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, and precisely because the house has been called upon to decide on a group of questions and not on a specific question, I submit that the house has not voted on the issue dealt with in the amendment which has just been moved. Under the circumstances, I feel that the amendment is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to decide whether or not the proposed amendment is in order. Let me say at the beginning that an amendment is not necessarily out of order because it may be vague or even complex. However, the Chair has to be bound by tradition and the rules of the House. May I read this citation once more, the first paragraph:
An old rule of Parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House."
The next sentence gives the justification for such a rule:
Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.



April 12/ 1965
Division
I must come to the conclusion that in my judgment this amendment deals with the same matter that has already been decided by the house and, therefore, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment as proposed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think that we must appeal against your ruling, because the amendment we have moved is strictly in order.
So, I ask that your ruling be put to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the decision of the Chair, from which the hon. Member for Villeneuve has appealed to the House. All those in favour of sustaining the decision of the Chair will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the House from a ruling of the Chair which is as follows:
To the motion for an Address in Reply to His Excellency's Speech from the Throne, the hon. Member for Shefford proposed in amendment thereto the following:
"That the following be added to the Address:


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Speaker:: "We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose legislation to adjust the family allowances according to the rise of the index of the cost of living since 1945, and no longer enjoy the confidence of the House and the Canadian people."
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that in. effect the substance and essence thereof was a question on which the House expressed a judgment on Friday, April 9 last during the course of the current debate.
Whereupon the hon. Member for Villeneuve appealed to the House from the decision of the Chair.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the ruling sustained. [Text]


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: It
is indeed an honour for me to take part in this debate. I too would like to join with my colleagues in all parts of this House in congratulating the Mover and the Seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I am more than proud to belong to a group in this House which includes such energetic and aggressive members.
I do not intend to spend very much time on the contents of the Speech from the Throne. At the outset, however, I wish to put on record some comments which appeared in an editorial published on April 6 in the Toronto Star, since these comments express my own views.
The Speech from the Throne which opened the new session at Ottawa yesterday may fairly be called an historic document. It outlined what is probably the largest, boldest and most sweeping program ever submitted to a Canadian Parliament.
Then it goes on:
This Speech from the Throne remains a tremendous challenge to Canada. It is nothing less than a call to bring the economic and social forces which dominate, and sometimes wreck, the lives of Canadians under public control.
I compliment the Government on the contents of this Speech from the Throne which is so challenging, so ambitious and so visionary, if I may use that word. However, I feel there has not for many years been a debate in this house on a most important topic. I refer, of course, to the subject of the St. Lawrence waterway upon which a debate took place in 1951.
That debate was probably one of the most important which has ever taken place in this House. I certainly wish to make some comments on the present Seaway because of the contribution it has made to the economic life of this country, to job opportunities and to the industrial development of Canada.
The St. Lawrence Seaway has been described as the world's greatest engineering project. Its most remarkable feature is the Welland ship canal, a navigational facility unequalled anywhere in the world. It was designed, constructed and paid for solely by the Canadian people at a time when Canada had yet to achieve the proud place it occupies in the world today.
The first Welland ship canal was constructed in 1829 in the face of incredible difficulties, physical, financial and political. It was 22620-151
The Address-Mr. Macaluso the opening of the present canal which did so much to ensure the progress and prosperity which Canadians have since enjoyed. We should never forget, however, that the first canal was opened only after a long and bitter struggle, and that all subsequent improvements were brought about by courageous and determined men who fought deeply entrenched opposing interests.
In 1932, the Welland ship canal was deepened to 25 feet, giving impetus to the growth of industrial development throughout a large area. As a result of this demonstration of what a canal 25 feet deep could do, it was further deepened to 27 feet. This work was completed in 1959.
The canal is the most crucial part of the St. Lawrence Seaway. In 1964 the cargo throughput was 51.4 million net tons. This was nearly double the tonnage handled in
1958	before the Seaway was completed. Despite the fact that the Seaway operates only eight months of the year the project has encountered opposition from those who have always feared and resented its existence. In
1959	the Seaway from Montreal to Lake Ontario handled 20.4 million net tons of cargo, and in 1964 this figure rose to 39.3 million net tons, an increase of more than 92 per cent. I submit this explains the vociferous opposition which the Seaway has engendered since its inception.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
A great part of this cargo tonnage is being attracted away from the United States Atlantic coast ports. Last year it is interesting to note that the United States North Atlantic Ports Association, which represents 13 port districts, told a United States Senate subcommittee:
The greatest share of traffic that today moves via the Seaway once moved via the ports along the seaboard. Without doubt those who have suffered the greatest loss as a result of the Seaway have been the North Atlantic ports.
In January, 1965 the Association of American Railroads issued a statement which, in part, had this to say:
Prudent judgment would indicate that there is no alternative except to raise Seaway tolls to a more realistic level. Our interest in this subject is stimulated by the Seaway competition with railroads.
Also in May of 1964, Mr. Speaker, the National Association for a Non-Subsidized Seaway, with headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland, and which represents United States Atlantic, Gulf and west coast ports, issued a statement before the same Senate sub-
April 12, 1965

The Address^Mr. Macaluso committee; and its chairman, a Democratic Congressman from Maryland, characterized the Seaway at that time as, and I quote, "a monstrosity". He said:
We hope this Senate subcommittee will recognize that the good of the Seaway, the good of the nation, and indeed of expanding world trade will best be served by raising tolls on the Seaway.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is an absurd statement and in the interests of the continued good relations between Canada and the United States I will not comment further on this very extraordinary statement.
Canadian railway and truck operators have benefited from the heavy flow of traffic along the St. Lawrence Seaway, and it is important to bear in mind that every pound of the 39.3 million net tons of cargo which transited the Seaway from Montreal to Lake Ontario in 1964 was transported at one step or another by rail or truck in Canada. So much so, Mr. Speaker, that in 1964 Mr. N. R. Crump, the chairman and chief executive officer of Canadian Pacific Railway, said that the movement of bulk cargoes in export have been a factor in the favourable showing made by railroads in 1964. There is a reflection of that movement found in the fact that in 1964 tonnage of Canadian steel consumed by Canadian builders of railway cars and locomotives increased by 135 per cent over 1963.
One of the principal reasons for the construction of the Seaway, which was put forward back in 1951, was to facilitate the movement of Canadian forest products, iron ore and coal from the lower St. Lawrence and Nova Scotia to ports on the Great Lakes, and of Canadian wheat to overseas ports. The St. Lawrence River ports in 1964 handled for export 270 million bushels of Canadian grain. It is obvious that without the St. Lawrence Seaway it would have been quite impossible to commit ourselves to supply such enormous tonnages of wheat to Russia and to other iron curtain countries. Iron ore from the lower St. Lawrence destined for United States Great Lakes ports furnished the greatest tonnage of any commodity transiting the Seaway.
Therefore in my view, and in the view of many others, the Seaway has provided an increase in traffic for Canadian ports, for Canadian railroads and Canadian road haulers; and has also performed a most notable economic, political and social service to the whole of Canada by making it possible to create a whole new civilization in the lower St. Lawrence valley. This in turn involved millions of dollars of Canadian investment, created new and substantial markets,

continuing and growing markets, for Canadian products and manufactured foodstuffs.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, more important than this today, about 85 per cent of the bulk cargo transiting the Seaway and the Welland ship canal is carried in Canadian vessels. This is most interesting, because one of the most important reasons put forward in 1951 for the imposition of tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway was that United States vessels would provide the bulk of the revenue. But this is not the case. The movement of Canadian raw materials through the St. Lawrence has stimulated Canadian shipbuilding industries in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, and this has been a direct result of the construction of the Seaway.
I should like to refer to the book "The St. Lawrence Seaway" written by Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the present Canadian High Commissioner to Great Britain, which was published in 1959. In discussing the matter of tolls Mr. Chevrier had this to say, as recorded at page 114 of his book:
The question of tolls was often used as a political and economic argument to make the Seaway impossible. The powerful interests in the U.S., when they could no longer stop the construction of the Seaway, tried to get the tolls pinned at hopelessly high rates, high enough to scare all shipping away from the Seaway.
At that time Senator Wiley was piloting the bill through the U.S. Senate, and Mr. Chevrier says:
Wiley emphasized that the U.S. must have a voice in setting tolls. She must be able to watch for the possibility of reducing tolls when possible. ..
The U.S. could not permit Canada to dominate the Seaway. For the same reason she was loath to see Canada planning duplicate facilities during construction of the joint venture.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the revenue from tolls is not coming from United States vessels but from Canadian vessels. Canada reluctantly accepted, under duress, the principle of trying to make the Seaway self-liquidating through tolls within 50 years, a hitherto unheard of provision in the history of North American navigation, both coastal and inland. When the Government announced last year the twinning of the remaining locks in the Welland ship canal at a cost in excess of $180 million, it also announced its continued adherence to the unique and highly discriminatory principle of trying to recover capital costs of this public work through tolls.
Presently, Mr. Speaker, tolls on the Welland ship canal are suspended, if I may quote the Minister, "for the time being". The tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway from Montreal to Lake Ontario are frozen at their 1959 level
April 12, 1965	COMMONS
until July 1, 1966. Therefore I bring this matter to the attention of the house at the earliest opportunity.
We might ask ourselves, what is the burden of tolls? The largest type of Canadian bulk carrier, fully loaded with Canadian iron ore or Canadian coal upbound from the lower St. Lawrence, or loaded with Canadian grain downbound from the Lakehead, pays $12,400 each time it transits the Seaway between Montreal and Lake Ontario, and vice-versa. The length of the Seaway is approximately 124 miles. I regret to hear the junior Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) applauding, Mr. Speaker. This amounts to a toll of $100 per mile.
Out of every $100 collected from tolls, $29 is paid to the United States in U.S. funds. These funds are coming from Canadian vessels. To my mind this is a humiliating position for a country which built and operated an all-Canadian Seaway from Montreal to Lake Erie on a virtually toll free basis for 111 years. Our main interest as Canadians, Mr. Speaker, should be to bring about abolition of all tolls on Canadian inland waterways in accordance with the long-standing Canadian policy of toll free navigational facilities, which has served us so well in the past. The continued existence of tolls on what was once an all-Canadian and virtually toll free Seaway constitutes a dangerous precedent for the extension of the principle of trying to recover the capital costs of other vital water transportation facilities, both coastal and inland, in this fashion.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Thus it is my sincere belief that Canada should restore the St. Lawrence Seaway from Montreal to Lake Erie to its all-Canadian character by constructing a lock at Cornwall, Ontario, and revert to our historical policy of toll free inland waterways which still applies to our coastal waterways. We face a battle to prevent the usefulness of the whole St. Lawrence waterway from being curtailed by the actions of those who have always been opposed to its existence and who now have greater reason than ever to fear and resent its success.
It is interesting to note that the Seaway opened this year on April 8, and I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on that date, as follows:
The St. Lawrence Seaway opens today for its seventh and probably most profitable season-
I suggest that we have a hard battle to fight against very powerful and persistent
DEBATES	225
The Address-Mr. Macaluso enemies both in the United States and at home. This was described in Mr. Chevrier's book. I regret that the hon. Members for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) and Halifax (Mr. Regan) take such a regionalistic outlook to this very important problem.
Major opposition to a toll free Seaway from Montreal to Lake Ontario has been based on the premise that exemption from tolls is equivalent to a subsidy. Let me name some of these very revealing titles. The National Association for Non-Subsidized Seaways; the Maryland Committee for Non-Subsidized Seaways; the New York-New Jersey Committee for a Self-Supporting Seaway; the United States North Atlantic, Gulf and Caribbean ports, as well as the Association of American Railroads, all are long-standing opponents of the Seaway.
Yet strangely none of the above mentioned bodies, or other opponents of the Seaway, are on record as being opposed to the maintenance at public expense, on a toll free basis, of channels capable of accommodating deep sea ships in such United States rivers as the Hudson to Albany, New York; the Delaware to Trenton, New Jersey; the Mississippi to Baton Rouge, Louisiana; the Columbia to Dalles, Oregon; and the Sacramento to Sacramento, California. None of those rivers is of such importance to the economy of the United States as the St. Lawrence is to that of Canada, yet in all of North America only the St. Lawrence from Montreal to Lake Ontario is subject to tolls.
In the light of our dependence upon exports for the level of our over-all business activity it is difficult to understand why this discrimination should be tolerated by Canadians. The St. Lawrence Seaway not only provides access to overseas markets for Canadian grain and other natural products, and for a growing export of manufactured goods, but also provides access to the extensive and growing United States markets in the Great Lakes area for forest and mineral products from Quebec and the Maritimes. This means that the Seaway makes a very vital contribution to the solution of our vexing balance of payments problem.
Many, many ports in the U.S. are now proceeding with channel and harbour deepening and placing themselves in a position to handle ships of a size quite beyond any currently contemplated capacity of the St. Lawrence Seaway, all of which are, and will remain, toll free. The efforts of U.S. North Atlantic ports to meet Seaway as well
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Macaluso as other forms of competition at public expense on a toll free basis should be of real concern to we Canadians whose interest in our inland waterways is vital.
We must remember that the United States really showed surprisingly little interest in the navigation of the St. Lawrence River during all the years when Canadians were striving for ever greater improvement of their own transportation facilities on that water highway. It was, of course, very natural for Canadians to press for the construction of a seaway in the face of United States indifference of obstruction, because the St. Lawrence waterway gives us our principal access to the Great Lakes. Without such access Canada would not have become the dynamic, prosperous and progressive country which it is today.
Mr. Speaker, the ignorance which has existed and which in large measure unfortunately still exists as to the economic and social significance of the Seaway and the Welland ship canal is really deplorable. This ignorance is more remarkable in that Canada has spent many hundreds of millions of our hard earned dollars on aids to navigation, dredging, canal building and harbour construction. Therefore there is still far too little realization on the part of Canadians generally as to the vital importance of the Seaway and the Welland ship canal to the future progress and continued prosperity of this country.
This perhaps explains one of the difficulties we face in fighting the battle against tolls on inland waterways. While we search desperately for a Canadian national identity, we persist in ignoring the Biblical advice "by their fruits shall ye know them"; and judging by the fruits of Canadians we are really a great people, despite our relatively small numbers. In almost any other country but Canada the whole St. Lawrence waterway would be a source of such immense national pride as to make its future absolutely secure from inimical action from any quarter.
The present Welland ship canal was completed in 1932, and it is still, in almost every particular, the most outstanding man made water transport facility in the world. Certainly none other performs a more outstanding service for any national economy, and none approaches its spectacular feat of lifting 700-foot ships, weighing with their cargoes up to 45,000 tons, 326 feet up an escarpment, the difference in height between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. The Welland ship

canal is unquestionably one of the greatest existing tributes to Canadian ability, Canadian courage and Canadian vision. It would probably be easier to bring home to Canadians the contributions the Seaway and the Welland ship canal have made and are capable of making to our present prosperity and future progress if they both had been the subject of less criticism by those with a vested interest in other forms of transportation.
This brings to mind the brief submitted to the Government by the National Legislative Committee of the International Railway Brotherhoods of March 11, 1965. I should like to quote from page 6 of that brief as follows:
It is the opinion of this Committee that the best interests of the people of Canada will be served if Seaway tolls are brought to a level that will meet current operating costs and the financial obligations contemplated in the Seaway Act. Thus the St. Lawrence Seaway will find its proper place in the over-all transportation system through competitive operation and not by way of subsidization.
The Government of Canada should oppose any scheme designed to lower present inadequate Seaway tolls or extend the 50 year amortization period predicated by the Seaway Act.
I have only one statement in respect of that brief and that is that in my opinion it is absurd. I regret that the Minister of Transport at the time the brief was submitted seemed to indicate that he might be in agreement with the submission. I certainly want to bring this situation to the attention of the Minister at this time, and I hope I can change his point of view.
Those who have been persistently and vociferously opposed to the development and use of the St. Lawrence and our other inland waterways and who seek to limit their use do, it seems to me, take a very shortsighted attitude. In the final analysis all our forms of transportation depend for their own progress and prosperity upon the progress and prosperity of the whole Canadian economy. Most of the bulk cargoes handled through our inland waterways are carried at some point, very often for considerable distances, by rail or other forms of transportation. Canadian manufactured products, even those destined for ultimate shipment to overseas markets, are very largely transported by rail or truck. Therefore it seems to me there is very considerable identity of interest between all forms of transportation in this country.
History has already amply demonstrated that our inland waterways are a priceless asset to the Canadian economy and, as such, have played a great part in our industrial
April 12, 1965

and social progress. Why then should inland transportation, which makes such a valuable addition to national employment and national wealth be discriminated against in this fashion? Why not revert to our traditional policy of toll free inland waterways?
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
A very considerable tonnage of Canadian iron ore already finds its way to United States Atlantic ports from the lower St. Lawrence in ships far too large to transit either the St. Lawrence Seaway or the Welland ship canal. Those large vessels and their cargoes contribute no revenues-I repeat, Mr. Speaker, no revenues-to any part of the Seaway. If such off-shore traffic increases at the expense of Seaway bulk traffic throughput, then trying to recover the capital costs of the Seaway and Welland ship canal through tolls is bound to create more and more difficulties for those who must rely upon our inland waterways for their fuel and raw materials. These large U.S. carriers are able to take iron ore and other bulk materials to ports all over the world and deliver them to plants whose finished products compete with those produced by Canadian industries dependant upon much smaller carriers which are capable of using the Seaway and the Welland ship canal.
In the light of these developments and others that are likely to take place, the Government should seriously consider whether we should bring the Welland ship canal locks up to the standard of the new United States locks now being constructed, at federal expense, at the Sault, Michigan. It would seem to me to be somewhat shortsighted to build twin locks in the Welland ship canal now only to the dimensions of those already existing. It is clear that this will not exactly help to cope with the problem in the future. In fact it is estimated by the experts that even with the twinning of these locks they will be saturated within a few years after completion. It cannot be too often emphasized and brought home to the people of Canada that if the existing level of tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway is raised, the whole future of our Seaway is likely to be placed in serious jeopardy.
In September, 1957 the Mayor of Milwaukee wrote a letter to the United States St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation in which he expressed the belief that the objective of the National Committee for a Non-Subsidized Seaway was, to quote him, "to set the tolls so high that the Seaway will
The Address-Mr. Macaluso probably not be used at all". We in Canada, Mr. Speaker, are not the only ones fighting the battle against tolls. There are many interests in the United States which are also doing so, but it must be agreed that the opponents of the Seaway are very powerful interests who command a lot of votes in the United States.
Closer to home, the Steel Company of Canada and Dominion Foundries and Steel, who are situated in the city of Hamilton, and some U.S. steel interests have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the Wabush mines in Newfoundland and in its harbour works and railway lines and the pelletizing plant at Pointe Noir, Quebec. These projects have contributed substantially to employment and to the growth and prosperity of the lower St. Lawrence valley and Newfoundland. These great developments, especially Wabush mines, were set in motion in 1956, and were predicated upon the assumption that the St. Lawrence Seaway would continuously provide low cost water transportation to our Great Lakes area. Low cost water transportation, Mr. Speaker, is vital and essential to these steel complexes.
Back in 1951 the Canadian Government agreed to bow to the wishes of what Hon. Lionel Chevrier described as "tremendously powerful United States business interests" and agreed to make the Seaway self-liquidating within 50 years through tolls. This was a unique departure from our traditional policy of paying for public works out of the consolidated revenue fund, but our government to do so was the price that Canada was asked to pay for United States collaboration in the construction of the Seaway. The large and wealthy United States, Mr. Speaker, only constructed two of the seven Seaway locks and a short canal to connect them at a cost of less than $132 million. This was the same as the cost to Canada of building the Welland ship canal between 1913 and 1932, when our wealth and population were far lower than today. The over-all cost to Canada with regard to the present Seaway was about $500 million.
I think we made a very bad bargain when we bowed to United States pressure. I believe we should have gone ahead alone. At that time the House supported unanimously a resolution to go ahead with the Seaway, and it is recorded in Mr. Chevrier's book on the Seaway that there was great disappointment when the United States finally decided to go into the construction of the navigational end of the Seaway. The House was unanimous
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Macaluso
because it was stated that "everybody in the House recognized that if it were beneficial to the whole nation it would ultimately be beneficial to the separate parts of Canada."
It is because I believe that Seaway tolls are against the public interest of Canada that I make no secret of my belief that they should be abolished, and Canada should build an all-Canadian seaway. I think it was visionary at that time that the Canadian Government did build the abutments at Cornwall to provide for this being done, although this was opposed at that time by the United States interests. I realize only too well that the abolition of tolls is not an easy objective to achieve, and it will only be achieved if Canadians can be made to realize the importance of the Seaway to our national economic prosperity and social progress.
The continued existence of tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway is an invitation for the imposition of similar charges on the Welland ship canal, the Sault locks and the river channels connecting Lakes Superior, Huron, Michigan and Erie. Some eight or nine years ago the Hoover Commission in the United States recommended such user charges on all such facilities in the United States, and President Johnson in his budget message to Congress in January, 1965 recommended the imposition of such tolls on United States inland waterways. Imagine if you can what the situation would be if tolls had to be paid for the use of inland waterway facilities on all grain shipped from the Lakehead to markets in Europe, and on all iron ore cargoes upbound from the lower St. Lawrence. Tolls are a hindrance to export trade and I wish to say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cote, Longueuil):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I am just coming to my last sentence, and perhaps I might have the indulgence of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cote, Longueuil):: Does the hon. Member have the indulgence of the House?


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to grant the hon. Member the right to continue, although it was not granted to me the other day.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I would be glad to grant it to the hon. Member when he wishes to speak. Mr. Speaker, if a tolled Seaway has been able to accomplish so much for Canada, think what an untolled all-Canadian seaway might do for us in the future. I thank hon. Members for allowing me additional time.
[Mr. Macaluso.!


Erik Nielsen: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cote, Longueuil):: Shall we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that when we interrupted proceedings at one o'clock the hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had the floor. However, the President of the Privy Council is seeking permission to interrupt this speech. Is this agreed to by the hon. Member for Yukon?


Erik Nielsen: He did not receive permission from me, but I will agree, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, a consensus was reached whereby the House would continue to sit during the dinner hour tonight; it would sit continuously tomorrow after it convened at eleven o'clock, until the completion of the Address in Reply tomorrow night. When the vote is taken on the Address in Reply tomorrow night, that will be the conclusion of the proceedings.
The Government undertook that it would not introduce any other legislation except two items on today's order paper, Government Notices of Motion Nos. 5 and 6, which merely give legislative effect to those items in the supplementary estimates which had to do with the civil service and mounted police pensions and the extension of the date for rebates under a tax act. No legislation, other than those two items, will be presented.
On the adjournment of the House tomorrow night the Government would move it stand adjourned until Monday, April 26, at 2.30 p.m.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that it is essentially because of the humanitarian nature of this group, its feeling for the members of the staff, the ladies and gentlemen of the
April 12, 1965	COMMONS
press gallery and others who inhabit those precincts, that we are quite willing to agree to this arrangement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then it is so ordered by the House.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cashin for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as is the custom in this House, my first words must be words of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. Member for St. John's West and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche did a noble job with the very sketchy material with which they had to work.
The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, reminds me of a Mexican game-I forget the name-in which they have a paper bag full of goodies at Christmas time. The participants in the game bang it around until they have broken it and out fall all the candies and goodies. The Prime Minister and his cabinet remind me of this game. They have broken this bag and out have fallen the candies and goodies, the absolute sop for the Canadian electorate.
The Liberal Party came to power almost two years ago with a number of slogans, such as "The Liberals have all the answers." A reading of the Speech from the Throne must have caused great disappointment to Canadians and to the backbenchers on the other side. It must have been disillusioning to the thousands who supported the brave words "60 days of decision", and "a time to test the strong, excite the daring and give new promise to the timid". Over the last two years-it will be two years on April 23 since this Government took office-all we have had have been the affairs which have hit the Government and the Members of the Cabinet, and which have aroused great disillusionment and confusion in the minds of Canadians throughout the country.
We have had, instead of a time to test the strong, a time to test the credulity of Cana-22620-16
DEBATES	229
The Address-Mr. Nielsen dians, in that the Prime Minister would allow the conditions to exist which were the subject of the amendment voted upon last Friday. Instead of a new promise for the timid we have had despair for the hopeful thousands. This Government was going to bring a fresh new breeze to the Canadian political scene, but we have had something that has been certainly something less than fresh. It was not long ago that Canadians heard this stirring battle call of the Liberal party, "Let us get Canada moving again". They said we were in the economic doldrums and criticized us severely for the action which was taken in pegging the Canadian dollar. However, we have a perfect example of the policy of retreat and indecision followed by this Government in the answer of the Minister of Finance today when he flatly said that the present rate, that is the 92J cent dollar, was quite acceptable and they were quite happy with it.
So, instead of these brave promises and new words, we have been given a Speech from the Throne in which all we have is the warmed over leftovers from the last session. We have sections that have been blatantly plagiarized from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in the United States. I am sure hon. members who saw that program on the C.B.C. last night would have had a laugh or two at the conversation between the Prime Minister and the President. Then to wind up the whole thing we have the amazing, wholesale borrowing from the N.D.P., so much so that one commentator was led to say in a television and radio broadcast that after this Speech from the Throne, all the N.D.P. had left in their platform was anti-Americanism.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
What has happened to all those brave words? Where have all those promises gone? Where is this brave new world that was going to be ushered in for Canadians by the Liberal Party? From 1960 to 1963 we have had the Madison Avenue hucksters forming all the catch words, with all the slogans of the Kennedy campaign being parroted by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party. For the past year or more the advertising specialists, to whose Edgar Bergen the Prime Minister plays Charlie McCarthy, have been putting the slogans of the Johnson administration directly into his mouth.
Down there across the 49th parallel they have the "great society". Here we have got
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Nielsen
the "good society". South of the border they have a war on poverty, and so the Liberals declare a war on poverty here. The Americans have a peace corps, and all of a sudden we have a youth corps. And so it goes. I daresay soon we will be having barbecues at 24 Sussex Street. It is a degrading spectacle for the Prime Minister of this country.
There have been moments in his administration when free from the foolish and vacuous image making of his public relations men-and even these have been failing him, according to one prominent member of the Press Gallery whose notable achievement was the publication of another book before this government took over-when we have been able to see the Prime Minister at his best; and we can be forgiven sometimes for wanting to ask, in the vacillations that have occurred between all the other images attempted by the Prime Minister, "Will the real Lester B. Pearson stand up and be identified"?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: There isn't a real one.


Erik Nielsen: There isn't a real one, a colleague of mine says. I have heard people, speaking about disillusionment and confusion across the country, say "We would not be in the terrible mess in Ottawa if Pearson were alive."
It is perfectly understandable if Canadians have no confidence in the present Government. They are unable to act decisively. They are unable to act imaginatively in the area of policy, whether it is affecting the economy, labour, immigration, agriculture, or indeed in an area that vitally interests all of us, the area of justice; and in an area which vitally concerns me, my colleague from the Northwest Territories and a good many others on this side of the house, the area of northern development.
Since the change of government there has not been a single new development project undertaken above the 60th parallel. Why? Is it because there exists that fundamental difference between the approach of the Liberals and the approach of the Conservatives in these matters? How can we expect government investment to develop our northern frontiers when we have this grab bag of eyecatching goodies falling out of the paper target the Prime Minister breaks blindly with his pole, as they do during a Mexican Christmas celebration?
The Prime Minister in his speech last Tuesday dealt with this problem in a way that will shock many Canadians. When a

housecleaning is clearly in order he resorts to legalisms and to hair splitting, in which all the Cabinet Ministers indulge on almost every occasion when questions are put to them intended to elicit proper information. A man must be en route to the courts before prime ministerial notice is taken of his behaviour.
Prudence and good judgment, discretion in the choice of one's personal associations, probity in one's business transactions-none of this matters, apparently. The Prime Minister has made his decision: there will be no clean up in his cabinet, and we are stuck with it until the government is changed. There will be other opportunities to deal with this question of integrity in high places, and no one will find those on this side of the house loath to take advantage of those opportunities.
Canadians do not have to look far to find the reason for this lack of initiative, the lack of originality in the Speech from the Throne, or to find why the Government of this country has become, as one respected overseas publication has put it, "a rudderless mess." The Cabinet is in disarray because of the pressures exerted not only by a public outcry for a public hearing but by an outcry from all the opposition parties combined. The Cabinet is beset by every manner of division.


Mr. Moreau:: Tell us about your divisions.


Erik Nielsen: I will have a few words for the hon. Member for York-Scarborough about divisions in a minute, if he will contain himself in patience. I am only sorry that a good many of the Cabinet Ministers about whom I am going to be making some remarks are not in their seats this afternoon. It is a Cabinet that is at war with itself. How well we remember the non-confidence motion, moved by the then Leader of the Opposition in February, 1963, referring to divisions in the Cabinet.
The present Cabinet, this present rudderless mess, has more holes in it-I did not say leaks-than any ship of state in this century. I could say it has more leaks in it than in the Progressive Conservative Party caucus, and that is saying something.


Mr. Graffiey:: Explain.


Erik Nielsen: Almost a year ago a responsible correspondent, a columnist of the Montreal Star, Mr. W. A. Wilson put it this way:
The underlying problem.. .seems to be that Mr. Pearson has so far failed to weld his Cabinet into a team-despite the 1962 election slogan touting the "Pearson team." Members of a team do not normally scupper their colleagues in Mr. Tremblay's
April 12, 1965

reckless fashion nor embarrass important causes as Miss LaMarsh did through her electioneering. It would be unjust to suggest that these are disloyal people but in a very practical way they are lacking in true loyalty to the ministry to which they belong because they fail to weigh their private inclinations against the public good.
Well, that failure is still with the Prime Minister, but we understand his failure better now. You can't build a team, and even he can't build a team, with nothing to work with.
As I watched this strife-torn Cabinet day after day my eyes often wandered beyond the treasury benches to all that talent on the backbenches, all those capable and intelligent backbenchers on the other side both men and women, waiting for their turn, a turn that will never come because the Liberal old guard is still holding the reins. The old guard of that party has triumphed, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is their captive and their advocate.
What a sense of frustration must overcome all those ambitious Members behind the treasury benches. I think of one in particular, the hon. Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene). Here is a Member who looks on with envy each day this house sits, when he observes the conduct and the machinations of those who occupy the treasury benches today. He thinks to himself "How much better I could do it if I were the leader, the Prime Minister."


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Erik Nielsen: Another hon. Member over there is the hon. Member for York-Scarbor-ough (Mr. Moreau), and I will allow a question if I still have time after I am through. I know he is one of those intelligent, young, aggressive backbenchers on the Liberal side looking forward to new horizons for himself, but they will never come because the old boys are in the saddle and they are not going to get out.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
One need look no further than the treasury benches to witness examples of frustration. The Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), who I understand has gone on an extended vacation, has been ready, willing and able to take the initiative in cleaning up the party, especially in his own Province, even though he would be facing a herculean task in that regard. But he has been kept down. He has been smothered by the Minister of Justice, by the Secretary of State, by the Postmaster General, and finally by the Prime Minister himself. I think 22620-165
The Address-Mr. Nielsen the Minister of Transport is perhaps beyond ambition for leadership these days.
The Brandon Sun put it this way almost a year ago; conditions have not changed and I quote from that publication:
Young, forceful, frank and politically appealing, he is an avowed member of the Liberal Party's left wing who, it has been suggested had hitherto been held down in the party ranks by more reactionary elements.
A more recent comment came on March 20 of this year in La Presse under the by-line of Pierre O'Neil, who described graphically and at length the complete fragmentation of the Liberal Cabinet. I have a translation of the article here. It is lengthy and I do not intend to read it all, but the subheading reads:
Maurice Lamontagne is on the brink of resignation; Maurice Sauve is 'on the outs' with the Prime Minister; only the Minister of Justice, Guy Favreau, retains a bit of enthusiasm.
What a description. The article says:
The Quebec wing of the Pearson Cabinet is in full rout. Mr. Maurice Lamontagne almost resigned recently. Mr. Maurice Sauve is 'on the outs' with the Prime Minister who has turned a deaf ear toward him. Mr. Guy Favreau, the Minister of Justice is the only one of the three Quebec generals to keep some enthusiasm despite the extremely hard blows that he has taken recently.
The caucus, it goes without saying, is also tossed about by the tempest. The ship is going around in circles, not knowing in whom to repose its trust.
People are familiar with the old story of politicians going around in circles. The Prime Minister of this country is as capable of doing so as is the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That is all he does; he goes round in circles and stands foursquare for everything. The article goes on:
In this climate is born the rumour insisting that Mr. Lucien Cardin is gaining stature in cabinet deliberations and that he will be in his turn an important Quebec spokesman.
It is not easy to evaluate all that has happened recently which has revealed this crisis. It is still less easy to predict where all this will lead the Cabinet, and the caucus. Above all it is not easy to know how the Federal Liberal Party in Quebec will extricate itself from these convulsions.
We all know the end product of convulsions.
The case of Mr. Lamontagne is typical.
As for the tensions between Messrs. Favreau and Sauve, they resulted from their different conceptions of what should be done in Quebec to reinforce the party and to make it responsive to the important changes which have happened these past years in the Quebec political society.
The Secretary of State is just recovering from the hard blows which have been struck him in the House on the subject of the famous furniture
232	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
affair. This volley of blows came down on a man who has not ceased to receive such blows since he entered politics.
And so the article goes on, a massive indictment of the confusion and indecision which exists within this Cabinet. There is the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the present Postmaster General. Let me simply quote from the Toronto Telegram. What an asset this Minister is to the Cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Members should withhold their applause until they hear what Mr. Fraser Kelly of the Telegram has to say about this hon. gentleman:
The switch of controversial Rene Tremblay from Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has sparked bitter resentment among Canadian postal workers.
The implications are crystal clear. In the Canadian cabinet the portfolio of Postmaster General is the ultimate disgrace, the Outer Siberia, cries an editorial in the Canadian Postal Worker, a civil service publication.
We, in public estimation, are so low on the totem pole that we have sunk into the mire. We are fit only to be headed by some incompetent.
Under a thick red headline stating We Protest, the editorial asks isn't it time that a cabinet be thought of as a team of experts.. .not a party grab-bag with juicy plums for some and bitter quince for one unfortunate other.
The news story in the Telegram continues, quoting the Canadian Postal Worker as follows:
To those of us who have considered the keeping open of the lines of communication a worthy calling, to those of us who have taken pride in the handling of the Royal Mail, the implications of the situation have come as a blow.
A foul wet rag across the face could have carried no greater impact.
That is what the employees of the Minister's Department feel about this Minister. So one need not wonder why the Canadian public came to the same conclusion.
How well we remember the cries when the former Government was in office that Canada's reputation had suffered abroad. I wonder whether hon. gentlemen opposite have been reading the overseas press lately about the aura of uncertainty that surrounds the Cabinet, about scandal and the lack of leadership in Canada. That is what these publications are saying. Have they heard about the Gallup poll in Great Britain which showed that the British people regarded the United States as their number one friend, with Australia number two and Canada third? That is a condition which did not exist when the Conservatives were in office.

DEBATES	April 12. 1965
While this fumbling and bumbling is going on over there, serious situations are arising and the Government is failing to deal with them.
We heard the Prime Minister's new politics described in January of 1964 in the course of a national bilingual television broadcast. Well, having seen them in action on the Canadian political scene, I say we have had enough of these new politics. He has recently been touring the country whimpering and whining about the Opposition, saying we are obstructing, filibustering and preventing his new politics from being implemented. This is the same right hon. gentleman who, when he was Leader of the Opposition in September, 1962, speaking to the Young Liberals in Toronto, used some of the most disgraceful language I have heard any person use against a Prime Minister of this country, referring to falsehood, gross deception and deceit. Then we have Cabinet Ministers opposite like the Minister of Justice who complain and whimper when somebody else says a statement is false. Where do we go in Canada? The conduct of the Cabinet is not such as to warrant confidence either at home or abroad.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The Minister of Health and Welfare-I am sorry she is not in the house today-has indulged in hobbies from the anti-smoking campaign, which is getting nowhere, to the defence of some, if not all, of the members of her sex as is reported in the Toronto Star of November 5, 1964. I quote from that article.
Winnipeg-Health Minister Judy LaMarsh yesterday criticized Opposition Leader Diefenbaker, Manitoba Premier Duff Roblin and people who question the intelligence of large bosomed women. Miss LaMarsh at a press conference was asked about an American scientist who recently said that small bosomed women have the highest intelligence quotients.
Then the paper quotes the hon. Lady as saying:
"A bosom size doesn't prove a damn thing about my brains".
I am happy that the hon. Lady was so frank with the press. A year ago it was reported that the Minister had threatened to resign because she was being excluded from secret consultations between those at the federal level and those at the Quebec level concerning the design of the pension plan. The Montreal Gazette had this to say:
The gesture is said to have been made in protest over the primary responsibility for Canada Pen-
April 12, 1965

sion Plan planning transferred out of her hands, and over the Federal Government's decision to adopt a new pension scheme embodying many of the features of the Quebec pension legislation. Miss LaMarsh was not a key figure at the Quebec conference, at which federal plans underwent a drastic change.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, which Minister in the Cabinet carried the bill through this House, and it was not the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Minister's troubles are not confined only to pensions, but I do not want to elaborate any further with respect to her troubles except to say, in connection with this brave new world of politics that the Prime Minister is ushering in, that according to the Vancouver Province for December 5 the Minister is reported to have said:
"Sit down, shut up and let the matter come to a vote", yelled Health Minister Judy LaMarsh to Tory M.P. Deane Gundlock in Parliament the other day, and no doubt the suffragettes of yore revolved in their graves.
The Minister went to Montreal to make a speech one month later, and on January 14, 1965 the Montreal Star carried this headline:
Judy LaMarsh counsels tact in debating Canada's future.
That is her idea of tact, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs-I see only two Cabinet Ministers in the house at the moment, and they are probably the only two who have no leadership ambitions on that side-who retired from politics long ago, does not get mixed up in anything so blase as party wrangling and politics nowadays. First there was the appointment to a Senate vacancy. It was assumed that this would go to one of two candidates for the job in Essex county. But the Minister has been paying so little attention to politics lately that he let the old home town down. Here is a quote from the Windsor Star for November 16:
From charges of obstructionism to disarmament and Communist China, Canada's Minister of External Affairs, Paul Martin, covered a wide range of topics Saturday evening in Belle River.
Missing in his remarks however was any reference to the recent Senate appointment. Dissension and anger have been reported in the Liberal party ranks in Essex county because the appointment was not given to a local Liberal.
Addressing himself to the Chinese government, he said-
-and so on. How familiar we all are in this House with the Minister's technique. The good people of Belle River in the Minister's constituency wanted to hear about Essex county and about a Senator from that county. And what does the Secretary of State for
The Address-Mr. Olson External Affairs do? He addresses himself to the subject of China and the Chinese government.
Then there are other quotes from the national press about the doings of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There was one in the Daily Colonist of November 8 concerning the leader of the Social Credit Party, which is as follows:
Some Liberal backbenchers are reported to be just as disturbed privately as opposition M.P.'s have been publicly about External Affairs Minister Martin's handling of Social Credit Leader Thompson's current Africa trip.
Then speaking of international images, about a year ago there was a report concerning the NATO ministerial conference, when another distinguished gentleman of the fourth estate, Warner Troyer, writing in the Vancouver Sun had this to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. Member but his time has expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Then if I have unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member does not have the unanimous consent of the House.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, among other things apparently the hearing of the hon. Member for Yukon is not functioning very well this afternoon. May I begin by expressing my congratulations to the hon. Member for St. John's West and to the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche who moved and seconded the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
During the course of this debate, notwithstanding what we have just heard, there have been many excellent speeches; and while I do not wish to single out any particular members when I say this, I think I would be remiss if I did not make special mention of the speech delivered in this House by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout). I say that, Mr. Speaker, because I think the hon. Lady delivered a very informative and interesting speech respecting a number of national problems, as well as displaying an obvious grasp of the conditions and problems within her own constituency.

April 12, 1965
The Address-Mr. Olson
Some of the hon. Members who were here last session will know that the City of Moncton in New Brunswick and the City of Medicine Hat are twinned for the centennial celebrations which will be held during 1967. During that time there are plans under way, I understand, to exchange a number of students between these two cities. There are also plans to exchange some of the civic officials for a period of time so we can have an opportunity to learn more about cities in other regions of Canada.


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Are you exchanging Members too?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. Member for Lake St. John asks me if we are going to exchange Members. I do not think the people in Moncton would appreciate it if we went that far, but we do intend to work out an arrangement where we can exchange a speech or two. In other words I will attempt to select some particular matter of special interest to people in her constituency and deliver a speech on it, and she will do the same in the Medicine Hat constituency. After having heard the way she is able to address herself to this house I think perhaps Medicine Hat will get the best of this exchange.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That clearly sets out that a report which has been submitted to the House by a committee established during a previous session can be brought in at a following session for approval or on a motion for concurrence, providing the Government is willing to take that step. It is my opinion that I, as Chairman of one of the subcommittees and the Member who moved concurrence in the reports numbered 18 and 19 on behalf of the whole Committee, could make such a motion but, of course, it would be buried along with a great number of other private members' motions. If the Government was serious and intended to change some of the rules of this House in order that we can complete the tremendous volume of business with a certain degree of order and dispatch, it could revive these two Committee reports and have them debated and, I would hope, subsequently passed during this third session of the twenty sixth parliament.
If the Government was ready and willing to do this, Mr. Speaker, it could appoint a day, as is set out clearly in citation 320, for the purpose of passing these two reports. If the conditions and recommendations contained in reports Nos. 18 and 19 are acceptable to the Government, surely this would be a far better way of bringing about these reforms than by bringing forward a completely new Government motion. I say that because of the obvious fact that these reports were developed, worked out, compromised, written and rewritten by a Committee made up of members of all five political parties in this House. Surely that, would be more acceptable to this House than a new Government motion which would almost automatically receive the opposition of many Members in the Opposition.
Reports Nos. 18 and 19 deal with changes to Standing Order No. 65, to realign the Standing Committees of this House, and with Standing Order No. 56, which deals with the limitation of time in debating the main estimates in this House. These involve major reforms which have received support from at least some Members of all the parties in this House. Therefore it seems to me that it would be highly desirable for the Government to take the course open to them under citation 320 of Beauchesne.
The Members of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization spent many weeks, in fact several months, meeting several times each week studying these reforms and drafting these reports. The committee took into account the various opinions and sugges-
The Address-Mr. Olson tions in writing the reports and arriving at compromises so they would at least in some measure meet the approval of Members from all parties. I hope the Government will take this course of action which is open to it. I am not suggesting that it will be going far enough in this regard, but this will at least permit the establishment of standing committees of this House in such a way that they will be in a position to receive and deal with all the estimates of the Departments of Government.
Standing Order No. 65, as it is now constructed, does not in effect allow all estimates of all Departments to be referred. The old committee on estimates could perhaps be a catch-all committee to deal with those estimates which cannot appropriately be referred to specific committees. That is not what we intended, nor is it the way most Members of this House feel these estimates should be referred to committees.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I make the very positive suggestion to the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council that a major step forward toward the modernization of our rules could be taken by following the course open under citation 320. The reports of the Committee are now before us. They have already been approved by the Members of the Committee on Procedure and Organization, and it would be very easy for the Government to reinstitute them for consideration at this Session.
The other subject to which I wish to refer is that covered by this part of the Throne Speech:
My Government is developing new policies to enable farmers generally to achieve larger and more reliable incomes so that their living and working standards will be comparable to those enjoyed in other sectors of our economy.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I suggest it is about time, Mr. Speaker, that a concerted effort was made by the federal Government to do something about the price structure for the primary producers of food, or the primary producers of groceries, as the Minister of Agriculture has said on a number of occasions. I do not wish to downgrade in any way the very useful amendments that have been made to the Farm Credit Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the new Farm Machinery Syndicates Loans Act, but we have reached the end of what we can do to assist farmers by increasing the maximum amounts of credit available. In fact, in my opinion we have already gone

April 12, 1965
The Address-Mr. Olson too far in many cases, in that there are extensions of credit to farmers in various parts of Canada far beyond their ability to repay the money within a reasonable length of time.
I suggest further that these extensions of farm credit, which are burying farmers deeper and deeper in debt, gloss over the real problem, which is the whole structure of the prices that farmers receive for the goods they produce. The new dairy policy announced a few days ago by the Minister of Agriculture is useful. It at least sets a pattern of first of all increasing and then holding up the price of milk used for manufacturing purposes, and this is in addition to the butter support price which has been in effect for a number of years. But this is only one sector of primary production in the field of agriculture, and I simply say that it is a step in the right direction.
I am not going to refer to a lot of statistics, Mr. Speaker, but it has been said that 70 per cent of the farmers of Canada have incomes of less than $2,500. This should illustrate forcefully that the industry in general is badly in need of some revitalization. A survey by the Ontario Federation of Labour showed that 27 per cent of Ontario's farm families or 131,000 people are in a state of abject poverty with net incomes of $600 for a family of four. Sixteen per cent of Ontario's farm families or 72,000 people are living at a subsistence level with incomes between $600 and $1,250. Twenty two per cent of Ontario's farm families, with incomes between $1,250 and $2,250, lack the necessities of life.
Dr. Travis Manning, head of the Department of Agricultural Economics of the University of Alberta, in a survey based on figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, shows that in Alberta only 3 per cent of the farms have gross sales of over $25,000, while 11 per cent have gross sales between $10,000 and $24,000, 22 per cent have gross sales between $5,000 and $9,999, and 64 per cent have gross sales of less than $5,000. These figures illustrate that relatively few farms have gross sales sufficient to assure an adequate income.
Very recently there was a decline in the price of Canadian wheat because of a lowering of the price in the international market. A recent issue of the Western Producer, which is published in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, had this to say about the situation:
Faced with the stark fact of declining prices and the strongest competitive conditions they have encountered for many years, western Canadian

producers are worried. Their worries are justified, as we have noted, for they are literally the only producers in the world whose governments in the past have expected them to weather on their own the storms of declining prices in the export market.
I am not one of those Members, Mr. Speaker, who think that all sectors of the Canadian economy should run to the Government every time they are in a little difficulty. I think I am perhaps as much of a free enterpriser by nature as any Member of the House. But, Mr. Speaker, the whole price structure of Canadian farm products is based on the surplus and dumping prices in the international market of all other countries in the world. The price that our own people pay for wheat is exactly the same as the lowest price that is available anywhere in the world. This also applies to sugar and to many other farm products.
There is no other developed nation that does not make some special arrangement for insulating their own domestic food market from the dumping prices of other countries in the international market. The Minister of Agriculture, for example, has said that in Great Britain 7.5 per cent of the national budget is used to maintain and support the price structure of the farm products of that country. In the United States, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and France 8.2 per cent of the national budgets are used to maintain and support the prices of agricultural products grown in those countries. In Canada the figure is 3 per cent.
I might point out that this becomes even more significant when you realize that in the United States and Great Britain, for example, the percentage of their contributions to the armament of the western world is also substantially higher than that of Canada. I suggest that if we look at some of the statistics respecting the change in the prices that farmers receive for what they grow in relation to the cost of what they have to buy, and in relation to the increased incomes of people in almost every other sector, the picture becomes even more alarming and adds further justification to the fact that some concerted effort should be made now by the Federal Government to, as they say in the Speech from the Throne, "achieve larger and more reliable incomes" for farmers.
For example, on a number of occasions we have heard the Minister of Agriculture say that in 1964 farmers had a higher total gross income than at any other time in history. I think he mentioned a figure of approxmiately $3.4 billion. That may be fine on a basis of
April 12, 1965	COMMONS
gross returns, but when you place that alongside the increased cost of production and the fact that some of the sales were out of inventory, it does not look quite so good. When I refer to sales out of inventory I want to make it abundantly clear that a large part of the money that went into the total gross sales came from wheat that was sold in 1964 but was actually produced in 1963.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics, in a publication issued in March, 1965, deals with farm net income for 1964 and gives figures for the net income of farm operators from farming operations for the years 1962 to 1964. In 1962 this figure was $1,627 million. That was net income, not gross income. In 1963 this had risen to $1,654 million. By 1964, Mr. Speaker, it had dropped down to $1,432 million. So, Mr. Speaker, in spite of 1964 being the year with the highest gross farm income, there was a decline of over $200 million in net farm income as compared with the previous year. This is not satisfactory any more.
Another point I should like to make is this, especially when we are talking about subsidies. I asked the then Minister of National Revenue in July, 1963 for a complete breakdown of subsidies paid to agriculture producers. If you look over this list you will find that out of the $71 million paid out during the year ending March 31, 1963, $42 million was paid under the butter support program. I wonder if it is fair to call this butter price support program a farm subsidy. It seems to me it would be just as fair to call it a consumer subsidy. We know that the Government is in fact subsidizing the price of butter to the Canadian consumer to the tune of 12 cents a pound. The subsidy is paid through the Department of Agriculture, but it is certainly of direct benefit to the consumer of butter in Canada. If you deduct that consumer subsidy it leaves the total Canadian Government support for farm produce in all sectors at less than $30 million for that year.
I have another publication before me called the Economic Analyst, published in August, 1964, by the Department of Agriculture. This publication shows that in April, 1964, the latest month for which figures were available, the price index, that is all farm prices for agricultural products, has risen to 245.8 based on 100 equalling the period from 1935 to 1939. During the same month the prices of commodities and services used by farmers had risen to 309.9. You have to go back to 1948 before you can find a period when the average
DEBATES	237
The Address-Mr. Temple of prices received by farmers was less than it was last year. There were one or two years, 1954, 1955 and 1956, when it was approximately the same as the index for April, 1964, but to find a substantially lower amount you have to go back before 1948, some 17 years ago.
In spite of the fact that there has been no substantial increase in the prices farmers have received for their goods and services, particularly for the primary goods they produce, namely food, there has been almost a doubling in the cost of those things which are required by farmers, that is commodities and services. I hope, therefore, there is a determination on the part of Government, as indicated in the Speech from the Throne, to do something finally to upgrade the whole price structure and provide it with some reliability. Credit is no longer the answer. We have now to provide our farmers with an opportunity of repaying some of the credit extended to them during the past few years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not care who gets the credit for it. I give the Progressive Conservatives full marks for all the things they did that were beneficial and useful to the farmer. I give also, to the Liberals, full credit for all the things they did that were beneficial to the agricultural sector of our economy. But really none of the policies have been able to get at the root of the problem, that is this competition from the dumping of surplus products from other nations in the world. As I said at the outset, other countries in the world have insulated their domestic market against these surplus pricing arrangements.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be a concentration of the effort of all parties, of all members of all parties, to get on with correcting this problem which is so old, and I am not concerned about who gets credit for it.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, may I preface my remarks by complimenting the Mover, the hon. Member for St. John's West and Seconder, the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche of the Address in Reply for the excellent job they did and the eloquent and expressive way in which they made their remarks. I join with the hon. Member for Medicine Hat in complimenting the hon. Member for Westmorland upon her excellent speech in this debate last week. She showed a clear insight into the problems of the country as well as a great knowledge of her own constituency.
April 12, 1985

The Address-Mr. Temple
It would be nice, Mr. Speaker, il we could compliment everyone in this House all the time, everyone in Canada and everyone on the international scene. Of course this is not possible. We have a great many troubles in the world today, and on the international scene certainly not the least of them is Viet Nam. In the past there has been a tendency to say that the United States should stop acting as international policeman and should pull out of South Viet Nam. It would be very nice if the need were not there for an international policeman. However, the facts of international life today are such that we, as Canadians, are very fortunate in having a friendly ally such as the United States willing to take on the responsibilities it has assumed for international affairs.
When people say that the United States should get out of Viet Nam or get out of this country or that country, I suppose what they are saying is, let these people determine for themselves; these people can and will determine things for themselves. This would be all well and good if these people were allowed to follow the process of self-determination. We do not need to look very far. Let us look at Poland. Did the people of Poland have the right of self-determination? No. Did the people of Hungary, after the war, have the right of self-determination? Again the answer is no. The people of Rumania; did they have that right, or the people of Bulgaria? Of course the people of Czechoslovakia in 1948 were not given the right or opportunity to determine their own course, because their democratic government was overthrown by a coup by a minority party. Well, if the United States were to pull out of South Viet Nam without making provision for an absolutely free self-determination by the people of South Viet Nam, then the same old pattern would repeat itself.
[DOT] (3.40 p.m.)
I welcome, as I am sure all do, the detente in Western Europe, although the events of the past week in Berlin make me rather wonder if this is going to be a continuing detente. We have welcomed it during the last two years, and it is not time yet for us to let our defences down. In my opinion it is always best to bargain from a position of strength.
I hope that this can be brought about in South Viet Nam so the South Vietnamese will have the right of really free self-determination. Of course I welcome also what was announced by the President of the United

States last week, that the United States is willing to put in and will put in up to $1 billion of economic aid in that troubled area. I also compliment our Government very much for going along with that and saying Canada will share part of that burden.
If, Mr. Speaker, the United States pulls out without having brought about these negotiations, if it pulls out its military forces from South Viet Nam, what will happen? It will be like a game of dominoes; the whole thing will collapse. I suggest Laos will be next, and Cambodia. Then will go Thailand and no doubt Burma. Then will come Malaysia, but it is hoped it can be contained there. It is less than 20 years ago that the war in the Pacific came to an end. That war was fought, as I understand and believe it, to stop the spread of another type of imperialism throughout the Pacific. So let us not let that happen again.
I was particularly annoyed and upset a week ago Sunday night at a program called "This Hour Has Seven Days." Mr. Speaker, Voltaire said that a man has a perfect right to say what he believes in, no matter how much one may disagree with him, and I subscribe to that. But if this program has the right to say what it does surely I, as a Member of Parliament have the right to say what I am going to say about it. It depicted the American in South Viet Nam as a stupid, sadistic moron who did not know anything except torture and war, and disregarded everything else. I take very strong exception to that program which I consider had either no taste or certainly was in very bad taste.
In my opinion the Minister of Justice is to be highly complimented and congratulated for the decision to introduce legislation that will provide an Ombudsman for Canada. Having read the Minister's speeches on this subject for the past several weeks, I understand it will be the task of the Ombudsman to protect the rights of the individual Canadian. This is terribly, terribly important. What distinguishes us from other, non-democratic governments is our basic desire to protect the individual and the individual's rights. Therefore I say the Minister is to be complimented on this decision.
Something which I am not so happy about is a bill introduced in a provincial legislature during the last few days concerning wire tapping. It is called a bill to prevent wire tapping, but instead of being a bill to prevent wire tapping it gives the authorities the opportunity to obtain an order from a federal judge, if they are able to give him evidence that they have reasonable grounds to suspect
April 12, 1965	COMMONS
somebody may be committing or conspiring to commit a crime. Any hon. Member who is a lawyer, and a good many hon. Members who are not, will realize it is not too difficult to present a case to a judge showing you have reasonable grounds to suspect something, and thus be able to get an order. The part I especially do not like, apart from the very fact of wire tapping itself, is that the bill provides for a secret order that can go on month to month, and in fact provides it is an offence for anyone to disclose publicly that such an order has been obtained. Making such information public is to be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment.
I made my maiden speech in this House two years ago, and in closing stated I was very concerned that the liberty and freedom of the individual be retained, and that it not be whittled away. There has been no change in my feelings since then, nor will there be in the future. I realize of course that this is becoming a more and more complex civilization and society. I also realize the dangers of organized crime; but I believe this provincial legislation is an attempt to reach a proper end by improper means. We are trying to protect society and the individual in the wrong way. What is in effect being done -not by this House, thank goodness-is a whittling away of the liberties of the individual.


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


Anthony Robert Temple: When I am finished I would be very happy to have the hon. Member for Greenwood ask me a question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I thought possibly while you were on this topic.


Anthony Robert Temple: I would also like to congratulate the Government for including a statement in the Throne Speech that there will be a free debate on capital punishment. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I must say I am in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. It used to be in the days when Babylon was at the height of its power and grandeur that the old maxim of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was generally accepted. We would have thought that over the years we would have grown away from that, but instead of that adage being accepted or not being accepted, as we went along things became worse.
When Rome was at the height of its power, a good many hundreds of years after Baby-
DEBATES	239
The Address-Mr. Temple Ion, the crime of parricide was punished by sewing the condemned in a sack with a dog, a cock, a viper and an ape, and throwing them all into the sea.
Then we come to the eighth century in England and one would think we should have been progressing, but I doubt that very much so because there they had ordeals by fire and water. In ordeal by fire the accused carried a red hot iron around in his hand for a certain length of time. In ordeal by water you placed your arm up to your wrist or elbow in boiling water for a period of some minutes. The hand was then bandaged and kept bound for three days-I suppose they had no antiseptics-and after they removed the bandage, if your hand or arm had not healed you were guilty. The crown attorneys of that time must have had a real field day.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We now come to the time of the Puritans in the seventeenth century. In England in 1650 a law was passed by parliament making adultery punishable by death, and this savage sentence was actually carried out in two or three cases. But then it became a fact that even Puritans would not convict for this, and the law was repealed. I think it was rather remarkable that the law was repealed so quickly, because usually a criminal law is not repealed until many years after it has gone into disuse and is not looked upon with favour by the public. The people in the England of the sixteenth, seventeenth or eighteenth centuries were not more stupid than the people who live in England and Canada today, but there was a tradition in force there, and this tradition could not keep up with the facts. Mr. Speaker, because something is widely believed does not necessarily mean that it is true. Prior to the time of William Harvey in the seventeenth century people thought the arteries were filled with air, and that there was no such thing as the circulation of the blood. Even after he had proved his theory of blood circulation people condemned him and said he was a heretic.
In the eighteenth century no less than 240 different offences were punishable by death in England. I am sure the Government of that day was trying to cut down the number of crimes of all types. Between 1525 and 1550 it is reported that 72,000 people were executed in England. But crimes of violence did not cease; on the contrary, they increased. They got worse. Gradually people began to realize that it is not possible to have a completely harsh outlook on life and then expect people to act in a refined, decent and honest way.
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Temple
This is my point. I do not believe capital punishment is any deterrent to murder. I will not take the time of the House now by going into statistics; we shall have an opportunity to do that at a later date. But I am unable to find any states or countries where the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the ratio of crimes. I am not saying it leads to a decrease; I am saying it has no effect at all.
What we are doing when we put someone to death at a definite hour on a certain appointed day is this. We are debasing all of ourselves, all of society. When we put a man to death that is what we are doing; we are shaming and degrading ourselves. If it were not so why do we do it so furtively, at midnight behind closed walls? If there is to be a real deterrent effect, bring these things out into the open and let us have a real circus; sell the beer and the hot dogs and have people jumping around waving flags, whatever they might be, and let the condemned man say his last words.


Mr. Patterson:: That is plain stupid.


Reid Scott: What is?


Alexander Bell Patterson: What he is saying.


Anthony Robert Temple: If the hon. Member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) wishes to express his views he will have an opportunity to do so.


Reid Scott: It is a good speech. Keep it up.


Anthony Robert Temple: I am saying that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Because the majority of people may believe it is, doesn't mean it is true. When I am told I am stupid I am reminded of Cesare de Beccaria, an Italian nobleman of the eighteenth century who put forward what were, in those days, advanced views on crime and criminology; they are probably not so advanced today. However, he was denounced by his enemies, and they were many, as being stupid, as seducing the public and promoting revolution.
Any time a man puts forward a new idea there will always be others to say he is stupid and knows no better. That may be. I do not profess to know all the answers, but I do know how I feel. In closing, I would say on this subject of capital punishment that life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment. If someone is sentenced to life imprisonment because of a capital crime, it should mean exactly that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Anthony Robert Temple: I have enjoyed this opportunity to get on my feet and make these few remarks. I hope they have been thought provoking. I enjoyed the interest some people have taken.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I appreciate this opportunity to take part in the debate. I preface my remarks by saying to the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and to the Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten) that I hope you will all continue to enjoy the good health you have enjoyed during the marathon session just completed, and that you will continue to show the patience of Job and the judgment of Solomon during the months to come, as you have during the gloomy events of the last 14 months.
I should like to congratulate, too, the Mover and Seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Though young in years they have displayed a rare maturity of judgment without having lost the idealism of youth. Young men of that calibre will go far in the service of their country.
We have had a Government which has been at the helm of the ship of state for almost two years, longer than it had ever expected. During that time it has presented three Speeches from the Throne. This is the third, and like all such speeches it gives some indication of the Government's plans for the coming session. The present Speech is longer by far than its two predecessors. It contains no less than 58 items of business as far as I have been able to determine, and this from a Government which has been suffering from a bankruptcy of ideas. I believe it is still suffering from a bankruptcy of ideas, but 58 items of business represent quite an order.
Some of these items in the Speech from the Throne are worthy of consideration. Some are original and others have been borrowed from other parties. Together they make up this wonderful bag of gimmicks, tricks and promises which the Government dangles in front of the Canadian people. When the hon. Member for Villeneuve was asked to comment on the Speech from the Throne the day it was delivered he said, over the C.B.C., that there were so many promises in it that we would have to work for the next two years, so there would be no election before that time. In the light of the methods this Government has used in planning its legislative program it might take even longer
April 12, 1965
than that unless, as I believe, the Government has in mind giving us merely an election manifesto hoping that opposition parties will get together and give it the boot. Then they can go before the electorate and say "Look at all the goodies we had to offer you; now we cannot provide them because the wicked Opposition would not let us proceed." [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I feel this House should give the Government an opportunity to carry out these plans for this Session regardless of how long it takes. After all, we have had one record breaking Session, and we could have another. They came into office on several election slogans and promises.
Let me bring you back, Mr. Speaker, to 1962 and 1963 and the 60 days of decision. Yes, in 60 days there were going to be visible improvements in all facets of the Canadian economy. Divide and rule was another method used, making different promises in the west from those in Central Canada and Eastern Canada. But the main platform was that the wicked Tories were driving the country into bankruptcy by devaluating the dollar. We all remember this, and I think the Government can stand to be reminded on this score. Today that "Diefendollar" seems to be pretty sound currency for the troubled Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon).
Another favourite expression used by the Pearson team was "Get the economy moving". What was the state of the economy during the Conservative administration? On this subject I am going to quote an authority, a Minister of the Crown, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), whose opinions at rare times are worth repeating. On April 5, 1965 she spoke to the Women's Club of Montreal, and according to the Ottawa Journal had this to say:
I feel that we can now say with pride that we have lived up to this our most important promise. .. the usual economic downturn has been avoided in the current business cycle and Canada is now in its fifth year of almost unbroken economic development.
To anyone who can even count on his toes the Minister stated that the economy had been rising for the past five years. This statement was made in 1965, so the economy started to go upwards in 1960, a time when the Liberals were far, far away from even becoming the government of this nation. Is that not an admission that this slogan or cry of "Get our economy moving" was just
The Address-Mr. Mandziuk an election gimmick, something to try and fool the people?
I will quote no other authority than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who the Gazette for March 13, 1964 quotes as follows:
Finance Minister Gordon says he detects no signs of weakening in the current economic upswing which now has lasted three full years.
So that in 1964 it had already lasted three full years. Therefore it was in full swing in 1961. Where were the Liberals in 1961? They were in the wilderness and they are in the wilderness today.
We have had admissions from the Minister of Finance that the devalued dollar is a perfectly sound currency, and we all know how the "Diefendollar" has carried right through the country both in the West and in the East. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself went on a buying spree in a grocery store just to show how much more the groceries would cost if the wicked Tories got into power. But today the Government say everything is fine. In this regard I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal shortly after the Liberals took office. It is headlined "A house left in good order". I should like to put some of this editorial on record because I think the House should be reminded of what happened. This editorial sums up the condition of the nation when the Liberals took over, economically, financially and otherwise:
He left-
"He" is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
-Mr. Pearson a country whose national production in 1962 had climbed 8 per cent to a peak of $40.4 billion-the greatest increase achieved by any western country, and the biggest income ever earned in history by a country with a population of 20 million people.
He left him with a country which, after years of trade deficits, had at last achieved a favourable trade balance.
He left him with a country which, on the testimony of President Kennedy-
That is the late President Kennedy.
-had achieved a greater price stability than any other western industrial nation.
He left him with a country whose reserves of gold and U.S. currency had been brought to $2,700,000,000-the greatest reached in years.. .
In short, Mr. Diefenbaker left Mr. Pearson with a country whose people were producing more, selling more, earning more and saving more than ever before in their history.
I should like to see the Government challenge that record instead of spreading stories about getting the economy moving. If they

April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk have done anything they have just followed in the footsteps of the Conservative administration, nothing more. The poverty of their ideas and opinions is evident, and it is evident in their third Speech from the Throne.
I should like to return to the Speech from the Throne which, on careful analysis, gains more prominence by what it does not say than by what it does say; and as I have said already it tries to say plenty. In this, as in the first two Speeches from the Throne, the farmer is a forgotten man. I am not speaking of the farmers of the West but of all farmers in Canada. Whether we admit it or not, agriculture is still one of the most important industries in Canada. But the farmer is a forgotten man.
I would remind this Government which lacks ideas, this Liberal Party which, when in Opposition, all it ever did was to remind the Conservative Party about our election promises-which we did carry out-of what the facts are. I have authority for this in the person of Peter Newman, one of their best apostles in the press, who admitted to Maclean's magazine that the Diefenbaker government carried out practically all its election promises.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: If they will give me 60 minutes I will show hon. Members the clipping. However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read to the House the agricultural policy promised the nation by the Liberals.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: No, I will not dispense, because this is worth repeating. Hon. gentlemen opposite would like to dispense with it or forget it, but it is the duty of the Opposition to remind this Pearson team which was going to do everything for this country of what were its promises. First of all, there was to be a two-prices system for wheat. Where is that policy? What did this Government do when the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union came to Ottawa in March? It turned a cold shoulder toward them and they got nothing from this promise.
What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) tell the farmers in Winnipeg? I have not time to quote it now because I want to proceed with this wonderful agricultural platform which was going to result in an initial price to the farmer of $3 per bushel for the first 300 bushels delivered. There was also to be a consumer subsidy so

that the price of bread did not go up. Over the course of the last two years I have seen the price of bread go up twice in the West; I do not know whether it has in the East. Where is this consumer subsidy, and where is the $2 wheat and the $3 wheat? Then a little while ago the Wheat Board lowered the price, and the Government are now blaming the Wheat Board.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Let me read what Mr. Hazen Argue promised at Beausejour on April 4, 1963:
-a consumer subsidy, and not so increase the price to the purchaser or create less sales; a minimum price for grains based on a minimum price of $2.00 per bushel for No. 1 wheat basis Fort William for the next three years;
Then he makes this further promise:
-regional and quarterly period for computing average prices of eggs, hogs etc.
This Government has been in office for two years, yet it has not really started to carry out these election promises. What has happened to these promises? Unfortunately there is not one Minister in the House at this time, which indicates to me that they do not care about these things.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: You are wrong, there are Ministers in the House.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes, there are a few assistants to the Ministers, but there are a great number of empty front benches.
I have these election promises on record, and let me remind Members on that side of the House that the farmer of Canada does not forget these promises as quickly as Members on the front benches of this Government have forgotten them. In the event you challenge me as to the accuracy of these promises, I shall give you the authority upon which I have relied. One of them is none other than that gentleman who was the agricultural spokesman for the Liberal party when they were in opposition, that gentleman who as the result of election fortunes in Assiniboia did not get back and is now the Liberal organizer in Saskatchewan. That gentleman has made these and similar statements throughout Manitoba. He made them in my riding, and I refer particularly to to the one from which I quoted, which he made in Springfield.
Let me refer to those statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) regarding prosperity on the farm. The Minister gallivants around the country telling everyone about increase in gross farm incomes.
April 12. 1965

Perhaps gross incomes are up, but what has happened to net incomes, that is what I want to know. Has the Minister of Agriculture ever worked out what net incomes are after the farmers have paid out their expenses? It is my understanding that the farmers are even more firmly held by the cost price squeeze. According to the Minister of Agriculture the farmer is not important. He is a forgotten man as far as this Government is concerned. He is the man responsible for providing food for the world. He does not observe a 40-hour week. He must fight the elements continuously, and continuously fight the Government. He has a formidable task when fighting this bankrupt Government.
What has happened to the price of eggs during the last two years? Those gentlemen who now sit in the front benches on the other side of this House, when in opposition promised regional price support. They promised the poultry farmers price support on eggs. Last Christmas when I was back in my constituency the farmers there were selling eggs for as low as 12 cents a dozen. That does not mean that the consumer was paying any less for them. The consumer was paying the same price for eggs and someone else was receiving the benefits of the price spread. Apparently that is of no concern to this Government.
The Canadian consumers of agricultural products asked for a royal commission to be set up to investigate the price structure on eggs. What answer did that organization receive? I do not think it received any answer.
What has happened to the price of beef to producers? In 1963 after the Liberal Government took office the price of beef to producers dropped. In 1964 this price dropped on an average of five cents per pound. One can imagine the effect of that price drop on a thousand pound steer, particularly to a small producer. It makes quite a difference as well to the operations of a large cattle producer.
What has happened to the price of pork? The price of pork has gone down, as far as producers are concerned, since this Government took office. What has happened to the price of wheat?


An hon. Member:: How about turkeys?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: We must not forget what has taken place in respect of the turkey industry. The Minister of Agriculture announced that the Government intended to
The Address-Mr. Mandziuk reinstitute a tariff on turkeys. This announcement came after this Government practically ruined the turkey industry in Canada by taking off the quota on turkeys imported from the United States. The Government in fact allowed turkeys to come into Canada from the United States, without restriction. The turkey producers there were quite happy to ship turkeys to our market. Those producers made a great deal of money in this way and almost ruined the turkey producers here. The Government then announced a tariff on turkeys, probably as a result of the smell of election smoke. I do not know what prompted them to change their mind-perhaps it was deathbed repentance-but a tariff is now to be placed on turkeys from the United States.
What has happened to the price of wheat? Both the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farm Union have been deeply concerned about the drop in the price of wheat. Who is responsible for lowering this price? It was not lowered as a result of world markets, but because of Canadian policy. This Government must accept the blame in this regard, not the Wheat Board This Government is happy to accept the credit for something the Wheat Board has accomplished, but in this case it must accept the blame for lowering the price of Canadian wheat.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You must accept the blame in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Not me.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am not pointing at you, I am pointing at the empty Government benches, which are empty I suggest because the Ministers do not like to listen to these facts. Everyone is perfectly aware of the fact that when Canada lowered the price of wheat, the United States authority followed suit. Every wheat exporting country followed this action on the part of Canada.
I am sure everyone in this House appreciates what the Conservative Minister of Agriculture did under similar circumstances. He held the line and we sold our wheat. If it were not for the windfall in relation to the sale of wheat to Russia, where would the Canadian wheat farmer be today? Hon. Members will recall that the Liberal Party promised two Ministers of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: We have not even got one.
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I believe that we have three Ministers of Agriculture. The hon. gentleman who carries the name has nothing to do with agricultural problems. All his responsibilities have been divided up among three Members of the Liberal Party; yet only from time to time do we have the pleasure of seeing one of those gentlemen here.
The hon. gentleman who has the name of Minister of Agriculture says that farmers do not require acreage payments. He has made that statement in Saskatchewan. He has referred to these payments as peanuts. I know as a result of speaking with the farmers in my constituency, and I am sure all other representatives of farming areas will agree, that those farmers would like to obtain some of these peanuts. The Minister of Agriculture says that agricultural conditions have so improved that these acreage payments are not necessary.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Again I can only suggest that this Government is suffering from a bankruptcy of ideas.
I should like to read from an article which appeared in an October, 1964 edition of a newspaper, regarding a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture at Falher, Alberta. The headline is "Hays Praises Former PC Govt, for Concern on Farm Problems." We appreciate honesty once in a while. I should like to put on record what this article states was said by the Minister of Agriculture, so that everyone will know just how bankrupt this Government is as far as ideas and programs which will move today's economy forward are concerned. I suggest this Government has done nothing more than to carry on with our policies, although it promised to improve on them. This Government said that it would push the economy forward within three or four years, but what are supporters of this Government going to tell the people of this country when they go out on the hustings this fall or next spring? When they go on the hustings this fall or next spring, are they going to tell the country another pack of lies? They are apt to. Here is what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) says:
Agriculture Minister Harry Hays has criticized the former Liberal administrations and commended the Progressive-Conservative Government for its concern on farm problems while it was in office.
Very commendable.
Mr. Hays...told a meeting sponsored by the Farmers' Union of Alberta that Canada and the Liberal Party needed a change when the Conservatives were elected in 1957.


May I interject that I think Canada needs a change again.


An hon. Member:: You will have a new leader pretty soon.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The article continues:
"I think.. .the last Liberal government deserved to be kicked out when it was."
What a kick they will get again.
He said the present Government has continued the agricultural policies started by the Conservatives.
Sir, they are continuing these policies that they smeared, downgraded, laughed at and slandered because they have none of their own, and furthermore because they know that the Canadian farmer is not going to stand for any tampering with Conservative policies which improved agricultural conditions. I should like to read an extract from an editorial in the Western Producer of April 2, 1964, a good farm paper. It quite frankly says:
We're interested in policies, not parties.
That is quite correct, or at least I will take their word for it.
We have consistently stated that Tory farm policy, as it developed up to last year, was a good start in the direction of the kind of policy we needed. In fact, we urged Mr. Pearson's new Government, in an editorial last May 2, not to get too far away from it.
They promised improvements, but where those improvements are only the Lord knows. We know that when the farmers' organizations came to Ottawa they were deeply concerned about the increase in steel prices, because it will increase the price of everything made out of steel. The farmer is a large consumer of steel products, starting with his high priced farm equipment right down to an ordinary hammer, saw, and nails. What has the Government done? Do you see anything amongst the 58 items of business proposed in this long Speech from the Throne which would indicate that the Government has in mind the controlling of steel prices, just as the United States President did several years ago? Oh, no.
These farm organizations asked that the Government subsidize wheat exports to give the farmers $2 a bushel for their wheat. They kindly reminded the Government of their election promise, but there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne in this regard. The National Farmers Union expressed concern over crop insurance, a revision of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, unemployment insurance for farm labour and requested a royal commission on the farm implement industry.
April 12, 1965

The prices of farm implements have been going up every year, and with the increase in the price of steel they will continue to go up.


Mr. Nasserden:: And there is also the 11 per cent sales tax.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Oh, yes. The Government is trying to forget that. It is a revenue bearing item which will help them to have a balanced budget but they do not even give the farmer peanuts. Let the farmer go to- well, I will not say the word because it would not be parliamentary.
When we were in power we set up a House Committee to investigate the prices of farm implements. When the Liberals took office they took no steps to re-establish this Committee which had accumulated a great deal of information. A large number of briefs were presented to it by the farm implement manufacturers and farm organizations. Why did they not pursue this matter further and arrive at a solution of some kind? Oh, no. They take pride in the level of gross income of farmers, but I think it was the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) who proved that the net income of farmers is down. It is going to go down further because the price of wheat has gone down. What is the government going to do about the situation? They have produced a long Speech from the Throne with 58 items but they are not concerned about agriculture.


An hon. Member:: It is a record.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes, it is a record. I do not think anybody can beat it. They are more concerned about a flag and about a new national anthem for Canada. We are going to sing "O Canada" whether or not it is on the statute books and we would love to sing it whether or not it is on the statute books. Why is the Government going to waste the time of the House to put it on the statute books?


An hon. Member:: You are going to filibuster.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: We are going to have something else. We are going to have another royal commission to try to find out whether Canada needs an Ombudsman. Canada needs an Ombudsman as much as she needs a hole in the head.


Mr. Bigg:: We need an alert Parliament.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: If we have a proper Government and proper administration of the law, then with 20 million intelligent Canadians we
The Address-Mr. Mandziuk are properly protected by the law. We do not need an Ombudsman. I do not know whether I am pronouncing "Ombudsman" properly; I do not think it is an English word. It must be an import from Asia or some place else. Nevertheless the Government intends to establish a royal commission.
We have had experience with one royal commission, the "buy and buy" commission, or B and B Commission. It started with ten members at $100 each a day. That was not too bad; but do you know what it has snowballed into? One hundred and fifty people; because every secretary needs a secretary, and the second secretaries need secretaries, all the way down the line. Do you know what they have done? I am glad that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has agreed with me and my colleague, the hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), with regard to the silly task they undertook-


Mr. Pepin:: Have you got something to hide?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: -which involved putting Members of Parliament through the wringer by asking inappropriate questions. I agree with the Prime Minister that you cannot dictate to a royal commission as to what it should do, and that they must work within their terms of reference. However, I believe that the Government and the country, which pay for these royal commissions, should put a check on some of these investigations. This commission may not be going to carry out these investigations of the thinking of Members, but they might start another search to find out what the ethnic groups in Canada eat. They might try to find out whether the Italians still love pizza pie.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Member to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I just want to finish this statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the House give unanimous consent for the hon. Member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Thank you. I am not going to take much more time. They might check to see whether the Danes in Canada still love Danish pastry, if the Ukrainians love their borsch, the Scots their haggis, the Germans their sauerkraut, the Hungarians their goulash, the Icelanders their hongiket. And if you do not know what that means, it is smoked
246	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Plourde mutton. The taxpayers will be paying for all this. Favourite foods are a part of everyone's culture and they have contributed them to the new Canadian culture that is growing up.
I know that pizza pies are eaten by more than Italians, that borsch is a favourite of the Scots, Irish and English.
[DOT] (4:30 pjn.)


An hon. Member:: And chop-suey.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes, and chop-suey. If you do not check these royal commissions, they are going to dig into these things at your expense. They are already costing a million and a half, and they will cost another million and a half. How is this going to give them an opportunity of recommending to the people of this nation how to solve the problems that exist between the two founding people and the ethnic peoples and teach them to live together, to be integrated into one group of Canadians?
I wish to thank the House for giving me the opportunity of making these few remarks.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of these remarks, I should like, according to practice, to offer my congratulations to the mover, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and to the seconder, the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) of the address in reply, who discharged their task conscientiously and who carried out properly their duty which is to put forward the views of the government.
As for me, not being a member of the Liberal party, I might be allowed to differ as to the goals and objectives pursued by the policies set forth in the speech from the throne and also as to the means proposed by those two government spokesmen.
I should also like to refer to a certain part of the speech made by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche when he discussed the exodus of the graduates from Quebec technical institutes.
The exodus of our young graduate technicians, well prepared for a technical career, was a tragic thing. May I point out, he said, that in 1961, while I was teaching graduates at the Technological Institute of Shawinigan, ten students only out of 100 intended to remain on the local labour market.
Such a statement, Mr. Speaker, means that the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, as teacher at the Shawinigan Technological Institute, must assume his share of responsibility for such a situation.
It was not the fault of the students and graduate technicians if they ended their stud-

DEBATES	April 12, 1965
ies with a stock of knowledge that did not enable them to find employment in their own working area.
They cannot be blamed for the programs not being adapted to the conditions of the local labour market. It is not their fault if the Shawinigan Technological Institute did not train young metallurgical technicians for the aluminum plants at Shawinigan; they cannot be blamed if the programs did not train technicians for the chemical industries in Shawinigan; they can neither be blamed if the Shawinigan Technological Institute did not train technicians for the pulp and paper industries in Shawinigan, Grand'Mere and La Tuque.
The fault cannot be placed on the shoulders of the graduates of that institute, but on those whose duty it was to train competent technicians the district required and prepare programs suitable for the working and employment conditions in the Shawinigan district.
The responsibility rests with those whose duty it was to prepare those programs, namely the directors of those institutes, the authorities in charge of specialized education in the province of Quebec and the whole teaching body to which belonged the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche; they were the ones who should have advised those in charge of preparing the programs.
In this regard I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the results of a survey of professional and technical teaching in the province of Quebec show that the teachers themselves- most of whom were former graduates of those technological institutes who had never visited a plant and, therefore, could not know the needs of industry-were incompetent and inefficient at training qualified technicians capable of meeting the needs of industry in their respective districts.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne makes a great play about the fact that Canada must wage war against poverty and makes it clear to us that we must get behind such a fight.
It is as if we were asked, Mr. Speaker, to take a stand against alcoholism, crime or sin.
Everybody is against poverty. Everybody wants to do away with it. Everybody, the Creditistes to begin with, wants for our families and their members a decent living. Everyone wants for our people reasonable and paying salaries and wages. Everyone wants education and training to be made available to our youth, in keeping with the
April 12. 1965	COMMONS
economic and cultural needs of our times. Everybody would like to see want and illness disappear from our homes.
Everybody would like farmers to earn a decent living on their farms.
We all agree about that. Everybody including members of all parties, will endorse the government proposal for an intensive fight against want, poverty, illness and ignorance.
But if we are all agreed about the necessity of removing poverty from our homes, and providing a decent living to all, we disagree about the means to attain this end.
Those who are steeped in materialism and collectivism and who would like to make the individual subservient to a party, a class or the state will try to deprive the individual of his most important asset, freedom, and put forward some measures to depersonalize the individual, to make him lose his dignity and forget the purposes of his existence.
On the contrary, those who believe that man, as stated in the American Declaration of Independence, has an inalienable right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, should see to it that, as stated by John XXIII in Mater et Magistra, and I quote:
-precautionary activities of public authorities in the economic field, although widespread and penetrating, should be such that they not only avoid restricting the freedom of private citizens, but also increase it, so long as the basic rights of each individual person are preserved inviolate. Included among these is the right and duty of each individual normally to provide the necessities of life for himself and his dependants.
No step detrimental to the freedom of the individual should be taken to fight poverty of the individual or the family.
Any step taken to raise the intellectual and professional training level of young men and women or adults should respect their freedom, the freedom of their parents or the freedom of lower levels of government such as provincial or municipal governments or school boards, or organizations whose rights supersede those of the central state in the field of training and education.
Any step taken to improve health standards should not be imposed without respecting the freedom of the individual and the autonomy of the provinces in that area.
Any step taken to help farmers should not place them in a strait-jacket, remove or limit their right to ownership and should not replace the prior right of the provinces in this field.
No measure for the development of natural resources should run counter to the purposes
DEBATES	247
The Address-Mr. Plourde for which natures assets exist and to the aims of industrial organization.
Now, the object of industrial organization is to produce as cheaply as possible the goods required to meet the consumers' needs. Industrial organization is not meant to provide employment, but goods and services. Consequently, when policies implemented by governments are aimed at and succeed in reversing the order of ends and means, such policies are bad, harmful, and have no place in a federal system like ours.
To conclude this part of my statement, the centralizing policy advocated in the speech from the throne-and which the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche described as a collectivist policy-ought to be rejected because it runs counter to the particular autonomies at the various government levels in this country.
It is not by adopting centralizing measures that the most complete development of the human being will be ensured, but through measures making the individual more and more free and able to free himself with the help of institutions of his own making.
However, there are certain goods or means which can only be made available to every member of society through state intervention: currency and credit.
The creation of money has always been a royal, a state prerogative. And it is due to a certain mental aberration that governments have waived their right of controlling money and credit.
In Canada and in Quebec nowadays, the creation of credit is left to the discretion of a small number of private individuals and organizations. Today in Canada, the creation of money has become the prerogative of some financiers who in this way happen to control the very lifeblood of social and economic organization.
As the Creditistes explained on several occasions, private citizens or organizations should not be allowed to create money and credit, because money and financial credit, which must reflect the real credit of the country, rightly belong to all those who contribute to the production of goods and services.
Therefore, if the community produces a certain amount of goods and services wanted by the consumers of whom that community is composed, the amount of money or credit placed at the disposal of the community must be equal to the amount of goods and services produced.
248	COMMONS DEBATES	April 12, 1965
The Address-Mr. Plourde
I will go further. In order to make possible the production of a certain amount of goods and services wanted by consumers, if the members of society as producers want and are able to produce this amount of goods and services, money and credit which make possible the creation of this amount of goods and services must be given to the community before hand. This is what is called "credit advances".
But if there are some classes of goods which are of a private character, the production of which is likely to produce benefits and profits and which, consequently, justify a payment of advanced or loaned credit, on the other hand there are other classes of goods which are mere services given by society to itself, mere services which do not produce benefits nor profits.
For instance schools, universities, hospitals, roads, highways, waterworks, streets, sidewalks are not private assets but public assets, because their purpose is to serve society as a whole; they cannot be monopolized in the hands of a few, and they are meant to provide for the well-being of society, to favour the weal and, consequently, to serve all human beings.
Since public capital must not bring in dividends and profits, since public capital is only used for the production of goods intended for the community as a whole, it is obvious that this capital must be made available to the community interest free.
This is, therefore, the efficient part the Bank of Canada must play in this field. Therefore, the government must deny private institutions the power to create credit and give back this power to the only agency fit to create credit free of charge for the community as a whole.
That is why we say that the Bank of Canada should make available to the federal and provincial governments, to the municipalities and the school boards under their jurisdiction the money they need to finance universities, schools, libraries, waterworks, sewers, highways, streets, sidewalks, hospitals, recreational centres, etc.-we could continue this enumeration till tomorrow morning-as long as these public capital investments are materially possible and there are needs to be met.
Now, there are in Canada hundreds of thousands of unemployed; there are plants which are not operating at full capacity; there are plenty of raw materials and other materials.

The needs are there also. The medical schools of the University of Montreal and Laval University, in Quebec City, had to refuse 600 young people who had prepared for 15 years to become doctors; the agricultural school of Ste Anne de la Pocatiere, in the province of Quebec, had to refuse many rural youths who wished to learn rational farming.
Why? Because these institutions lacked space, and money to provide more space. We need a humane and orderly economy. A government convinced of its responsibilities toward society would endeavour to provide the necessary public capital to meet these needs.
Such a policy, providing public capital without interest, would bring about certain results.
It would allow, for instance, a reduction in the ever-increasing costs of the public debts of our different governments. The reduction of interest payments on public debts would enable governments to reduce taxes, and thus increase the purchasing power of families and of individuals.
That is why we, of the Ralliement creditiste, are calling for legislation which will permit the provinces to use their real credit as they please, according to the needs of their citizens so that the wholesome and useful things which could benefit the people may be made available to them.
There is another thing the Ralliement Creditiste calls for, and it is to allow the provinces to control their own trade.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Ralliement Creditiste are not the only ones to regret the evil effects of the control of trade on the part of the federal state. Here are two examples:
At the federal-provincial conference of November 1963, the premier of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, said:
British Columbia urgently asks the Canadian government to revise as rapidly as possible the national tariffs. Measures conceived to protect manufacturing industries in central Canada at the expense of other provinces must be cancelled as soon as possible.
And he added:
Canada's tariff policy protects manufacturing industries in Quebec and Ontario. Consequently, the British Columbia consumers must pay a higher price for their consumer goods.
Another authorized spokesman for the prairie provinces, Mr. Charles Gibbins, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, also stated the problem in the following terms
April 12. 1965



before the Canada-Japan Trade Council on October 15, 1964.
After noting the Canada wheat sales to Japan and the possibilities opened by Japan to western farm products, Mr. Gibbins stated that the high tariffs and the quotas laid down by Canada against imports of Japanese products impaired our grain exports. He added:
Only 8 per cent of Canadian imports of textiles come from Japan. Only 4 per cent of our imports of various goods come from the same source. In fact, Japan supplies only 2 per cent of our total imports.
And yet, Japan is requested to make sacrifices in order to enable some of our marginal industries to continue to deteriorate. That is expensive for us all. We pay more for those goods which we could buy from Japan if that country was given a reasonable access to Canadian markets. We place a most heavy burden on a very good customer, so much so that Japan must wonder how long it will be able to continue buying from us.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the control of Ottawa on our international trade is not satisfactory.
Canada is too large geographically; its production is so diversified that tariff measures likely to help an area of Canada cannot but be to the disadvantage of another.
For instance, if easier access to Canadian markets were provided for Japanese textiles so as to reduce the cost of living in certain parts of Canada, the textile industries in Montreal, St. Gregoire de Montmorency, Drummondville, St. Hyacinthe, Granby, Magog and Sherbrooke, in the province of Quebec, would automatically bear the brunt of that new policy. Thousands of workers would be laid off and hundreds of families would suffer hardship.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement Creditiste is justified in demanding that the provinces have control over local and external trade. It is not that Quebec seeks to put up tariff barriers between itself and the other Canadian provinces, because it could make with them trade agreements similar to those prevailing between members of the European community, the common market.
However, Quebec could have more effective control over its import and export trade with foreign countries. It would thus be in a better position to meet more adequately the needs of its population, taking into account the goods and services with which it could provide that population through its production and its trade with other countries.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement Creditiste will keep asking for a federal-provincial conference to amend the Canadian
Division
constitution for the purposes I have just indicated.
Consequently, I want to move an amendment.


An hon. Member:: Out of order.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the following words be added to the address-
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose a measure to exempt from income tax any Canadian married or with dependents who earns less than $5,000 a year and any single Canadian who earns less than $2,500 a year, and therefore no longer enjoy the confidence of the house and the Canadian people.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Jean L. Rochon (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, it is customary for a member taking part in the debate on the speech from the throne to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address. The speech from the throne gives the people of Canada an idea of the legislative program to be submitted to both houses in the days ahead.
Our two colleagues, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), were worthy of the confidence placed in them and everybody appreciated the moderation and seriousness of their speeches. They succeeded in emphasizing the truly national democratic spirit of the government of our country.
They have stressed the social aspect which we will be considering and they should be commended for having placed the higher interests of the nation above cheap politics. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, they represented with
[Mr. Plourde.l
dignity their voters; they represented with dignity this great Canadian who is our leader, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson); they represented with dignity the holder of the Nobel prize for peace; they represented with dignity the one who, because of his courage and his indomitable willpower, personified the soul of our people in a flag and who, tomorrow, by means of our own national anthem, will tell the whole world:
O Canada, terre de nos aieux
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux
It is also customary, in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, to pay tribute to one's constituents. I would be remiss in not doing so and in not thanking publicly all those who gave me the largest majority of anybody in this house. Therefore, my most sincere thanks to the electors of the third largest riding in Canada, whose various classes of people are truly representative of the aspirations of every group in this country, be it that of the farmers, the city workers, the manufacturers, the businessmen or the professionals. It is my duty to thank them and, as their member, not to forget that, as the seconder of the address pointed out, before being a Liberal, I must stand for national unity, for this strength of which Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, at the beginning of this century:
Thanks to the goodwill and the enlightened patriotism of everyone, the twentieth century will belong to Canada.
This prophesy of a great statesman has come true, but this wonderful reality could become still more actual if it were possible to forget, or rather settle our differences; if the rights of minorities were respected and if an attempt were made to find a form of agreement among the provinces which would enable everyone of them to play its full part to enhance the fame and the greatness of our country.
In the last few years, the advantages of cooperative federalism have been felt. Certain people, steeped much more in petty politics than in true and sincere patriotism, have decried that theory, but its results are there to prove its worth.
Following Federal-Provincial meetings, compromises satisfactory to each party were reached, and immediately the beneficial results of those discussions, of this co-operation with the federal government, were felt. It was realized that all were equal partners, that what could be obtained was not a mere handout, but a right recognized to everyone.
April 12. 1965
With a thorough understanding of its role, the present Liberal government proved that it was worthy of its past achievements. It pursued its social assistance program without paying attention to the malicious remarks of those whose only ambition is to return to office, even if in so doing they smear and blacken reputations. It forged ahead, and today as in the past, it advocates a comprehensive social program.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) sees in it worn-out measures borrowed from other countries. But what does it matter, Mr. Speaker, if those worn-out measures can erase poverty from our country, if those measures borrowed from other countries can produce the wonderful results achieved by the American peace corps, dreamt about by one of the greatest figures of our times, the late President Kennedy of the United States.
After the Prime Minister's masterful speech last Tuesday, after his clear and precise outline of the steps that should be taken to fight poverty, needless for me to repeat what he said and what others, ministers as well as members said also when they dealt with help for the sick, for those who are obliged to change jobs because of automation, for the farmers in eastern as well as western Canada, who talked about the creation of a Canadian dairy commission, a public assistance program at the federal level, and help for those who cannot benefit from the Canada pension plan. They knew how to explain the government's views, show the social scope of those measures and the benefits that will be derived therefrom when they have been passed by parliament. There is no need for me to do that.
However, I would like to stress one point which struck me and which meets so well one of today's most pressing needs, namely help for young people.
Provincial governments, through their department of welfare, do a lot and those which, like the government of Quebec, have a department of education allocate huge sums of money for the education of our young people; parish organizations set up recreation centres because it is a well-known fact that a clear mind needs a healthy body. Everyone is agreed that we must allow our young people to assert themselves, that we must allow them to spend their energies for the good cause, that we must prepare them for the role which will be theirs tomorrow. Therefore, the federal government, without inter-
The Address-Mr. Rochon fering with any provincial right, intends to introduce legislation to help them.
Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the most heavily populated constituencies in Canada; several of the great teaching institutions of the city of Montreal and its northern suburbs are located there-teachers' colleges, classical colleges, high schools as well as grade schools. Thousands of young people study there. Therefore, you will understand why I welcomed the announcement in regard to the establishment of a company of young Canadians, through which the energies and talents of youth can be enlisted in social and economic projects, both in Canada and abroad.
I have applauded this beautiful and noble deed on the part of this government. On reflection, an idea flashed through my mind; I thought of another deed that would be equally beautiful, great and noble. Why would not these talented young people channel their energy toward a social achievement which might take the form of an investigation to eliminate an evil that poisons the soul of our youth, cripples and numbs too many of these young brains who could do so much tomorrow when the time comes for them to take over.
You realize, Mr. Speaker, that I am referring to certain radio and T.V. programs, to certain publications through which immorality and sexuality find the doors of our homes wide open.
However, I would not want to make a blanket condemnation-and nobody would take me seriously, if I did-because to condemn these marvellous media of popular education such as radio and T.V., would be condemning everything that modern science and human genius have achieved that is beautiful and great in this world. I would not think of it.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Everybody realizes that in this atomic and space travel age, one needs much more training than in the past and that to keep up with progress, one has to be familiar with modern techniques and methods of self-improvement. Apart from schools and teachers, where could we find, to provide us with such methods and techniques-to open up our minds to the unlimited horizons of the world-anything better than radio and television? However, as anyone may have noticed, what should be used only for the good of humanity can one day become a pernicious instrument and be put to work for evil purposes. As I said a while ago, Mr. Speaker, that is where I felt educated young people could exert a healthy influence.

April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Rochon After investigation, they could examine the problem and suggest the most efficient ways of eliminating this evil. What a fine social undertaking and what noble action on the part of the government who would bring this about.
Our young people are not bad, far from it; they have to be guided; their enthusiasm must be directed toward a just cause; they are imbued with ideals; we could spare them difficulties and give them the opportunity to assert themselves in allowing others of their own age to devote their energy and their talent to their service. This is a thought that occurred to me. Why would it not come through?
May I, Mr. Speaker, deal with a question of current interest? The quiet revolution going on in the province of Quebec, which, in 1867, agreed to become a partner in confederation, accepted its responsibilities but expected its rights to be respected.
During the last debate on the address in reply, in February 1964, I dealt at great length with that matter; I recall the statement made in the house in 1865 by one of the fathers of confederation, Sir Georges Eltienne Cartier, and I quote:
The delegates who will go to England will not accept any decision from the imperial government unless it is one based on the resolutions passed by this house and they will bring back no others.
And apart from guaranteeing the preservation of our language and our faith, the main resolutions also guaranteed Quebeckers that they would be considered equal partners who would take a full part like their Englishspeaking fellow citizens, in the country's economic, social culture and political development. The federal system did much for the emancipation of our country. We are now a great nation which is listened to and respected. Every province had a share in it, Quebec as well as the others, but unfortunately, Canada was too long considered as an Anglo-Saxon country, which has obliged us, from Quebec, to fight for survival.
For too long they have forgotten to treat us as equals, for too long they have forgotten that we were partners, so much so that we felt and unfortunately we still feel too often, that we are strangers in our own country. It is true that we had to fight for our survival, but those days are gone now. The province of Quebec became conscious of its value, and particularly of the part it can play within confederation, and this government, more than any other, endeavoured to make it clear

to Quebec. It endeavoured to direct its action towards the union of all men of good will and, as one of our historians said last year:
Let us recognize that the Prime Minister of Canada has a fine quality; as a diplomat, as a Canadian who thinks of national unity before everything else, he strives to make it clear that throughout discussions among the different groups of people, Canadians should show themselves more realistic and less emotional.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)

If we would only be willing to forget our differences of opinion and try to join in our efforts, how much more beautiful and great a nation we could build.
And, as a professor of McGill University stated, in his report to the Laurendeau-Dun-ton Commission, "English speaking as well as French speaking are faced with a problem of national unity", which should be resolved so that all inferiority complexes would disappear into Canadianism. And, according to that professor, the majority of our English speaking compatriots are doing their utmost to understand French Canada.
If Quebec seems, at times, to be the only Province changing in recent years, we should remember that industrialization in all the English speaking Provinces, as well as in Quebec, has totally changed the face of our country. So, instead of losing precious time in sterile discussions, instead of trying to destroy one another, why not try to understand each other and reach our goal-a great Canada-a great nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Jean-Léo Rochon: Borrowing from Hon. Mr. Chevrier, our high commissioner in London, an idea which he developed last week before the Royal Commonwealth Society, if I may use his words, Mr. Speaker. It has been realized throughout the world that the quiet revolution which is now taking place not only in Quebec but in the whole of Canada, has caused almost everywhere a great deal of soul-searching. It has been inferred therefrom that in order to save the unity of the country, we ought not to listen to extremists, either English or French separatists, either English or French nationalists, but rather to develop in understanding and mutual goodwill the biculturalism and bilingualism movement promoted by one of the great fighters for Canadian unity, our leader, the Prime Minister of Canada.
April 12. 1965



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and since the House is not rising at six o'clock, hon. Members may like to know what the program will be at ten o'clock tonight. It is as follows: the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):	Agriculture-British
Columbia-request for long-term loans to tree fruit growers; the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan):	administration of
justice-preparation of pamphlet on capital punishment; the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford): Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Vancouver-possible use of former R.C.A.F. base.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cashin for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, it is a convention of the House on occasions such as this to pay tribute to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply. Although it is a conventional expression of tribute, yet in the years I have been here I have never known it to be merely conventional. It has been well earned on every occasion, and certainly this applies to the mover and seconder of the Address on this particular occasion. They carried themselves excellently. They did a very good job. They were a credit to themselves, to their party and to the House, and I want to express my own congratulations to them on having performed a very difficult task.
Dealing with the Speech from the Throne in the very few minutes which are allotted to one, some 30 in this debate, it is impossible to cover many of the points with which one would like to deal. The Liberal Party in its election campaign of a year ago used a comic book, which had various sections with instructions, such as "colour them green." I think, Mr. Speaker, they must feel everybody in Canada is green if they accept all the statements contained in the Speech from the Throne.
253
The Address-Mr. Nowlan
Many years ago Marie Antoinette when she could not understand why people did not have bread, said, "Well, let them eat cake." In this case the cake would not be of the Government's making. The frosting would not be of the Government's composition but the results, if and when the Speech from the Throne is implemented, will in the great majority of cases be a numerous multiplicity of Dominion-Provincial conferences, and this is something on which I wish to comment.
Take the war on poverty, that grandiloquent phrase borrowed from President Johnson, the new manpower policies, the changes in ARDA, the Canada assistance plan, medicare, the agricultural policies and the constitutional question-as, if, and when dealt with-will all result in a very large number of Dominion-Provincial conferences; indeed will depend upon an interminable series of these conferences.
A Dominion-Provincial conference in itself is not a bad thing, but when you have a continuation of them to the extent that they enter upon practically the whole program which the government places before the House, it is a matter to which the House should pay more than passing attention.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I do not want to give any partisan criticism on matters such as this. I prefer to refer the House and you, Mr. Speaker, to a statement made by the non-Conservative partisan, Mr. Peter Newman of the Toronto Star, whose claim to fortune, if not fame was the publication of the book "Renegade In Power".
This is what he had to say with respect to Dominion-Provincial conferences. Dealing with this specific Speech from the Throne he writes:
The massive intrusion into the economy suggested by the Speech from the Throne, will require fiscal and constitutional powers that Ottawa does not possess. It is clear that the details of most of the proposals will have to be hammered out not in the open forum of Parliament, but in the cloistered privacy of Federal-Provincial conferences.
Later in the same article he goes on to say:
The Pearson Government has, as a matter of deliberate policy, down-graded the functions and the powers of the Federal Government. This being true, ail of the legislative initiative cannot remain in the hands of Ottawa, no matter what brave new world it conjured up in the Speech from the Throne. The Liberals simply cannot have it both ways.
If they want a description-I think one might want some light reading, some amusing reading and, I think authoritative reading
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Nowlan about Dominion-Provincial conferences-I refer hon. Members to an article in the Montreal Star by one Mr. Leslie Roberts. This appeared on April 3. Mr. Roberts, as I think all of us know, is an active apologist for the Liberal Government. He knows the desires, the aspirations and the hopes of the Government. He has written and spoken for them in election campaigns and he writes for them in every article of his which appears in the press, directly or indirectly. In this particular article he was dealing with the political future of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve). He was suggesting something of the future which might lie ahead of him and he based his prophecy on action the hon. gentleman took following the Dominion-Provincial conference which was held in Quebec last April, out of which grew the Canada Pension Plan. He described in some detail all that went on following that conference. He referred to it as a disaster of stunning proportions and he said:
Through the early days in April, nobody in Ottawa seemed to know what to do next. People wrote notes, memoranda and briefs, and in Quebec, Lesage alternated between tempestuous rage and silent sulks.
Then the Minister of Forestry persuaded the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to allow him to take matters into his own hands. The hon. Gentleman, accompanied by that brain-truster Tom Kent, went to the Prime Minister late one afternoon and said: We are heading for an unmitigated disaster and something must be done about it; will you authorize us to go to Quebec and see what we can do? So they went to Quebec. They met a prominent civil servant in the Government of that Province. Then there are details here with which I will not bore the house-how they registered at the Chateau Frontenac under assumed names, and so on. It has all the trimmings of plot and counterplot. Only the late Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond, agent No. 007, came near to matching what Mr. Roberts writes as to the activities of these gentlemen at this time. According to his article, conferences were held in a small hotel in Eastview. The Minister of Forestry and Mr. Kent conducted discussions in a men's room off the lobby. Out of these conferences and negotiations in men's rooms and hotel rooms, and under assumed names, grew the massive Canada Pension Plan.
That is the picture according to Mr. Roberts. It shows how Parliament can be denigrated in Dominion-Provincial conferences. If these policies are continued, if there is to be a
[Mr. Nowlan.)
multiplicity of Dominion-Provincial conferences, this House becomes a mere sounding board and Members of the House of Commons will certainly become nothing more than echoes of what is decided outside this Chamber, sometimes without even discussion between the various Departments.
Walter Stewart of the Toronto Star Weekly in a broadcast yesterday dealing with Dominion-Provincial conferences pointed out the menace presented by a multiplicity of conferences such as the Government proposes. He said that Government without representation is bad, but that Government without responsibility is much worse. I suggest to you, sir, that our whole system of responsible Government will not only be denigrated but will be so eroded and weakened that Parliament as a whole will have no more control of the public affairs of this country and that the Government will become only a sounding board for what is said at these Dominion-Provincial conferences.
John Meyer, financial editor of the Montreal Gazette said in one of his columns the other day, commenting on this subject of a war on poverty, that the idea was not original. I happened to be looking back the other day on some of the speeches made following the end of the second world war, and it is interesting to note the extent to which that is true. Mr. Meyer points out, in drawing a parallel between what was done then and what is proposed today, that when massive welfare programs were introduced following the Second World War the people of Canada were told at that time that these policies would end poverty; they were to end poverty and abolish it in this country. The fact that today after 20 years we find the Government of the day declaring a war on poverty would suggest that we did not eradicate it by those measures which were brought in at that time.
Poverty, I suggest, is not the result of any single factor. It is a combination of various element affecting different individuals in different ways. It is lack of health, lack of opportunity, lack of ambition, leading, in the end, to discouragement. Primarily perhaps it is lack of education. All these factors enter into poverty, and you do not eliminate poverty by moving people into better housing accommodation. This has been shown in the past. Very often people have been moved from poor housing conditions into better accommodation, but after four or five years the newer houses were in as bad shape as the ones they left. Neither do you cure poverty by pensions or handouts. Poverty is cured, I
April 12. 1965

suggest, in two ways; first by improving the educational system of the country, providing an education at least for our youth so that they can go forward confidently to earn a living in a new world; and second, by providing employment for the people. These two factors are the main factors to be considered in a war on poverty.
Several hon. Members have referred to the report of the Economic Council, Economic Goals for 1970. I was glad to hear this and I suggest it should be required reading for every Member of the House of Commons and, so far as possible, for Canadians generally. It sets very high goals for us and it says they can be attained. It says they have to be attained if we are to provide employment and even hold our own, let alone move ahead. It says this can only be done on the basis of a well trained labour force and population generally, and by an efficient productive system.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I suggest that the most important problem which this nation and this Parliament is facing today is that of education. It is a problem which is scarcely mentioned, except indirectly, in the Speech from the Throne. If we are to attain the goals which the Economic Council holds out for us, we must improve our educational system, a system which weighs heavily on the Municipalities, on the Provinces and on the Federal Government. It may be in the years to come that the increasing burdens which have almost bankrupted many of the Municipalities will be eased to some extent. The population explosion has just about run its course. Our youngsters in the primary and secondary schools may not need more school buildings but the cost of providing teachers and servicing the debt, however, will be with us.
The Economic Council of Canada foresees that the cost of education will increase from its present level of $2,140 million in 1963 to $3,180 million in 1970, which shows a yearly increase of 5.3 per cent. This is over-all educational cost. In the field of university education the Council envisages an increase of 16.4 per cent each year from now until 1970. I say to you that the most important problem facing the country today is not the provision of bigger and better pensions, not the providing of medicare and various other matters, all of which are good in themselves; unless we deal realistically with the educational problem with which the country is faced, then we are not going to conquer 22620-171
The Address-Mr. Nowlan poverty. We are not even going to hold our own and consequently our economy will falter. Instead of improving our social security measures and increasing pensions we are likely to find our economy faltering, because we cannot maintain our economic development which the Council says is necessary and increase our efficiency and improve our competitive position in a rapidly shrinking world.
I do not want to be tagged with the label of being opposed to social security, because I am not. I approve of social security. In this country we have tremendous social security programs which all of us would like to see expanded in accordance with our means and other priorities. But I say with all the seriousness at my command that the time has come when we should stop, look and listen in regard to these continually expanding social security programs and decide on some evaluation. This decision should be made in this Chamber, in this Parliament, here. We must evaluate the various programs and challenges which have been thrown to us, and this should be done before we embark on any war on poverty or before we step further with some of these social security programs.
I say that the decision must be made here and it is easy to see why. We have a Dominion-Provincial conference, say, on health. Certainly the Federal Minister of Health responsible for the development of the program, and the ten Provincial Ministers of Health responsible in their own respective fields, will all welcome the additional moneys which may be made available. The same is true with social security and other welfare measures. You will find you get the approval of the Ministers representing the Provinces and the Minister representing the Dominion Government in their own particular fields; and when the matter is brought to this Parliament, then we are told that perhaps we are right in our criticisms and that the matter should have been deferred, that perhaps the Government should not have gone ahead with it. But then the Government will say that this decision had been made by a joint Dominion-Provincial conference and there is nothing the Government can do about it. We will be confronted with that situation. I suggest once more that the first responsibility of Parliament is not to initiate more welfare measures but to evaluate the ones we already have. We should consider the ones which we feel are necessary and have been recommended. We should choose
April 12. 1965

The Address-Mr. Nowlan between them and have a concrete evaluation of them. All of this time we must bear in mind the overriding responsibility, in my opinion, of Canada going ahead with an ample and a proper educational system.
Having dealt generally with education I should like to refer to a specific problem in university education, because I have been talking generally. I think that the main burden of education will fall upon the universities. As I have said already, the municipalities have perhaps already met the challenge in the last few years, and through private capital facilities have provided schoolhouses and everything else. Further additions may not be required and it may well be that the municipalities will be able to hold their own.
In this regard I think particularly of my own province of Nova Scotia. I think, for example, of Acadia University. I have been associated with that university for many years and know it well. We have a large number of small universities in Nova Scotia. They are good universities, very good, but they are not state endowed, with the exception of the Nova Scotia Technical College and the Dalhousie medical and dental schools. All the rest of them depend upon gifts, meagre endowments, Government assistance such as we know it today, and unfortunately in many cases they suffer from continually increasing deficits. That is hardly the way a university should be financed. We have a peculiar and pressing problem in the Province of Nova Scotia in that almost 40 per cent-39 and something per cent-of the students attending universities there come from outside the Province of Nova Scotia.
There are various reasons for this, Mr. Speaker. To use an old cliche, we have to export our brains, and our graduates leave the Province. But when they are older they like to send their children back to their old university. In my case I have at least two sons with children whom they want to go back to Nova Scotia and attend Acadia University, and the same is true with a great majority of people from Nova Scotia. These colleges are small in these days of mass production factories-which are what some universities are-and these parents want their children to go to a small university. As I say, almost 40 per cent of our students are from without the province. Everybody knows how the grants are paid by the Federal Government to the universities; they are paid on a basis proportionate to the population of the Province. Nova Scotia is a Province

which geographically is small, is relatively small in population, and the student grant is based on the total population of that Province with no regard whatever to the student population of the Province. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the proper way to administer these university grants.
I remember speaking to a distinguished gentleman who sat opposite me in this chamber at one time. He held a very distinguished position, and even at that time I had said something to this effect. He told me afterwards that he was inclined to agree with me, but that it was part of historical tradition that we had to maintain at least the appearance of provincial control; therefore the only way the Government could get these grants through the house, or the only way they thought they could get them through the House, and the only way they thought they could get the support of all the Provinces, was to keep it on a Provincial population basis. I did not agree with him on this point, and in fact the Government did not get the support of all the Provinces for quite a long while.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I agree entirely with what the hon. gentleman has said, and some change should be made to recognize the situation of the Nova Scotia universities, but I would respectfully ask the hon. Member why, when he was Minister of Finance, he did not carry out this change himself?


George Clyde Nowlan: Because the people of Canada did not have the good sense to leave me as Minister of Finance long enough to accomplish it.
* (6:10 p.m.)
This is a problem for the Provinces as well. I know it is well known to all of us that the Province of Nova Scotia is concerned and it is making large grants to Nova Scotia Universities. The same situation is in existence in the Province of New Brunswick. These governments are wondering whether they should continue to give grants for the support of students coming from all over Canada, or whether they should be limited in some way to those students emanating from those Provinces.
I would refer hon. Members to the Canadian Universities Foundation, an organization which represents all universities in Canada. From 1961 to the end of 1963, despite the
April 12, 1965

fact that these universities were all coming to Ottawa and asking the Government for more money as a result of their claim that they had to have substantial increases in grants, they said that the problem as far as the universities of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were concerned was more acute, and urged upon the Federal Government to grant $400,000 per year to Nova Scotia Universities and $200,000 per year to the University of New Brunswick before providing increased grants to any other universities. In view of this attitude taken by the other universities, one does not have to urge this upon the Government, but I do suggest that if there is any validity to these arguments that these grants must continue on the basis of provincial population, then this recommendation of that association should be considered.
I should like to refer to the Atlantic Development Board which was created to develop the national resources of the Atlantic Provinces. This Board is doing very good work. It was instituted by that Government of which I had the honour of being a Member, and it has received the support of the present Government. I would suggest to the Government that, if it cannot pay out these amounts of money because of the population formula, then it might accept the recommendation of the Canadian Universities Foundation and have the special grants to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick universities paid by the Atlantic Development Board. I would suggest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who has a special interest in this Board, that he give his attention to the suggestion that the Atlantic Development Board could in some way be made responsible for the development of the Universities of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Perhaps part of the substantial sums of money which have been made available to that Board could be used for the development of these universities. Perhaps in that way the Government could move away from the difficulties in respect of grants on the basis of population, and also get around any technical constitutional problems that might arise. I can think of no greater resource which we have than our young men and women.
The universities of Nova Scotia receive $183.19 per student in the way of a federal grant. This can be compared to $281 per student in the wealthy Province of Ontario. Of course that Province has a larger population,
The Address-Mr. Nowlan and a larger student population. These universities receive $281 per student, as compared to the $183.19 in Nova Scotia. I suggest there is something radically wrong when this system is allowed to continue to operate in this manner; I urge the Government and particularly the Minister to pay some attention, to the suggestion that the Atlantic Development Board make some of the money which it receives available in this way for the development of that important resource. That Board has received large sums of money and will receive more when it is required, and 1 think it should give very careful consideration! to the necessity for making grants to these universities.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my time is running out. I am not sure how much time I have left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member has
at least two or three minutes at his disposal.


George Clyde Nowlan: Thank you.
As I have suggested, I think the youth of our Province is its greatest resource. Since this Atlantic Development Board was created for the purpose of developing our resources, this is a matter with which it could deal quite adequately and efficiently.
There are other problems of a more local nature to which I intended to refer, but as my time is running short I should like to refer to at least one, and then resume my seat.
The problem to which I have reference is one which was referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan). A suggestion has been made which has created fears in the minds of the people of Nova Scotia and in the Maritimes generally, to the effect that possibly some day the C.P.R. will terminate its service across the Bay of Fundy. I do not think this alarm is justified. This C.P.R. service has been in existence for generation after generation and I have been assured by officials of the company that, while there may have to be adjustments made in the future, it will likely be maintained.
One prominent executive said to me the other day: When you read during one week of the Russians walking on the clouds, and the next week of the United States photographing the moon preparatory to landing on it, do you not think we would be very foolish to commit ourselves to the expenditure of $4 million to $5 million for something which we can anticipate may have to be changed in five or six years' time. All they
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Novolan are asking for is a delay in the consideration of this problem. If that is the situation, that is one thing. If this is an intimation that the service might some day be discontinued, that is an entirely different thing. As the Minister of Transport suggested the other day in answer to questions raised by the Member for Saint John-Albert and myself the discontinuance of that service is impossible. No Provincial Government in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, and no Federal Government of any Party, would permit such a thing to happen. It is too bad that undue concern has been raised in this regard, because at the moment all we can do is wait to see how the situation will be resolved.
In addition to that problem, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem in respect of the fishermen. Originally a new wharf was to be built. The Government intended to spend between $3 million and $4 million to build that wharf. All the plans had been prepared and everything was ready. The old wharf was to be used by the fishermen. Plans have been changed and the old wharf will have to remain in service for the C.P.R. for some time. Other adequate accommodation will have to be provided for the fishermen. This is absolutely essential, as I think anyone who has seen the scores and scores of boats tied up behind the spur wharf will agree. The ability these fishermen have in operating in and out from that wharf is a credit to them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. Member have the consent of the House to continue beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Clyde Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to trespass on the rules of the House by taking up more than my allotted time, and I know that other Members here wish to speak. I should like to refer to only one other local matter, if I may.
There is a problem which exists in respect of providing adequate accommodation for fishermen, particularly in the western part of my constituency, having regard to communication between Brier Island, Long Island and the mainland. These islands have had access to the mainland by two motorboats and two scows. Travel accommodation in that area today is worse than it was 75 years ago, and I am not speaking in a political vein in any way. Seventy five years ago there was daily service provided between Brier Island, Long Island and Saint John.

That service, of course, went by the boards long ago.
A suggestion was made that a causeway could be built across this very narrow bit of water. The Government made an estimate of the cost, which was about twice as high as an estimate made by a Nova Scotia engineering firm. If a causeway could be built it would provide easy communication for cars and trucks. Thousands and thousands of tons of fish were transported in this area last year by boats and overloaded ancient scows. With the construction of a causeway there would be a tremendous development in the fishing industry and a tremendous impetus given to the transportation industry generally between those islands and the mainland. You would provide a deep-water harbour, which is very badly needed today. Even in the short time I have been here the motorboats used largely by the inshore fishermen have become very much larger and you have large draggers owned by young fishermen which cost $80,000, $90,000, $100,000 or $125,000. True, they have borrowed from the Fishermen's Loan Board. True, they have mortgaged their souls to pay for them. True, they go into debt. But where can these boats lie at night? There is hardly a deep-water harbour along that coast, and such harbours must be provided. This is one way in which that service can be performed. When the estimates come before us, which I trust will not be too long from now, we will be able to go into greater detail with respect to these matters and others which I had hoped to raise at this time, but have not been able to do so.
I appreciate the courtesy of the House in giving me a few moments additional time because I know I am trespassing on the time of others.
[DOT] (6:20 p,m.)


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my participation in the debate is to present a proposal for federal aid to education designed to deal with the stunning educational crisis which faces Canada today. It is a crisis which, if not met with boldness and imagination by all levels of government, will have drastic effects on the future of Canada for generations to come.
Throughout the world there is perhaps no subject which is causing more concern among responsible people than education. In the modern technological world no nation can hope to survive if it fails to develop the talents of all its members to the highest possible
April 12, 1965

degree. The future industrial strength of Canada will depend, not just upon the actions of the few but rather on how successful we are in developing the abilities and skills of all our people.
We hear much talk today about scientific change and automation, and the extent to which they will change our lives and displace workers. There is absolutely no hope of meeting such problems without a firm understanding of the role of education and the massive amount of money and effort which will have to be devoted to it in the years ahead. On January 12 of this year President Lyndon Johnson recommended to the United States Congress the doubling of the federal budget for education, which he described as the number one business of America. He declared:
Nothing matters more to the future of our country. We must demand that our schools increase not only the quantity but the quality of our education. It is our primary weapon in the war against poverty and the principal tool for building a great society.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the bill has already been passed and was signed by the President on Sunday night, a striking example of what can happen when a determined leader determines to move aggressively in an important field. What a contrast this represents to the attitude of this Government which in its legislative program does not even mention the subject and has even forgotten completely about its very modest program of 10,000 scholarships. Canadians could take greater comfort if the Government's program had contained a firm commitment to work in cooperation with the Provinces toward the goal of equal opportunity for all to education at every level. It is time, Mr. Speaker, that Ottawa stopped hiding behind the British North America Act and, without interfering in the provincial field of education, began giving the Provinces strong financial assistance in carrying the heavy burden of education costs.
Equality of opportunity has always been held up as one of the great ideals of democracy, but in Canada so far as education is concerned this ideal has been far from realized. The inequalities between province and province and between urban and rural centres are conspicuous. Children are growing up in some parts of Canada with only a fraction of the chance of the educational advantages enjoyed in other parts, and these differences are caused by the mere accident of geography.
The Address-Mr. Scott
It is a tragic state of affairs when the quality of education available to Canadians depends upon where they happen to live. Yet, Mr. Speaker, a poor education is a handicap that follows a person all the days of his life. There are today in Canada 1,017,869 men and women with no more than four years of formal schooling. They represent 9 per cent of all Canadians of working age. In rural Canada 64 per cent have attended only grade eight or less. I need hardly add that in the modern Canada most of these people will be chronically unemployed as long as they live, unless schemes can be developed to raise their educational level and provide them with skills with which to earn a living. Persons with not more than four years of formal schooling are simply not qualified for the skilled jobs that are becoming ever more important in our society.
One of the best indications of equality of opportunity is the amount of money that is spent yearly for each pupil. In 1961 the amounts spent in each Province ranged from $378 in Alberta and $373 in British Columbia to $141 in Newfoundland and $162 in Prince Edward Island. Thus, in dollars one Province spent almost three times as much per pupil as another.
Another yardstick to measure equality of opportunity is teacher qualifications. The proportion of teachers with university degrees varies from 47.4 per cent in one Province to only 7.7 per cent in another. Thus, five times as many teachers hold degrees in one Province as in another. Where is the equal opportunity here?
Another test to apply is the ability of a school system to hold its pupils. Among Canadian Provinces there is wide variation in the number of early dropouts. In one Province six out of ten children in a particular age group remain in school until they reach junior matriculation. In several other Provinces the corresponding figure is less than three out of ten.
These facts and many others which I could add destroy any illusion we might have cherished about equality of education opportunity in Canada. Yet on this vital subject all we receive from the Government is a thundering silence. How can we hope to think of ourselves as a unified nation when one part of the country is on such an obviously different level from the rest? It seems to me a major contribution to the goal of Canadian unity would be a commitment by the Government to make available the necessary funds to wipe

April 12, 1965
The Address-Mr. Scott out this discrimination and provide every Canadian with equal opportunity to develop to the limit of his educational ability.
In addition, economic gain would also result. Instead of just handing out subsidies and tax concessions to private industry to stimulate growth in certain areas, we suggest that economic growth would be more effectively stimulated by equalization grants and other methods aimed at upgrading the general level of education. Investment in human capital is the most promising strategy in a long range attempt to reduce inequalities in education and living standards.
So far, Mr. Speaker, I have referred to the lack of equal opportunity in Canada. I should like to turn now to the level of higher education, for it is here that the staggering proportions of our education crisis become startlingly clear.
Let us look for a moment at the depressing lack of facilities. In Ontario, despite the fact that we have a critical shortage of doctors and dentists, the University of Toronto rejected three out of every four students who wanted to enter dentistry. Four hundred and sixty six students applied, but the lack of facilities meant that only 128 could be accepted. At the Faculty of Medicine two out of every three applicants were rejected because of the lack of facilities. At the University of Western Ontario 200 medical students applied but there was space for only 60 and at the University of Ottawa 200 were eligible but there were places for only 78. This story could be repeated for other such institutions from coast to coast and represent an appalling waste of badly needed brainpower.
In Ontario the number of applicants trying to enter university will climb from
33,000	in 1963 to over 100,000 in 1970. In Canada as a whole it will rise from 141,000 in 1963 to nearly 290,000 six years later.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
What answer will we give to this wave of young people battering on the doors of our universities? How many additional hundreds of thousands would there be if we were to take a step which the New Democratic Party has advocated for years, namely free university education to all with the ability to absorb it? Yet, if we fail to meet this crisis, if we fail to provide the facilities, we deprive hundreds of thousands of Canadian youth of the chance to a better life than that enjoyed by their parents. By failing to meet

this crisis, we deprive Canada of the contribution that such trained people can make to our general prosperity.
If we are to provide all these facilities in the next ten years, we will require a capital outlay of $1.7 billion. This does not include the expenses of such things as heat, light, maintenance and salaries. Yet, Mr. Speaker, in 1963-64 our universities received only 60 per cent of the capital grants which they requested. We are not even meeting current needs, never mind preparing for the wave of students that will face us tomorrow and that will continue to enter our universities well into the late eighties. Even if we were prepared to make massive expenditures to provide these facilities, we will still face the staggering problem of professors, teachers and lecturers. In the year 1961-62 there were 2,100 on the staffs as teachers. By the year 1970 8.5 thousand will be needed.
However, Mr. Speaker, instead of taking positive steps to hold our teachers in the fields of science, engineering, medicine, etc., we seem determined to create conditions in Canada that will drive them to other countries. Most people are familiar with the term "brain drain". Let me provide a few examples. We are losing doctors, scientists and researchers at the rate of 1,500 per year. We train them and export them, then buy back the products of their brains. Between 1950 and 1960, we lost 1,864 scientists, 5,864 engineers, 3,956 teachers, 569 professors, 2,107 physicians, the latter at an average training cost of $25,000. We have 12 medical schools and the yearly loss of 250 is equal to the output of three of them. Unless this drain is halted we stand no chance at all of building up a sufficiently large staff of teachers to man our universities. The loss to our economy of such brains is incalculable. Why do they go, and what can we do about it?
Part of the reason, no doubt, is salaries. The average United States salary in these categories varies anywhere from $3,000 to $10,000 over the Canadian scale. However the salary issue is by no means the most important factor. The most important factor is recognition of their worth to the community and the provision of adequate facilities for research.
Research, Mr. Speaker, is basic to the lifeblood of higher education. Without it, the whole level of your educational system falls behind the rest of the world. Without it, universities become nothing but glorified high schools. Since industry draws on such basic
April 12. 1965

research, a lack of it means your industrial growth is slowed. In short, a continued program of extensive research is vital to higher education. The tragic lack of such facilities is the single biggest contribution to the "brain drain" to the United States.
The Medical Research Council received a grant of $6,900,000. This meets only 65 per cent of the applications it receives for research projects. We are so niggardly in this field that many of these applicants could not carry on without grants from the United States. Four of our Canadian universities constructing basic science buildings will have to apply to the United States for grants because we have no mechanism for capital grants for equipment. For every dollar we spend per scientist Britain spends $3 and the United States $10 to $15.
In 1963 the total medical research grant for 12 universities was $4,800,000. In the United States, for 78 universities the grant was $900 million. By comparison, our grant should have been $100 million. Is it any wonder that we are failing to hold these people in Canada? Can anyone blame them for going where their talents are recognized and they are given the opportunity to develop their genius? One cannot help but concur in the view of Dr. D. V. Bates, the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies in Research at McGill Medical Faculty, when he said:
The Canadian Government has been worse served in its scientific research advice in the last six or seven years than any other western government.
Another source of teachers is our graduates. If time permitted, I could detail our niggardly system of graduate bursaries, which results in our graduate system being about the worst in the western world. However, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough to indicate that if we are going to meet the crisis of higher education in Canada it will require a massive effort that is far, far greater than anything we have ever imagined possible.
Another aspect of the education crisis arises from automation and technological change. Canada is just beginning to feel the effects of this change, and in the next decade there is probably no aspect of Canadian life that will not be affected. In order to be sure that people adjust to such changes, we must develop far more effective retraining schemes than those in effect today. As workers' jobs disappear through the use of new scientific machines, they will have to be retrained for other jobs. During such retraining their in-22620-18
The Address-Mr. Scott come will have to be maintained until they are relocated. Such income will have to be a proper income, and not the pittance now paid. Failure to erect such educational schemes will result in widespread hardship and unemployment.
We shall have to encourage the building of technical colleges to turn out the thousands of technicians that the scientific age will require. It is freely predicted that young people starting to work today may have to be retrained four or five times during their working lives. I could go on outlining the years of crisis in our educational system, but I think I have given enough examples to indicate that a problem of gigantic and staggering proportions confronts Canada. It is obvious that a serious attempt to grapple with the problem is going to result in skyrocketing costs and massive outlays of money. And yet, it is imperative that we succeed because the whole future of Canada is at stake, since education has a direct relationship to a nation's economic growth.
It must be obvious also that if a realistic approach is going to be taken, the Provinces simply do not have the financial resources to do the job alone. They will need and must receive very large financial assistance from the Federal Government. I realize, of course, that education is an area of Provincial responsibility under the British North America Act, and I am not suggesting that we interfere in this exclusive jurisdiction. At the same time, it is hard to see how we are to proceed as a united nation unless education is regarded as a matter of national concern and of direct interest to all Canadians. A competent and well balanced work force is required for the healthy growth of our Canadian economy and the maintenance of our standard of living. If Canada is to be successful in carrying on the economic and political struggles of the future, a much greater percentage of her citizens must possess a higher degree of education or skill.
The principle of Federal aid to education is nothing new. The education of Indians and Eskimos, as well as children of the armed forces overseas, is a Federal responsibility. Through the years, substantial grants have been made available to the Provinces for technical and agricultural education. More recently some $340 million have been advanced under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. Following the war an immense D.V.A. program of education was financed by Ottawa. A per capita grant of $2 has been paid to universities as well as various

April 12. 1965
The Address-Mr. Scott grants to research and scholarships. The Glassco Commission refers to some 20 different Federal departments which provide some educational service today. Today more than ever, there is a greater need for Federal support for education through financial agreements with the Provinces. For such Provinces as might object, some formula can no doubt be worked out to meet such objections, similar to the opting out formula since, as I have emphasized, we are not advocating that the Government enter the educational fields of the Provinces except in a financial way.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
In order to assist the Provinces in carrying out their responsibilities in this vital field we advocate the following 10 point program.
1.	The establishment, in co-operation with the Provinces, of a Federal secretariat of education to perform the following services, (a) To supervise the educational activities of more than 80,000 students at present attending Federally operated schools at an annual cost of $50 million, (b) To assist the Department of Labour in carrying out a continuous survey of labour needs in Canada. Such studies would permit the programs of the retraining schools to be adjusted to meet trends in the labour market as they are revealed. Unless this is done we are educating in a vacuum and our expensive retraining facilities will prove ineffective, (c) To encourage and publicize the comprehensive programs of adult education at present offered by extension departments of universities across this country, (d) To act as a clearing house for matching grants and other contributions paid to the Provinces for university construction, vocational schools, student loans, scholarships, special courses for new Canadians, handicapped children, apprentices, unemployed, etc. (e) To provide a medium for the distribution among Provinces of information resulting from research studies and experiments conducted at the local level by school and university authorities, (f) To facilitate student exchange and teacher exchange abroad, (g) To co-ordinate the educational work of the Canada Council, the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and UNESCO.
Let me emphasize that all of these educational services are being performed now, but in a fragmentary and hit-or-miss fashion. It would seem the time is at hand to set up,

with the approval and support of the Provinces, this type of co-ordinating agency.
2.	The Federal Government should assume 75 per cent of the capital cost of university construction costs. The total cost of public education is now $2 billion a year and will double in the next 10 years. If the Government assumed the major portion of university construction costs, the Provinces would be better able to carry their resposibilities on lower levels.
3.	Immediately raise the per capita grant from $2 to $3. Operating costs of universities double every five years and immediate relief from this pressing burden is needed. The last increase was in 1962-63 but costs have continued to rise. This would be the most effective way of preventing an alarming increase in student fees. The objective should be the lowering of fees and their eventual removal altogether.
4.	A special grant of $1 million yearly for distribution among Maritime Provinces to assist them with their special university problems. At the same time review and if necessary, increase the equalization grants so that all areas can develop educational programs equal to that in the wealthier areas.
5.	Assume 75 per cent of the cost of vocational and technical training, and in particular full cost of research in universities including facilities, salaries, equipment, etc. Such a step would make a vital and stimulating contribution to education at all levels and, at the same time, to the total development of Canada.
6.	Provide for a broad program of bursaries and scholarships as well as the present system of loans. It is imperative to make sure that every student obtains as much education as his ability will allow.
7.	Increased financial support for graduate schools. Unless we have a spectacular increase in graduate studies we shall never be able to train the scientists and teachers which our expanding schools and modernized industries require. The shortage of skilled people is world wide and we can no longer look to other countries. We must train our own educators.
8.	Intensify enormously our long term analysis of the economy as a guide to the provinces in drawing up curricula and courses.
9.	Encourage the practice of student exchange. In 1963, 8,115 Canadians studied outside Canada and about 8,500 foreign students studied in Canada. In terms of international
April 12, 1965

good will such programs should be expanded. To supplement the Commonwealth scholarship plan a similar one should be established for student exchange within the whole French cultural community.
10.	Treat all university donations from private sources as deductible for income tax purposes and exempt universities from federal sales taxes, as is done with hospitals.
I realize that, to some, these proposals may seem extreme, but to my mind they are the very minimum which will suffice. It is suggested as an interim measure, pending the report of the Commission on the Financing of Higher Education in Canada, whose report is expected late this year.
It may well be that the above measures will prove to be totally inadequate. The crisis in Canadian education is neither new nor is it likely to become easier in the very near future. It is estimated that the rapid expansion of students will be with us throughout the 1970's and well into the 1980's.
That being the case, the problems I have outlined today are going to intensify. Strong financial assistance such as I have suggested would also relieve the pressure on the individual home owner, who still carries the main burden of education costs in Canada. This has always struck me as being an unfair burden. No doubt many people would ask if such assistance would result in higher taxation. The answer of course is no. The report of the Economic Council of Canada estimates that if the Government is prepared to institute growth programs sufficient to bring unemployment down to 3 per cent, even existing tax levels will produce surpluses of over $2 billion. There is no reason why such surpluses cannot be channeled into the critical area of education.
May I again emphasize, as emphatically as it is possible for me to do, that Canada faces an education crisis of the first magnitude. While recognizing the constitutional position with regard to education the Federal Government must still step in with strong financial help to the Provinces.
Canada is a Confederation of ten Provinces, but it is also a nation. To move forward as a nation into the scientific age with imagination and confidence the Federal Government must play its part in providing what President Claude Bissell of the University of Toronto describes as "heroic measures" to meet the pressing demands of modern education.
The Address-Mr. Pilon
In conclusion, I wish to quote a brief passage from the second volume of the Report of the Royal Commission on Health Services. I quote:
We have in Canada a land of immense resources. We must use them for the good of all Canadians. We have an opportunity to build upon the northern half of this continent a nation of educated and healthy people. Nature itself favours such a possibility.
It is for us to to organize our resources in harmony with our favoured situation that Canada may become a show-place of man's humanity to man.
We will rightly stand condemned by history if we fail to do what our people need and what our resources make readily possible.
Nothing less than this is acceptable to the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add the voice of my riding to those already heard in order to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder (Mr. Chretien) for a job done resolutely and intelligently.
There is no need for me to point out the various measures outlined in the speech from the throne. It is obvious that special emphasis is put on new farm policies which, in turn will provide our eastern farmers with more sustained reforms and which will, as a matter if fact, give a new value to their profession.
Other areas are also being dealt with. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that the legislation set forth was copied from our neighbours to the south. All members of this house are in perfect agreement as to the similarity of problems facing our two countries.
Furthermore, it is intended that Quebec citizens should become true partners within confederation and that the constitution should be an instrument of unity and justice. We are justified, therefore, in anticipating a better future for all Canadians.
I would be remiss if I failed to point out our contribution to the settlement of international conflicts. We are fortunate in having a team that is inured to the complex problems which face our country daily-perhaps it will play the role of mediator in the future -and I am positive that with our allies we will find solutions to the situations brought about by greedy and ambitious persons. Our Prime Minister distinguished himself in that

April 12, 1965
The Address-Mr. Pilon area and continues to do so. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) runs his department with a firm hand. Much !has been done for the maintenance of peace; several bilateral agreements were revised and others will undergo a revision in the future.
The UN is facing a crisis, and you may rest assured that our Prime Minister will be called upon to sit on any commission to settle it.
In an editorial in La Presse of February 1964, the Prime Minister was mentioned as the only man able to save the UN. It is now facing another difficult situation where great skill is required. The Prime Minister has opened the door to negotiation, and I am prepared to say that the American reaction is very favourable, since the need for negotiation is felt. The Viet Nam situation is highly complicated: there are political ideals difficult to attain and blameworthy religious ideals. The political and social problems created by this conflict will only be solved through measures reflecting common sense, foresight, charity and compassion.
Our friends of the New Democratic Party advocate pacifism and neutrality, but this does not contribute to the immediate settlement of those confused situations created by ambitious political men paid by absentee ..enemies whose influence is felt in domestic [DOT]conflicts and revolutions.
The part which our country wants to play is one of peace and not of intimidation; we ought to continue to maintain our prestige in the eyes of the whole world. The reforms 'which we will have to make in order to maintain our standard of living are sensible and will meet present needs.
Obviously we are conscious of the role that our youth will have to play, those young men and women who will carry on. Our young people will be faced with more serious and complicated problems, but their training will help them find a solution. They will be severely judged by the community, just as we are now. We all hope that our young people will be able to get all the necessary experience to govern and meet the problems that will arise.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)

Before I close my remarks, on behalf of my constituents, especially those from St. Hilaire and Beloeil, I would like to remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) that the Richelieu River still flows a distance of 25 miles through the constituency

of Chambly-Rouville. We are interested in reviving the question of the canalization of this river and hope the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) may see his way clear to building the necessary retaining walls.


Mr. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, may I congratulate very warmly the mover (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder (Mr. Chretien) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do so because, in the first place, it is the custom, but mostly because they carried out their task with mastership, conviction and displayed much eloquence. I hope this optimism they have shown will spread in high government circles so as to inspire them with ideal and instil in them the required energy to apply the program proposed in the speech from the throne, and this for the benefit of all Canadians.
But what exactly does the program which the government holds out to us mean? To embellish it, the government has succeeded in adorning it with lots of flowers which, unfortunately, are a little faded since they date back several years and which, it seems to me, are doomed to a slow death, precisley because of the inaction and lack of imagination on the part of the present government.
Mr. Speaker, the program advocated in the speech from the throne constitutes a real electoral manifesto, but that does not necessarily make it reprehensible provided the government introduces the necessary measures to implement it. I think it is absolutely impossible to consider passing such a program without first initiating a basic reform, that of parliamentary procedure.
I for one sincerely regret that the report of the special committee on procedure and organization was not agreed to at the end of last session. In fact, I believe that to be realistic, any program of parliamentary reform should call for a time limit for the debates of this house and also propose the necessary means to refer to committees specially set up for that purpose the detailed consideration of estimates and study section by section of government bills. In my opinion, it will be impossible to carry out a large part of the government program as long as the government does not give proof of energy and determination in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, I find it impossible, in reading the speech from the throne, to determine where the government wants to lead us. To
April 12, 1965	COMMONS
be sure, it wants to please everybody, and I cannot blame it for that, but quite a few of the measures it is putting forward seem contradictory.
For instance, the government claims it is committed to a policy meant to promote the strength and unity of the Canadian confederation. To this end, it proposes the maintenance of consultation at the federal-provincial level. Such consultation is indeed most desirable, but specific measures still have to be put forth, if this co-operation which the government apparently wants to see established in the field of federal-provincial relations is to become a reality. Now, the one concrete measure the government seems to be setting forth has to do with its intention of repatriating the Canadian constitution through a formula already approved by all provincial premiers, but which has not yet been ratified by all the provincial legislatures.
As everyone knows, that is a highly controversial issue in Canada, especially in the province of Quebec, and I feel that before proceeding with the adoption of the formula, the government would be well advised to set up immediately a committee of the house which would hear evidence from constitutional experts and submit a report on which the government should base its future action.
As far as Senate reform is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I feel the government should forget about an old proposal which is not even a measure but which has been put forward on many instances. Instead, it should give serious consideration to the reform of the other place by transforming it into a constitutional committee or assembly to which recognized experts in constitutional matters would be appointed.
In my opinion, the Prime Minister could very well call to the Senate, immediately, for instance, Messers. Robert Fowler and Marcel Faribault, the authors of this treatise on the constitution which has already attracted much attention, namely, the book entitled "Ten for One". There is surely room in the upper chamber for people of such a standing as Marcel Faribault and Robert Fowler. I believe that if reforms of that nature were effected, we could restore to that legislative chamber most of the prestige it enjoyed in days gone by.
Mr. Speaker, the government claims that it intends to promote national unity, but let us examine the contradictions which exist in several of its measures: on the one hand,
DEBATES	265
The Address-Mr. Martineau it says that the rights of the provinces must be respected; and on the other, after it had parliament approve a bill allowing provinces who so wish to opt out from joint programs, it announces new measures which are but new joint programs.
There are, for instance, measures designed to promote rural development, the re-employment and training of workers, social assistance, urban renewal; all those measures will be co-ordinated by a secretariat within the Prime Minister's office, necessarily involving further agreements between the provinces and the central power.
Premier Lesage has already termed those measures as gifts from the Greeks. He said that the province of Quebec was thinking of opting out of those new joint programs.
The government also seems quite pleased with the economic situation. It states its satisfaction at the growth rate of the economy, at the volume of our external trade and at the fewer number of unemployed.
But the vagueness of the measures proposed gives clearly to understand that the government is at the end of its resources, and I rather get the impression that we are drifting, that we are buffeted by forces the government is powerless to control.
And all the time chronic poverty prevails and we cannot solve the problems created by a new technology.
The government adopts a carefree attitude which is not warranted by the economic situation. Unable to act, it is helpless in the face of run-away inflation. It admits that the cost of living, already at its highest in the history of Canada, is still going up; and the only remedy it can find is to freely advise the private sector to practise self-discipline. And yet the government continues to spend at a dizzy rate and controls all sectors of the economy.
The economic council is doing something, of course, since it submitted a report but did the government act on it? There has been no evidence of that until now. Besides, what are the powers of that economic council?
Moreover, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the government on its initiative to establish a company of young Canadians, through which the energies and talents of youth can be enlisted toward useful projects both in Canada and abroad. Surely the time has come to fully use that vis viva which is youth.
And talking about young people I should like to insist upon the proposal of establishing
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Martineau a model parliament in order to celebrate Canada's centennial. That initiative was conceived by William Fair, from Saskatoon, who has been working on it firmly and intelligently for more than two years. It has already received the approval of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
It is a most interesting proposal, first from the point of view of the representatives sitting on it who will come from the electoral constituencies. The selection will be made on a merit basis and, to be elected, it will not be sufficient to enjoy a certain popularity, but also to have been selected by an impartial jury for one's qualities as speaker and for one's ability to express ideas.
I think that such a parliament should be free from any partisanship. It will discuss matters regarding Canadian unity and the future of confederation. Finally, it is proposed that it sit in this very house during parliamentary recesses, if, there are any in the year of the centennial. It seems that, to prepare adequately this model parliament of young people, the senior parliament, that is our own parliament, could right now get seriously to work on its present task of improving the situation of all Canadians and thus serving the whole people. And, the most important task it has to accomplish, is to restore the dignity of parliament itself.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, we are living in Canada through troubled days, and perhaps no single event illustrates more this crisis than the event which occurred in this Chamber last week, when the hon. Member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) crossed the floor, leaving the party to which he had dedicated so many years and all his loyalties and energies to sit as an independent. At the loss of a close friend and associate, I can only express grief and dismay.
As for the reasons which prompted him to make his dramatic decision, after months of soul searching, I speak more in pity than in anger. Here is a man of abiding loyalties, an urbane, civilized, erudite Canadian, with a broad political concept; a man of moderation, quiet and competent and of sound judgment. He is a man who wore lightly the mantle of high office and who enjoys the friendship of so many on all sides of this House. Surely the departure of such a man from the ranks of any party must signify

tragedy for the party that bears this loss. And the tragedy involves much more than just the person or personality of the hon. Member for Three Rivers; it affects all of us. For if there is no room for such a man in the Party, what kind of a man from Quebec or even elsewhere can the Party accommodate?
It has been said that certain elements rejoiced at the departure of the hon. Mem-for Three Rivers from their ranks. I cannot believe that such sentiments, if indeed they were exhibited, could be genuine. For if they were expressed, what happy turn of events, what victory could they possibly portray? If there was a victory for anyone, it was indeed a hollow victory. Was it a victory for the unity of the Party that has lost one of its most loyal supporters? Was it a victory for Canadian unity? Will it inspire confidence throughout the land? Very few people, I believe, not even political adversaries, can rejoice in their heart of hearts, or lightly dismiss the gesture posed by the hon. Member for Three Rivers, or feel anything but deep regret and frustration.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Yet, the historic Conservative Party, to which I belong, must carry on. Its past role has been honourable and, at times, decisive. Its present potential is great-never has such an opportunity been given to a political group to exercise responsibility, leadership and comprehension-to rise above the petty issues of the day and, by highly asserting leadership and principles, win the allegiance of the great mass of Canadian voters, many of whom remain undecided and even confused at the spectacle daily reported from Parliament.
This is the Party that affirms its faith in "One Canada". Like the Member for Three Rivers, I believe in "One Canada", but it must be a Canada broad enough and generous enough to encompass all of its people and particularly to give to one of its founding races-the people of Quebec-to which I belong, ample scope for the fulfilment of deep yearning for autonomy, and an autonomous cultural destiny. That "One Canada" must aver itself full of understanding for the particular history, traditions and aspirations of the people who were, after the Indians, the first settlers to its shores. It must not be a recognition given grudgingly or with restriction, or on such a narrow basis that the recipient can only stifle or wither away,
April 12, 1965	COMMONS
cast off as a lonely branch on the great Canadian Tree.
The Member for Three Rivers, along with others of his colleagues from Quebec, understands the need for comprehension. On an historic occasion in this Chamber, he spoke loudly against separatism and expressed so eloquently authentic Canadian sentiments in these terms:
We have not been elected to bisect this country but rather to unite it and weld it together and to encourage comprehension, not only between the two great races which compose its population, but also between the different provinces of Canada-
And, again, he said:
I am here to take an interest in the affairs of the country as a whole-I am convinced that Quebec will be strong and prosperous inasmuch as the whole of Canada is strong and prosperous, and vice-versa.
They speak of the need for a strong, central power. I believe in a strong central Government capable of exercising all its attributes under the Constitution, but governing within the limits of this Constitution and dedicated to the spirit of federalism which is nothing if not based on diversity, or a respect for the autonomy of the provinces, and to the recognition of the basic partnership implicit in Confederation.
Some claim for the central Government greater powers in the interest of efficiency and strength. But let me ask them this: Will Canada be more efficient or stronger when one of its founding races feels itself frustrated, unhappy, even alien within its own country, or merely tolerated?
And yet, this is surely where an inflexible policy would lead. What inspiration or leadership, that vaunted leadership based on moderation, which is supposed to be Canada's special trademark and contribution, can this country give to the world if it cannot even solve the problems of unity within its own borders. How, indeed, can it speak with any authority to Africans, Asians and so many other people of the world where racial, cultural, religious and social differences are so much greater and deeper than our own, when it cannot settle differences between two peoples, both the heirs of the same Western civilization, each professing Christianity and who, moreover, have lived side by side for two centuries?
Yet, I am not one of those who harbour feelings of despair. My hope is founded on the firm basis that there are men and women in this Chamber, and in this they reflect the views of the millions across the land whom
DEBATES	267
The Address-Mr. M. Lessard they represent, who are firmly dedicated toward the attainment of comprehension, mutual understanding and respect as their primary goal and the most noble achievement toward which this Parliament can aim.
Indeed, what else but such a broad, flexible policy can weld together the mosaic of peoples, regional interest, and geographical and economic differences that make up this uncertain entity that is Canada?
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe in Canada, and my faith grows stronger when I see these men and women of so many different origins and backgrounds, drawn from all parties, and outside parties, speaking out, appealing for unity and understanding with an authentic Canadian voice-men from English speaking Canada appealing to my own compatriots, telling them of their understanding, indicating their willingness to meet, to parley, to negotiate honourably and openly in an attempt to spell out the needs and ideals of a Canada acceptable to all, men who are willing to innovate to gain this end.
Should not such overtures inspire all of us who are concerned about Canadian unity and the future of Canada to greater efforts in achieving it? This is no time for withdrawal or retrenchment, but rather for greater effort and involvement.
To those who have extended the hand of friendship and understanding, I say, thank you. We will clasp that hand of friendship and will with your help together build the kind of Canada which we know is possible, faithful to all of its past, yet looking toward the future, the sort of Canada wh.ch alone can be a beacon of light in a difficult age.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks during the debate on the Speech from the Throne. First of all, I would like to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder, the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I think that through their speeches they have made us aware that our Canadian youth has potentialities that are fundamentally good and which all of us here should encourage. I believe these two young members of the house have made us realize to what extent we can be optimistic as far as the future of our country is concerned.
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. M. Lessard
I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) who just resumed his seat, for the magnificent speech he delivered.
It is very difficult to make a speech after such a speaker as the one who preceded me. I cannot help agreeing totally with most of the points in his statement.
It is really a pity that in our country we cannot have men of good will or find some ground for agreement that would allow us to find solutions to the problems with which we are now faced.
Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing the proposals set forth by the government in the Speech from the Throne. Very briefly, I should like to say that, after going over all those proposals, I realize that the government is being quite bold, but also that its program will probably give rise to a great deal of discussion, a lot of negotiations, and could only result in legislation after quite a few lengthy conferences with the various provincial governments.
I am aware that the government has put forward certain measures which concern the activities and responsibilities of provincial governments. Here again, of course, one is tempted to say that the government is intruding into provincial jurisdiction and that such encroachments are unacceptable. For my part, I am inclined to ask certain questions.
Are all those efforts of the government really blameworthy? Not necessarily. So long as the government will agree to discuss with the provincial governments so that the latter might draw such legislation in agreement with the central government, so long as the central government will agree to include in its programs a provision enabling the various provincial governments to opt out when they so desire, while collecting the monies required for the administration costs of those projects, I am sure they will not be bad.
There might be some disadvantages. There will certainly be some. There is probably a positive aspect also and it is this aspect that we should stress. Personally, I see the possibility of an advantage which would be enjoyed throughout our great country. When I speak of uniformity, I mean that some provinces may have special needs because of very special problems. Those provinces will surely want the joint programs to contain provisions respecting their particular situation.
There is another aspect of joint programs which I find advantageous. You may say that

it is a bit selfish on my part but I feel that during the first few years following the establishment of a joint program by the federal government, with the approval of the provinces, there is a certain amount of groping; one has to experiment. Experience is there to prove it. During the first two or three years of operation, the need for several changes comes to light. Distributing the cost of experimenting and implementing such a plan among the whole population of the country is not a bad idea in itself. I think there is no point in each and everyone going about his own experimentation. This is an economical, logical and practical way. When several plans are tried out on a national basis in agreement with provincial governments, from an economical and practical point of view, I think it is not a bad thing provided a province has the opportunity to opt out when it deems it necessary and collect that part of the tax it is entitled to for contracting out of that particular plan.
Mr. Speaker, here is another point I should like to deal with. I was listening earlier to the remarks made by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) on this matter and I could not help but agree with him in this connection, for on several occassions I personally advocated that this was perhaps not the appropriate time in our history to undertake to amend our constitution.
I think some amendments could be made to it but, there again, in the heat of this debate we often hear constitution or so-called constitution experts make ex cathedra statements on what amendments should be made. So far as I am concerned-and I am no expert in this field, I am only a member of the mass of the workers-I am rather inclined to think that it would be wise to put off repatriation of the constitution. I think nobody is strongly objecting to this repatriation but to tie it to a certain amendment formula is another thing.
This matter is so wrapped up in emotions at the present time that I think perhaps it would be better if repatriation of and amendment to our constitution were put off for the time being. There are now in the province of Quebec two agencies which have been set up precisely in order to consider the amendments which should be made to the constitution. Those two organizations have not reported yet.
I think that the Lesage government should be careful and should wait for those agencies to submit their reports before treading a path where it will perhaps be very difficult
April 12, 1965
to turn back. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission does research work and will certainly be in a position to make very appropriate recommendations with respect to the amendments which will have to be made to the constitution. Is this not another good reason to delay the repatriation of the constitution or at least the proposed amendments?
Perhaps it would be good for the central government to consider the setting up of a special commission made up of members of the house and experts from outside who might be selected throughout the country, real specialists who would report. Then we might legislate in the field with a deeper knowledge of the real needs of the time.
There are also in the Speech from the Throne several suggestions respecting measures which the government intends to take in order to solve the problem of unemployment in this country and promote economic development. In two parts of that speech I see things in which I am interested and which I take to heart. At one place, it says:
You wilj be asked to approve the creation of a fund for rural economic development-
Well, Mr. Speaker, personally, I am anxious to see that measure because we have already a fund for economic development. It is only a matter of giving it the extension it requires to face the present needs and use it in order to promote greater industrial development.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
I would think, Mr. Speaker, that that bank is the instrument we are looking for. It has been in existence for a long time and in operation for several years. Therefore, let us provide that organization with the powers it requires, particularly in order to meet the demand of capital for the development of secondary industry in Canada.
The Speech from the Throne also announces that the government is planning legislation to set up a Canadian Development Corporation.
I would say that both projects are almost similar since both have the same goal, namely the expansion of the Canadian economy.
It is obvious that it is only in developing the secondary industry sector that we will eradicate unemployment which is affecting our country and make up the exchange or monetary deficits we have been experiencing for a number of years.
As all other countries, Canada must have as an objective maximum or optimum production, if you like, of consumer goods under any form. We realize that it is impossible to
26S
The Address-Mr. M. Lessard produce everything that we consume, but there is quite a wide margin between what we produce, what we consume and the potential of this country.
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a trip I had the opportunity to make recently when the government delegated some members of the special committee on defence as observers during naval exercises held under NATO in the Caribbean Sea.
I should like first of all to commend the R.C.N. officers for the fine welcome they gave us on board. They treated us very well, and I have nothing but praise and thanks for them. I also want to congratulate them on the way they executed the manoeuvres.
However, because there is a qualification- I would even say there are several of them -like the other members of the expedition, I noticed that the living conditions of our men were far from satisfactory, especially on our only carrier, the Bonaventure.
I am not making these remarks to be critical or to condemn anyone in particular. Perish the thought. I merely wish to draw those facts to the attention of hon. members and to show the sailors we visited that we did not fail to notice the problems which existed on the Bonaventure even if we pretended not to see them. Our aircraft carrier is 20 years old. It was assigned a specific task which called for a crew of about 800. However, with the passing of time and with the evolution of Canada's and North America's defence systems, in one word, following our commitments to NATO, we had to entrust the Bonaventure with the new tasks with the result that, today, it has a crew of 1,300 and those men have to live in extremely cramped quarters.
Mr. Speaker, if Canada wishes to continue playing in the major leagues, it should be ready to pay the price; otherwise, it should go back to the minor leagues. By that I mean that if we cannot afford to buy adequate material to provide decent living conditions for our sailors, it would be just as well for us to withdraw from the game and to be content with a field of endeavour which is within our means.
Canada has only one aircraft carrier. The crew of the Bonaventure is very able and I was truly amazed to see how its members behaved in those circumstances.
But if the operation of an aircraft carrier is warranted, we must consider either getting a modern one, or have two so that they could

April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. M. Lessard spell each other in naval exercises in order that the crew members will not be kept away from their homes as long as they were recently, that is three months.
Moreover, considering the conditions under which those men work, they must be well rested and have a clear mind because they always have to be on the alert.
Mr. Speaker, I can hardly see how men as competent as our Canadian seamen, working in such conditions and having such inadequate facilities to rest, can be in physical condition and have the open mind to perform the task they are required to do.
Men living aboard the Bonaventure or at least some of them, are lacking the bare essentials as far as facilities are concerned.
We are told that the ship will be put in dry dock next year to be completely rebuilt inside. We are even told that some facilities now lacking will be added, but I do not see how the ship could be enlarged, and unless the crew is reduced and the tasks assigned to that ship, made fewer, I think it would be impossible to give this aircraft carrier modern and up-to-date comfort. Facilities on that ship were good for the turn of the century but not for the year 1965.
If it can be justified to lay that ship in dry dock for a period of one year, if it has been found that we could dispense with that aircraft carrier for a year, it can only mean one of two things: either we have no more use for that ship or our defence system will be inadequate for the period during which the ship will be under repairs. Either we will have to abandon that field of activity completely or we will have to rent a similar ship so that its present crew may continue the training it is undergoing at the present time.
I know nothing about the plans of the Department of National Defence in that field. I know it is a very expensive piece of equipment, but if we decided that it was needed then we should secure what is best, a ship on which men can live decently.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with another subject, housing. I see on the other side of the house the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd), formerly mayor of Halifax. I know he is aware of this problem, as are other members of the house, but for the information of my colleagues, I would like to point out that certain members of the Bonaventure crew have expressed major criticisms.


One of these concerned living conditions aboard the ship and the other related to housing in Halifax.
Incidentally, I would like to say that the situation is not something of which the former mayor of Halifax should be proud. In fact, I think he should have brought pressure to bear on his fellow citizens during his mayoralty in order to promote certain developments in his city and provide for reasonable cost housing, where our seamen could live decently.
They are now forced to pay fantastic amounts, sometimes even higher than what hon. members have to pay here in Ottawa. In my opinion, this is a situation which is absolutely unacceptable on the part of the authorities of the city of Halifax and the military authorities of this country.
We should see to it that our Canadian sailors enjoy low rental housing.
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the criticisms which were levelled by our sailors, because they came from responsible people. In fact, some criticisms were made by young men who had joined the navy six months, one year or two years ago. I listened to their grievances, but I paid more attention to those which came from the petty officers. The latter play a most important role on board because they are responsible for the efficient and continuous handling of the ship. Most of those petty officers have 10, 15, 18 and even 20 years service in the Canadian navy, and many say that they are ready to quit the navy if they are to remain on that ship.
I feel that, after having invested so much money to train men, it would be simply ridiculous to let them go because we are not supplying them with the proper equipment they need to do the jobs we give them. It is one or the other: either we give them the tools to perform those jobs or we simply eliminate both the jobs and the men.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, it is traditional in the Throne Speech debate to congratulate the Mover and the Seconder of the Address in Reply. In following that path tonight I am more than just following tradition. I believe the speeches of the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) are worthy of high commendation.
April 12, 1965

1 would also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) on the speech he delivered in this Chamber tonight. As an English Canadian I thought the points of view he expressed on the problems and tensions within our country were extremely well put, and I would hope he would distribute copies of his speech to his own caucus colleagues because, if the views he holds were more widely held throughout the country, the tensions he was discussing would be largely diminished.
Often in the Throne Speech debate a Government Member gives a scenic tour of his riding and discusses with fulsome praise the items contained in the Speech from the Throne. I am not going to follow that path tonight. We on the back benches on this side of the House have little enough opportunity to get up and talk about issues in which we are particularly interested. If we do so on the estimates, when Opposition members have an opportunity to do that, we are often accused of filibustering our own estimates. It is sufficient I think to say that I, as a supporter of the Government, am delighted with the contents of the Throne Speech. It is a program that offers excitement and challenge. It is a program aimed at many of the fundamental problems existing in the country.
The only description I am going to give of my riding is of one of the boundaries of it. Flowing down the western boundary of my riding is the Don River. It is a colourful river, but unfortunately the colour is generally supplied by the waste dyestuffs that flow out from the industry located along its banks, so that at times the river is red, blue, deep green or purple. The river flows through a valley rich in vegetation, fruit, trees and flowers, but in summertime when you travel up the river you are not able to enjoy the fragrance of the valley. You get the fragrance of the river; and that fragrance, unfortunately, tends to be coloured by the sewage that is flowing down it. In the sunlight, the river sparkles, but it is not the water that is sparkling; it is the pile of foamy detergent that is flowing out into the river. In short, the river is polluted and it is carrying its polluted products down into Lake Ontario. The topic therefore I would like to discuss tonight is the problem of pollution that exists within the Great Lakes area. This may seem like a parochial issue, but I do not think it is. The Great Lakes are important to all Canada. Some 30 million people live in the basin surrounding them. A
The Address-Mr. Hahn third of the Canadian population lives in the area surrounding the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes were the cause of the tremendous build-up in population and of the tremendous industrial growth in the central part of our country. They offered water for navigation, water for cheap power and, above all, the water that was needed for consumptive purposes, for industry, for human beings, for communities. The abundance of clean water made possible the growth of this part of our country, and I think made possible the industrial growth of our country. As a by-product of these things we have since developed a fishing industry, and we have many recreational uses for water in this area.
Water is an important resource to any country, and we in this country are lucky. We have an abundant supply. Some 50 years ago or so, we never worried about our water supply. We appeared to have it in ample quantity, and we could use it as we liked; but now we are beginning to be concerned about it because we realize that a few generations hence water on this continent will be in short supply.
We who live in Canada, which has a vast supply of this commodity, are particularly lucky, but I think we realize that we must plan now for the future use of this resource, so that when we do need it, it will be available. I think we realize that within our borders we have a commodity that in the future is going to be a valuable export item, something that will be needed by our neighbours to the south, something they will not have that we do have.
The recent problem of water levels on the Great Lakes has highlighted the importance of water supplies to this area. It has produced * the low water levels of the last few years, which affected navigation on the lakes and the production of power on them. I was a member of the committee that was looking into the problem of water levels on the lakes, and, as a result of the preliminary examination we were able to make last session, I think it is pretty clear that the problem of regulation of water levels can be solved, and, in fact, will be solved. I would think that because of the time required to build the works necessary, we shall probably have the cyclical improvement so that the problem will tend to rectify itself, at least temporarily, before we establish a permanent solution. Nevertheless, solved it will be.
In the evidence that was given before that committee one of the things that impressed

April 12. 1985
The Address-Mr. Hahn me was the role of the Federal Government in this problem. We found that many, many Government Agencies, Boards, Commissions and Departments were involved. We asked to have a chart prepared-which we did not get-showing the relationship of all these Federal Government bodies dealing with this problem. I would think that if an organization chart were prepared, showing the Federal Government's role in this area, it would tend to look like a plate of spaghetti. This is a fundamental problem we must bear in mind.
We are not co-ordinated at the Federal level. We have divided responsibility. We have overlapping jurisdiction. We have groups here, there and everywhere, scattered throughout the Federal Government, each doing a little piece, with nobody that I can really see completely responsible for the problem. We talk about these things being co-ordinated, but I am afraid too often coordination in this sense mostly means shifting the responsibility to somebody else, and this is a problem we have to bear in mind.
Out of the work we have done on the problem of water levels has come a realization that the Federal Government must establish clearcut responsibility for the future use of this great resource, dealing first of all with problems of the levels on the lakes, and then looking further ahead at the future requirements on a continental basis, and the future diversions that are going to be necessary- such things as the Grand Canal we have heard about, flowing the waters from the James Bay watershed into the Great Lakes area; and other diversions from the West coast, bringing water down to the Central plain where it can be used.
All these things were discussed before the Committee dealing with the problem of the conservation and regulation of the supply of water. They dealt with the quantity of water available, but what they did not deal with is the quality of water. There is not a great deal of use having a vast quantity of water if the water you have is unusable. Quality for the uses to which we want to put our water is vital.
It is true we can use dirty water for navigation and power production; but if we cannot use it for consumption we cannot support large communities, we cannot support industry, we cannot support population in the surrounding area. It seems to me that we in the Great Lakes area, and also in other parts of the country-but I think primarily in the

Great Lakes area-are now in the process of destroying this great resource that we have. Man in his wisdom is taking this one vital commodity that is essential for the economic survival of this area, and destroying it. If we are not careful we shall not have it in usable condition for much longer. I think everyone is aware that Lakes Erie and Michigan are in almost critical condition now. I think we all know there are 2,000 miles of Lake Erie which no longer support fish life or proper vegetation-algae are spreading everywhere. We are all aware of the decline in the fishing, particularly in Lake Erie. It is suggested that most of the beaches on the shores of Lake Erie and probably Lake Michigan as well, are now unfit for swimming and recreational use. It is known that no raw sewage should be pumped into water to be used for consumption; yet the city of Windsor pumps all its sewage, raw and untreated, into the Detroit river and the city of Welland is still pumping raw sewage into the Welland canal area. There are plans to rectify this situation, but as of this moment the old practice is still being followed.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Toronto has made vast improvements in its treatment of sewage, but despite this in heavy storms raw sewage is pumped into Lake Ontario off the shores of Toronto, and it is estimated that $300 million would be required to provide completely adequate treatment in Toronto to ensure that no raw sewage would get into the lake.
Dr. Langford, Director of the Great Lakes Institute and associated with the University of Toronto, said recently that the next ten years would be critical. This is about the amount of time we have; if we fail to deal with the problem soon we shall have passed the point of no return. I could go on to give further statistics, but I think it is generally accepted that the Great Lakes are reaching the critical point. We must find a solution to this problem and find it quickly. We, with our ingenuity, will fairly soon I think control water levels in the Great Lakes, and we shall probably spend a billion dollars doing it. Having done that, if we are not careful we shall create a new world wonder; we shall then have what is probably the largest, the most expensive and the best regulated cesspool on earth. It is something we should not allow to happen.
One might think that a solution to the pollution problem would be simple. After all, pollution comes from only three sources-
April 12, 1965

sewage dumped by municipalities, industrial waste, and garbage and sewage discharged from ships. The effect of all this on the water is varied. There is the serious hazard to human life. Fatal and contagious diseases can result from infected water. I should like to read a quotation from a speech given on December 9 last by the Secretary General of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers on the subject of water pollution. The Secretary General said:
The St. Lawrence Seaway has opened the Great Lakes to 90 per cent of the world's commercial vessels. The increase in pollution by these vessels is a matter of great concern, involving water supplies, recreational beaches and real estate values. The discharge of shipboard sewage near public water supply intakes is of special concern. With ships from all parts of the world entering waters adjacent to public water supply intakes, the chances are greatly enhanced for waterborne disease transmission, and particularly those diseases from other countries which have long been gone from the Canadian scene or never have obtained a foothold here. Few ships plying the Great Lakes have some kind of shipboard waste control device aboard. Most dump their garbage directly into the lakes. It has been estimated the amount reaches between 1,000 and 2,000 tons annually.
This is the first serious effect of polluted water-the danger to health. The second is the effect on the fishing industry and the effect on the fish that live in the waters concerned. The third is the effect on humans of a less dangerous but nevertheless unpleasant nature -water which, because of its appearance or its odour, is unfit for human consumption or use. There is also the effect of polluted water on industrial growth. Industry needs clean water, for use in its processing; it will not locate by a polluted lake. Finally there is the recreational aspect, the effect on the tourist industry, on wildlife and all the other things which make life really worth living.
The solution to this problem should be simple. If the municipalities would stop dumping raw sewage, if industry would stop dumping its waste and if ships and pleasure craft would stop dumping garbage and sewage into the water there would be no problem. But the solution is not as simple as it appears. There is the question of jurisdiction. Pollution is mainly a provincial matter, yet many of the waters about which we are speaking flow from one province to another. The Federal Government is involved to some degree. We have federal legislation now under the Fisheries Act, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, under the Criminal Code and under the Shipping Act. All these statutes deal in minor ways with the problem of
The Address-Mr. Hahn pollution. Yet within the Departments of Fisheries, Justice, and Transport who really is concerned about water pollution at the federal level? I do not think we know.
In addition to split jurisdiction between the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments the Federal and State Governments of the United States are obviously involved as they, too, share the lakes and are polluting the waters just as badly as we are.
The next major hurdle is probably the highest of all. It is, of course, the amount of money which it will cost all municipalities to treat every bit of sewage before dumping their waste into the lakes. How much will it cost to eradicate sewage and industrial wastes? I do not think we know. I have tried to get figures indicating the total cost of clearing up pollution in the Great Lakes, but so far I have not succeeded. I think it is sufficient to say that the cost would be tremendous. This is the reason why in the past adequate treatment has not been provided.
A final difficulty which has to be overcome is the apathy of the public generally. It is not very glamourous to spend tax dollars on sewage plants. As an example, there is a story that the Mayor of Toronto was recently questioned about a project to build an arts centre in that city. The comment which followed, was this "What do you want,-a centennial sewer?" Well, maybe that is exactly what we do need, but it is not an easy policy to sell.
I should like to consider for a few moments what is being done at the present time to try to tackle this problem. First, there is a meeting scheduled for the spring of 1966-a meeting of the Resource Ministers Council which consists of the ten Provincial Ministers and the Federal Minister involved in this question. The meeting will discuss all aspects of pollution whether of a water, air or land. I think this conference will produce extremely beneficial results in the long range, but I am concerned about its timing. It is scheduled for the spring of 1966 and I am sure it will be at least a year after that before any positive action is taken as a result of that meeting. We would then be in the spring of 1967. Dr. Langford about a year ago said we had ten years left in which to act Three of those years would already be gone.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I feel that this conference is covering too broad an area. I feel that this conference is going to arrive at long term solutions. But I

April 12, 1965
The Address-Mr. Hahn do not think it is going to move quickly enough to deal with the specific problem which exists in the Great Lakes area.
The second thing I am concerned about is the lack of really good liaison with the United States on this problem. We have some liaison with them now, and I gather that the International Joint Commission issued a preliminary report about a week or so ago dealing with a limited segment of the pollution in the lakes area. But again we have not really got down to a hard bargaining position with the United States, trying to launch a major campaign to clean up the Great Lakes area. We are doing a bit of research on the problem, but the amount of research being done, particularly by the Great Lakes Institute, is woefully inadequate. The amount of money they are allocated by the Federal and Provincial Governments in relation to the size of the problem is minute, and we have a great deal more to do in this area.
The Province of Ontario has, I think, done a major job in the last few years with their part of the problem. In 1956 they established the Ontario Water Resources Commission. Within that Commission they have now coordinated their efforts, so there is one place in the Province of Ontario to which you go, knowing that there is where the responsibility lies. As a result of this co-ordinated effort they have recently announced, within the last few weeks, that they are embarking upon a five-year program, setting limits for industry so that the industry around the Province will stop polluting its waters. They are going to give industry five years to achieve this goal. I think this is a very practical, useful step; the only concern I have is whether industry will be able within this five-year period to finance the work necessary to stop its pollution.
The Federal Government is offering assistance to municipalities through the National Housing Act, to build sewage treatment plants. This too is beneficial, but again I raise the question, is it enough? Is this going to get the job done?
Finally, there is a certain amount of work being done now in the field of educating the public. I think particularly of the series of articles which ran during the last week or so in the Toronto Telegram outlining the problem of water pollution. I think this is a very necessary step, and it is something which has to be done on a much wider scale so that the public at large, who are going to have to raise the tax money to cure the problem,

are aware of the need for expenditures in this area.
The steps which have been taken thus far are all practical, useful steps. They are all moving in the right direction. They are all working toward a co-ordinated water policy for the country. They are working toward eventual solution of regulation of the Great Lakes. They are working toward eventual elimination of the pollution problem. But again I am concerned that they are too slow, on too broad a front and they are not dealing specifically enough and quickly enough with this prime problem.
I think there are a number of things that could and should be done right away. I think that the principle we have to follow, if we are going to save this water resource is, first of all, to put our own house in order in this country. We must make sure we are doing what needs to be done, and then having done that we can sit down with the United States government and say:	"Look
this is the effort that we are putting forth to clean up our side of the lake; it is now on your plate to handle your problem and clean up your side". I think that if we were able to sit down and bargain on that basis we could get full co-operation from the other side.
In order to put our house in order we have several things to do. First of all, we have to establish clearly and distinctly who is responsible at the Federal level, and what is the organization at the Federal level that will cut out this problem of shifting responsibility from one side to another. We must tie in definitely and clearly responsibility, with an ability to act in the field of water resources. Having done that, I think then we should get together with the Provincial Government, and in this case it is relatively easy because there is only one province directly concerned, the Province of Ontario. Having got together with the Province of Ontario I think it would be quite easy to work out with them a joint program.
First of all, we have to look at the preventive legislation which is on the books and see what legislative changes are necessary. I think we should arrive at an estimate of cost both to the municipalities and industry to clean up our side of the lakes. Having arrived at an estimate of cost, we then have to see who is going to pay the cost and how it is going to be financed.
There are several means of financing available. The sewage treatment plants needed
April 12. 1965

by municipalities are essentially a municipal responsibility, and I think that the extension of low cost loans from the Federal Government might induce the municipalities to proceed at a much faster rate. As far as industry is concerned I think it might well make it possible for industries to do the job if they were to be offered accelerated depreciation, fast write-offs on the special plant and equipment they would need in order to treat their waste products, before they dump them into the waters. I think that between these two levels of government public information must be stepped up so that when it comes to a choice between an arts centre and a sewer, the choice is not as ludicrous as it seems, and perhaps the right choice may be not an arts centre but a sewer. I think the public have at least to be able to make an intelligent discrimination when they are offered choices of this type.
We must also look at the laws respecting navigation of the lakes, to see whether we should not change our laws and prevent our own ships and foreign ships from polluting our waters. We must step up the grants that we are giving in the field of research so that we can know much more than we know now how much pollution the lakes can take, what type of pollution the lakes can stand. They can stand certain types of chemicals, and certain types they cannot stand. We do not know nearly enough about this, so we must increase the research in this area.
Finally, in the research area there is a great deal which might be done to lower the cost of treating sewage, to lower the cost of treating industrial wastes. I think that research into this effort would produce very beneficial results. If we can discuss this whole range of topics and reach agreement with the province on solutions to these problems, then we are in a position to go to the United States with our program laid out and see whether we cannot get them to do the same thing on their side of the border. If we are able to do this-and I think it imperative that we do this-we can stop the destruction of the Great Lakes and we can stop the waste of this resource that we are now spoiling. If we do not do this, Mr. Speaker, and if we do not do it quickly, I am afraid that the gloomy predictions of Dr. Langford and others might well come true, and we in our great wisdom may well succeed in destroying an essential resource, essential not only to Central Canada but to the economy of the whole country.
The Address-Mr. A. C. Cadieu


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this Throne Speech Debate it gives me a great deal of pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) on the very efficient manner in which they performed their task. However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that the Speech from the Throne means very much to the people in the constituency of Meadow Lake.
I note there is a section of the Speech dealing with the abolition of poverty.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I listened with a great deal of interest to the Throne Speech Debate and I noted that the Liberal Government has advocated an attack on poverty. Liberal Governments down though the years have created poverty by their lack of development and organization and their lack of assistance to those early settlers who pushed forth into these unlimited yet undeveloped areas. This same Government which has enunciated an attack on poverty, only a few days before the Throne Speech voted against an amendment to give $25 per month to that old age group 65 years to 70 years, and voted against an increase in pensions payable to individuals 70 years and over to $100 a month. Such an increase in pensions and a lowering of the age requirement would in itself have provided a great deal of assistance in the fight against poverty throughout this country.
The Meadow Lake constituency encompasses a vast area and takes in about 40 per cent of the area of the Province of Saskatchewan. It does not represent that percentage of the population, but the population of that area has dwindled since the Liberal Government took office. No one can predict with any certainty what will happen to the Meadow Lake constituency after redistribution.
I should like this evening to draw the attention of this House to several problems of concern to many of the people in my constituency. Perhaps to begin with I should refer to proposed rail line abandonments. Our memories reach back to years when the pioneers moved into this area, and what took place when the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. operated what they called Colonization Settlement Boards which, in many cases, preceded the settlers in the search for arable lands, and then returned with large placards advertising these fine fertile areas they had discovered, in an attempt to encourage people to go in and settle these productive
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. A. C. Cadieu lands. A great many war veterans returning from overseas, having fought over there on behalf of this country, were encouraged to go into these areas and to develop them. They were assured that rail line surveys had been made and that these lines would be constructed. Provincial Governments offered large tracts of land for homesteading purposes. People moved in by the hundreds and thousands, to settle these vast areas in the Meadow Lake constituency.
These pioneers were led down the garden path by the railway companies and the various Governments. The C.P.R., for instance, in collusion with others, was allowed to mislead these people. In that area at the south end of my constituency, where I live, the C.N.R. surveyed a rail line and brought in settlers. The C.P.R. realized that this was a prosperous area and also looked at the area with some prospect of moving in. The C.P.R. was granted running rights over the C.N.R. track from Prince Albert to Debden, a distance of some 90 miles built an additional 90 miles and were allowed to reap the wealth of this area. No assurance or guarantee was required of that company that it would push on further. Why were they allowed these running rights without the assurance that they would continue the line? Surely those settlers in the areas of Goodsoil and Pierce-land could expect that the C.P.R. would continue this line in return for running rights. These officials should have been compelled to continue this line. Many of the people in this area have to haul their farm produce to Meadow Lake, the nearest rail point, and in some cases over 65 miles. I suggest these people were betrayed.
Why has the C.N.R. not been compelled to build a line between Frenchman Butte and Heinsburg, Alberta, thus creating a direct line from Prince Albert and North Battle-ford and on into northern Alberta? Such a line would service all the people on the north side of the Saskatchewan River. This would mean a direct line link along the natural barrier of the North Saskatchewan River into Alberta. Why was the C.N.R. not compelled to build this line, closing the gap over a 38-mile area?
I am not one to advocate the nationalization of the C.P.R., as I believe in private enterprise, but I believe that if two farmers who lived side by side found that their holdings were not sufficient to provide both with a decent standard of living, one would sell out to the other. I think all the rollingstock

in this area should be operated by one railway company concentrating its efforts on providing the service these people can justifiably expect. The C.N.R. pioneered this part of the country and should have the opportunity of operating this service. It should have been incumbent upon the Federal Government to see that this company provided the services warranted by the area and its development. I am sure when one looks at the fine farm towns that have sprung up in this area, the mineral resources which have not been tapped and the number of settlers who have moved in and developed the country, he can only come to the conclusion that these people have been deceived. Their rail line was abandoned before it was ever completed. If the gap were completed from Frenchman Butte to Heinsburg, Alberta, I am sure it would be a rail line that would pay dividends. One should look at its geographical location on the north side of the North Saskatchewan River.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Look at some of the losing propositions in which the C.N.R. has invested and which the taxpayers have had to subsidize. There are so many that I could go on at great length. Take their adventure into the provision of hotel accommodation. I think they would have been well advised to leave the hotel business to private enterprise. The loss on the Chateau Laurier hotel alone would pay in a very short time for the bridging of the gap between Frenchman Butte and Heinsburg, Alberta, and I am sure it would do a great deal more for the development that this country needs than the Chateau Laurier hotel is doing for the welfare of the country.
So far as this problem is concerned, I think it is the duty of this Government or any government of the country to get down to straight facts and sound business principles, and to see to it that before the railway companies are allowed to talk about rail line abandonment they must lay their cards on the table and produce facts. This is particularly so in the case of the Government owned railway, and the Government should see to it that it does the things by way of development which are required of it.
When one looks at the Town of Meadow Lake he sees the largest grain storage facilities of any town in the Province of Saskatchewan. One can see that the products and the development are there. We do not know what they are paying to maintain 90 miles
April 12, 1965

of track in order to reap the benefit of this whole country, but we do know that both railway companies are complaining that they are not making any money on these lines. Let them get together on their books and see where the real trouble lies, before they are allowed to talk about coming in and tearing up the tracks.
Let us look at some of the blunders that were made by the railway companies. Let us look at some of the miles of grade they built on which they never laid the track. I am speaking now of the miles of grading they did from St. Walburg up through to Pierce-land on which they never laid any track, whereas only a few miles away they should have linked up the gap between Heinsburg and Frenchman Butte, and they overlooked this completely.
I should like to speak for a few minutes about another grievance in my constituency about which quite a few people are concerned, and I think they have a right to be concerned.
I refer to the Cold Lake bombing range. The land was taken over by the former Liberal Government to establish a bombing range at Cold Lake, and when settlement was first made early in the summer of 1957 a group of settlers in the area were discriminated against. I am speaking now of the Metis people in the Canoe Lake, Beauval and tie a la Crosse areas. They were tricked in the settlement that was made and were not paid on the same basis as other groups or individuals in the area.
When this was drawn to my attention in 1958 I set about to try to get these people further consideration. I was successful in doing this under the former government. While the payment was not made equal to the settlement received by the other groups, I was encouraged to believe that the payments would be brought up to an equal basis. Our Government was defeated early in 1963, but when I later approached the Associate Minister of National Defence of the present Government and presented the plight of these people to him, any further payment was completely rejected. I was told by the Minister that no further settlement would be made.
I think it was a shame that the Liberal Government of 1957 took advantage of these people. Later the Conservative Government, under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), proved that there was a discrepancy in the settlement with these people. We made a further payment to them and planned to bring them

The Address-Mr. A. C. Cadieu up in line with other groups that had been affected by the bombing range.
I think the present Government had a responsibility to complete this settlement, and I do not intend to let them forget this injustice so easily. It is quite possible that some people will think that these people were well paid, but when a government takes away the livelihood of people and does nothing to rehabilitate them and their families, there certainly should be no discrepancy. All groups or individuals should be paid on an equal basis. The livelihood of these people was taken away from them because of this bombing range. Their forefathers came to this area and lived by fishing, trapping and hunting in the area. I think the Government of the day has a responsibility and these people certainly should have been rehabilitated in some other way, and not by paying them a certain amount of money on the eve of an election and taking away their livelihood from them. I think this was a shame. I am receiving letters every day about this matter and I do not think the Government has any right to say to these people: We are going to take away your livelihood from you; you will have to go on living there in your shacks and cabins and all we will pay you is a measly token.
The Indian Affairs Branch looked after the Indian population and they received a considerably different settlement from that given the Metis. I think it is the duty of the Government to open up this file and take a good look at it. We can easily go through the file and find out where the discrepancy lies, and give these people the justice to which they are entitled.
There is another matter which I brought up earlier. It has gone by the boards now and nothing can be done about it, but I think it is a shame. I am referring to the destruction of the mid-Canada radar line. How secret this was kept. I was the Member for that constituency and I was not told a single thing about it. I saw an article which said, I believe, that the Saskatchewan Government was notified, but did nothing about it because when the time was ripe for offering suggestions the Provincial Minister, who did not realize what this meant to northern Canada, was misled. This radar line across the vast northland of Canada cost millions of dollars and it was ordered to be scrapped. Crews were hired to go in, cut the guywires, and let the installations go to waste. They were told to wreck fine cabins and other such accom-
278	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. A. C. Cadieu modation for the caretakers, and to destroy all the equipment.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As soon as word leaked out of the possible destruction of these towers, the Minister was questioned. He wanted to remain ignorant of the fact. He let on it was too late, then, but we found out 15 hours before these radar towers were to be destroyed. We questioned the Minister and he had received word that the C.B.C. was interested. He indicated that word of their interest had been received too late, but it was 15 hours before these towers were to be destroyed. You can declare war in a quarter of that time. With modern communications systems, this destruction could have been stopped. If the C.B.C. were interested, there was a possibility of bringing radio and perhaps even television into this vast area of the northland. One only has to think of the many isolated people, the thousands of young people in that area, to realize the benefit that might have been derived from such a development. However, nothing was done to stop this destruction.
This Government knew, and the Minister knew that there were crews stationed at these towers. He came out with the weak excuse that the towers were dangerous to airplanes flying in the area. Very few airplanes fly in the area, but the towers were equipped with beacon lights. We had the equipment and we even had the fuel to keep these lights going for the next ten years. This was a weak excuse. This destruction had to take place. These are some of the things that make one wonder. As I say, this destruction could have been stopped because the lighting equipment was there and the caretaker was there. There was no danger to airplanes. The C.B.C. could have been given time to study the possibilities of these towers which were built throughout this country at great cost, whether we paid for them or the United States government paid for them. If the C.B.C. was interested, then God knows they spend enough money, and in the interests of economy we should have given them an opportunity to study the matter.
I should like to speak for a few moments about northern development. During the past few days I received a copy of a speech, as I suppose many other hon. Members did, from a C.C.F. member of the Saskatchewan Legislature. He was giving his version of northern development. He advocated that a vast part of the Northwest Territories adjacent to northern Saskatchewan be included in that

DEBATES	April 12. 1965
Province. I am sure the people of the Northwest Territories, when they look at the development that has taken place in Saskatchewan during the last 20 years under a C.C.F. government, would have little desire to be linked up with that Province. I could not blame them. When one looks at the development that has taken place in northern Saskatchewan under a C.C.F. government for the last 20 years and a Liberal government for 30 years, he finds that all that has been done has been the removal of minerals during wartime. Little has been done since.
The Leader of the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan proposed the construction of a rail line from Meadow Lake to Hudson Bay. This was no pipe dream. This is an area which has a vast potential in timber, minerals and fish products. I believe the Federal Government should take a good look at this proposal. We built the Pine Point Railway in Alberta and now that Provincial Government is proposing to build another rail line to develop the northern part of the province. Yes, there is great need for development of the northland. A number of years ago some of the businessmen in Meadow Lake, who could get no action from the Government, took it upon themselves to blaze a winter road through to Lake Athabasca in order that some of this freight that was going into Uranium City could go in through northern Saskatchewan, rather than through Alberta. They proved the feasibility of such a road. They blazed the road through and took freight in through Lake Athabasca across to Uranium City.
Under the former Government, and the Provincial Government of Saskatchewan, we started a winter access road. We built it as far as La Loche. When one looks at the terrain beyond that point, he cannot see any reason why this project should be stopped at La Loche. It should be continued to Lake Athabasca, then down to Stony Rapids where it could go into the Northwest Territories. I think Mr. Petersen, the Leader of the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan, had a brilliant idea when he proposed the construction of a railroad from northern Saskatchewan to Hudson Bay.
There is an unlimited potential for development in northern Saskatchewan, especially when one thinks of the mineral resources north of Buffalo Narrows such as iron and copper. There is a vast population in this area with nothing to do; there is nothing for them in the future, except socialist aid. Since this Government took office not
April 12, 1965	COMMONS
one move has been made to continue the winter access roads or to undertake any developmental projects. There is a great need, for instance, for a bridge at Buffalo Narrows where there was a tragic accident last winter. These are developments which, I am sure, would pay great dividends. I believe it is the duty of this Government to take a good look at the possibilities of northern development and to continue the work which was started by the former Government.
I recall so well that when I was elected there were hundreds of Indian boys and girls who did not have a school to attend. During the campaign of 1963 I could brag that not one Indian boy or girl was unable to attend school. We built wharves and we assisted the Provincial Government in the construction of winter access roads. Today we find everything at a standstill, the same sort of standstill we went through for 20 years under a Liberal regime. Why can these people not take an honest-to-God look at a country that has so much potential, and then let us get down to our northern development policy that was started under the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate very warmly the mover (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder (Mr. Chretien) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
They discharged extremely well one of the most difficult tasks; did they not succeed in putting a new face on their old party?
Tradition was well served and the party's honour is safe.
Some criticism was most constructive, in particular what the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette), the leader of our party, the Ralliement Creditiste, had to say. I think everyone will agree that the first two days of debate were very interesting and useful to the house.
During those days every party had the opportunity to speak on behalf of its own group, and all members delivered well prepared and fine speeches.
On subsequent days, however, speakers were inclined to repeat simply the main ideas put forward by their first spokesman. We would have been ready to vote after the first stage; but since an eight-day throne speech debate is provided under the standing orders, members must speak during those
DEBATES	279
The Address-Mr. Gauthier eight days. We must vie with one another at all costs.
I shall try as much as possible not to repeat the remarks already put on the record, so as to spare you the torture of the drop of water.
As a matter of fact, since the beginning, we have been listening unconcerned and helplessly to a series of speakers and to what avail? Let us vote on the document read to us so that we can get on with it.
It is unthinkable that no government over the past 97 years felt the need to improve the beginning period of a session. Has it ever occurred to anyone that it was urgent to shorten this tedious period? Will an end ever be put to all these repetitions which are such a waste of the time of the house?
Governing, Mr. Speaker, is not a question of days or hours but a question of judgment.
Is there anything more painful than to drink even though one is no longer thirsty? And yet that is what we are asking the members of the house to do at the opening of each session.
The first time I attended this wordy battle, I thought it was to harden new members; such a performance on the part of adults is inadmissible because in a meeting intelligent men should have enough sense to keep quiet when they have nothing to say; however, timidity did not prevent some remarks to be made.
Today, at the opening of my third session, I notice a repetition of this comedy because, I am told, it is done in England. Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that there is a limit to everything. We have today the absolute proof that our standing orders are outmoded.
I welcome this proposal to amend those dusty standing orders and I would even ask the Prime Minister to make it the first item of business.
Concerning this famous program containing the future business of the house, I would like to ask those in charge to establish a list of priorities for all those items and that it be scrupulously respected so that we may know what work we will be undertaking in the months to come.
Nothing is more disarming for opposition members not to know what tomorrow holds in store for them.
We are given notice of the business of the house for the next day only at ten o'clock in the evening while it is time to go to bed, and sometimes we are notified the same day. How can we proceed rapidly when we have not
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. Gauthier been informed of the subject matter to be debated.
The last session, Mr. Speaker, was an unprecedented monument built to the painful memory of a government groping ceaselessly to find its way.
Is it due to the incompetence of its leaders? Is it due to the lack of experience of some members of the cabinet? Is it due to this internal disorder brought about by this wave of scandals that unfurled on key members of the administration and reached the rank of the most humble members?
Is it due to a hidden, extra-governmental influence, by which government itself is outstripped?
Who is the master in your house? Is it the private secretaries? The technicians or officialdom?
To all those questions, only the party in office holds the answers. It is certainly not compelled to reveal them publicly, although the Prime Minister has made unquestioned efforts in order to set afloat his ship which dangerously keels over.
However, I am afraid the crew is too contaminated.
At all events, the Prime Minister will certainly have his hands full with his own party, his own government.
That is why I advise him not to complicate his position by interfering with the neighbour's business, namely the provinces.
There is an old saying: "Grasp all, lose all".
So I say to the Prime Minister that if he insists on continuing his illegal interference in fields exclusively reserved to the provinces, he will run with closed eyes to disappointments much more bitter than those he has known in the last few months, while leading his group of adventurers.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We are, therefore, warning the Prime Minister and his cabinet that eight or ten items contained in the Speech from the Throne constitute a revolting change of policy toward the provinces and a direct insult to the province of Quebec where I live.
A few days ago the Prime Minister, through legislation passed here, offered the provinces the option to take over certain joint programs into which the federal government had wormed its way, but today, the same government is suggesting the establishment of further joint programs.
It is truly the game of old-line governments who hand $1 to the provinces so as to

better take $10 away from them. And this is what has always been called treating the provinces fairly.
When will you stop laughing at the people?
Do you take all Canadians for complete morons or are you that irresponsible?
When Quebec asks the federal government to get out of those fields of taxation, that does not mean the federal government should merely change place or position, but that it should disappear from Quebec's territory and mind its own business in Ottawa. Do I make myself clear enough with those simple words?
Will the Liberal government finally be intelligent enough to learn to respect provincial rights?
Back home, we say "like father like son". A government that shows so little respect for other people's property is setting a very poor example to the other members of the family, as we can judge by what is happening within the Liberal party.
The Prime Minister knows, better than anyone else, that education, agriculture, health, natural resources are fields exclusively reserved to the provinces. He is, therefore, the less excusable for interfering with such offhandedness in the business of the Quebec government. One should, therefore, not wonder anymore at the beginning of a quite legitimate revolt among the very leaders of Quebec.
As evidence, the last warnings given by Mr. Jean Lesage to the federal government that he will not tolerate that what was given by the right hand should be taken back by the left hand. Such action is hypocrisy, and nothing more, and it is not honest.
Consequently, we demand from the Liberal government the cancellation of these items, and I beg all my Liberal fellow citizens, if they still have the right to speak in their party, to take every possible means to call their leaders to reason.
If we scan quickly the speech from the throne, what is obvious is the socialistic legislation advocated by an ultra-centralizing government.
While 60 per cent of the 30 items of the speech from the throne are only a jumble of rehashed proposals, repetitions, aiming only at one goal, "to increase the volume", the end of this deluge of words ends on a discovery: war against poverty.
Do you know at least that since the dawn of history associations and governments everywhere have been fighting against poverty? As you can see, yours is not exactly a new idea.
April 12, 1965

However, what you seem to forget more than anything else is that in order to help, you have to give not take.
What is lacking today is purchasing power. It is not by increasing contributions and taxes that you will restore the purchasing power that the labour classes need for their economic recovery.
Indeed, we notice that the government has failed to put forward a single measure to fill that gap, which is the same as saying that the most remarkable aspect of the speech from the throne is its shortcomings.
It is not by setting up commissions of inquiry to provide employment for those who served the party well but by launching concrete reforms which will directly affect the working class that you will solve the existing problem.
That is why we, of the Ralliement Credi-tiste, request an immediate increase in family allowances, which have been forgotten since 1945.
We also request that income tax exemptions be raised to $2,500 for single persons and to $5,000 for married couples, with an additional exemption of $600 for each child.
We shall continue to fight so that our senior citizens receive $100 per month at the age of 60, without a means test, in order to do away once and for all with this army of inquisitive patronage agents who continuously harass our old people.
Everyone agrees that the Unemployment Insurance Act is unfair, especially with respect to farmers. The present act discriminates against many workers.
When will the government finally present the bill amending this famous act, and for which we have been waiting so patiently? When will it stop penalizing the unemployed workers instead of giving them what they are entitled to, for which they paid and for which they were taxed?
The present act is only a penalizing system. A family head is penalized because he forgot to return his card every fortnight; he is penalized because he left his employer who was exploiting him; he is penalized because he was sick; penalized for having refused a job which was too far away; penalized for having worked two days away from his job where he was working for three months, and his 24 stamps were even withdrawn from him; penalized for reporting to the office half an hour after the time set by the manager. A farmer is penalized because he owns a farm; for having kept five dairy cows which
The Address-Mr. Klein yield nothing in winter; penalized under section 59 (b), (c), (d); penalized under sections 146, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66; always penalized but taxed from the very first hour of work.
The present government has the nasty habit of grabbing everything it can, of taxing everything to the limit and giving back only what it wants.
That is what the people find revolting. When will Canada have a government which will govern in the interests of the people? When the people leam to elect their representatives instead of having them elected by the financiers. It will then rest with the people to keep their eyes open in the future to elect their own members of parliament.


Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to extend my very warm congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Cashin) and to the seconder (Mr. Chretien) for their very appropriate speeches.

I wish to add that both these young men are splendid examples of their races and both are destined some day, I believe, to achieve great things because they are eminently qualified to occupy the highest positions in this land.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I should like to speak tonight about the outcry which emanates from the Soviet Union and Red China whenever any action is undertaken by the Western allies or by the United States, whether it be in the Congo, Viet Nam, South Korea, when the West is constantly accused of being imperialistic. So I thought I would like to look at the record- and since 1945 the record of the number of countries which have achieved independence and the populations involved staggers the imagination.
I should like to put on the record the countries that have achieved independence since 1945. They are: Algeria, the Kingdom of Burundi, Burma, the Federal Republic of Cameroon, Cambodia, the Republic of Central Africa, Ceylon, the Republic of Chad, Cyprus, the Republic of Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Dahomey, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of South Korea, Malagasy Republic, Malawi, formerly Nyasaland, Mali, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Phillipines, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone,

April 12, 1965
The Address-Mr. Klein Somali Republic, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Republic of the Upper Volta, Zambia, Israel, Lagos and the Republic of Viet Nam. The total number of countries which have gained their independence since 1945 is 49. A population of 948 million people is involved and 11,500,000 square miles of territory has been liberated.
As opposed to this Western record we have to ask ourselves the question: Where is Latvia, where is Estonia and where is Lithuania? Under the domination of the Soviet Union and Red China since the war are the countries of Bulgaria, Rumania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Albania, Yugoslavia, Korea, the Republic of North Viet Nam, Tibet-Tibet is an example of what can be expected if United States troops withdraw from South Viet Nam-Cuba and Mongolia. The Western alliance has not taken a single mile of territory belonging to any other country since 1945.
The struggle in North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam, Mr. Speaker, is not the struggle between the north and the south any more than was the struggle in North Korea and South Korea. The struggle in North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam is the struggle between the East and West. I remember, as do many members in this House, when France fell and England stood alone, the isolationist policy which existed at that time in the United States. I remember the United States First Party. I remember the United States Ambassador to the court of St. James reporting to the United States Government not to intervene in the war because Hitler was going to win. I cannot help but feel that instead of having the isolationist policy which the United States had in 1940 if the United States had intervened or warned Hitler in 1933 when he crossed the Rhine that he was going to have to deal with the United States, perhaps the second world war would have been averted.
When people say that the United States should get out of South Viet Nam because they have no business in South Viet Nam, I cannot help but think back to the time of the Hungarian revolution in 1956 or 1957-I do not recall the exact time-when people pleaded with the United States to go into Hungary during the three days the revolution took place. If United States troops were in Hungary tonight, Hungary would be free. If United States troops were in Poland tonight, Poland would be free. Wherever United States troops are there is also to be found freedom.
IMr. Klein.]
As we are all aware, there have been renewed tensions in the Middle East, and while the Soviet Union makes an appeal to peace loving nations in the world to bring pressure on the United States in South Viet Nam, she is doing more to create problems in the world than any other nation by arming the Middle East. There have been renewed tensions in the Middle East, and the danger of a renewed outbreak of fighting cannot be absolutely excluded. I noticed in the press that despite the dominant preoccupation with the dangerous situation in Viet Nam the council of NATO has found the situation in the Middle East sufficiently dangerous as to merit its consideration last week. The most inflammable element in that situation is the build-up of armaments, on the one hand by the Arab States which say openly they are determined to destroy their neighbour Israel, and on the other hand by Israel, which feels her existence is under permanent threat and who is making desperate efforts to acquire military material by way of a deterrent. I feel it would be correct to say that if this arms race can be halted on both sides the dangerous situation might decrease. What is the use of discussing disarmament between the great powers if the Soviet Union continues to pour war materiels into the Middle East? It seems to me it would make better sense to take a first step toward disarmament, which does not involve the question of how the great powers should disarm, but would involve a pledge on the part of the great powers not to supply danger areas with arms, tanks, guns and planes.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Another step which should be taken before disarmament can be discussed, is a step to obtain agreement on the part of the great powers in respect of boundaries of all countries in the world, because as long as boundaries are in dispute there can never be disarmament. Perhaps such an agreement would lend itself to a more calm period, and once any danger of military intervention was obviated substantive political problems in the Middle East might improve, even though this is bound to be a slow and gradual process.
There is no denial of the fact that the Soviet Union represents the major factor regarding a build-up in arms at least on the Arab side through a continuous, uncontrolled and unlimited supply of materiel to the United Arab Republic and other Arab countries. Surely the Soviet Union is as interested as
April 12, 1965	COMMONS
are we and our allies in preventing a new conflagration in that delicate part of the world.
Therefore, I would request the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to consider approaches to the Soviet Union through diplomatic channels and, if possible, in concert with our allies in an attempt to find out whether something can be done by agreement with the purpose of putting a lid on the armament race which, if it continues unchecked, is almost bound to sooner or later cause further military clashes.
I do not believe that a third world war will come, as the result of a direct attack by one major party on another, but a third major war could come as the result of a smaller war in a danger area such as the Middle East or Viet Nam.
Another matter which I should like to commend to the attention of the Government, again in terms of diplomatic dialogue with the Soviet Union, is the problem facing religious and ethnic minorities inside the Soviet Union, particularly that of the Jewish community there which numbers close to three million. A process continues, by which the Soviet authorities are gradually but systematically stifling the possibility for Jewish people there, who wish to do so, of practising their religious beliefs and obtaining the means for observance of the dietary and other religious practices, and to express their specific culture by way of books, newspapers and language studies.
Recently we had an example in this country of two individuals applying for citizenship being denied citizenship because they did not believe in religion. Our Government is now financing their case before the courts in order to preserve what we think is their right. This is exactly opposite to the situation which exists in the Soviet Union.
This strangulation of religious and cultural life has been causing great anxiety to the Jewish people here in Canada, as well as to Jews everywhere in the world, and I would request the Government to seek every opportunity to explain to the Soviet Union that this anxiety is shared by humanitarian opinions in this and other countries. Assuming that the Soviet Union desires to build friendship with our country, not only in the sphere of Government relations but also in the sphere of wider public relations, they should realize that this policy which is directed particularly at this moment against the Jewish
DEBATES	283
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner community is not only wrong in itself but is bound to militate against their efforts to create a better image of the Soviet Union in the world.
In this connection there exists a problem in respect of reunification of families torn apart by World War II. Many of my constituents and I myself have been most gratified to note that our Government has continued its efforts to persuade the Soviet Government to alleviate individual suffering by permitting members of broken families to join their dear ones here in Canada and in other countries, and I sincerely hope that these efforts will bear fruit.
In conclusion, I should like to point out one specific thing. We in this country are going to debate very shortly the abolition of the death penalty. I believe that the tenor of this House favours the abolition of the death penalty, but while we are debating that question the Soviet Union still maintains the death penalty for economic crimes. I hope the debates which take place in this House on the abolition of capital punishment will be forwarded to the Soviet Union, so that they might know how Canada feels in this regard and how a democracy operates, and that while the death penalty for economic crimes existed perhaps in the 17th and 18th centuries, it has no place in the 20th century.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak during this debate on the Throne Speech. Like many other farmers I listened closely to the Throne Speech for some indication of hope for the farming industry. It contained a great deal of reference to poverty, yet in only one paragraph did it touch upon farm economy. Nowhere in that Speech was there set out any concrete or specific suggestion as to what will specifically be done in this regard.
The Throne Speech contained some reference to aid to uneconomical farms and assistance for small farmers, through ARDA and other measures, to put the agricultural industry on an economic basis, as they term it. Let us consider quickly the position in which farmers find themselves today. In doing so we must remember that the price of wheat dropped last fall approximately 18 cents per bushel. We must also remember that beef prices fell three cents per pound, pork prices were down and that there was general concern in respect of dairy products, and prices of other farm products, including eggs. We have recently heard a good deal of talk about farmers marching on Ottawa. This must drive
April 12, 1965

The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner home to the Government that there is a great deal of fear and unrest among the farming population today. There is a lot of talk about how the small farmer has to be moved so as to make room for the big farmer. How small is small? The large farmer today may be a small farmer tomorrow. This is the concern of the agricultural industry as I see it.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Surely as legislators we must realize that for a farmer to make a success of farming he must love the occupation. He must love the land, he must love animals, and he must love the outdoor life and the freedom to do what he wants to do when he wants to do it. I think that basically farmers do like farming for these four reasons.
But what is the trend today? The farmers are saying: Where are we going? Last fall the farmers faced a general decline in farm prices. They are not really desperate yet, but they are concerned. What is the trend today? What does the future hold for the farmer? In the United States, President Johnson is talking about the great society. What does the great society of Canada hold for farmers today? The fact is that their numbers will become smaller and smaller, their land larger and larger, their cares greater and greater and their pocketbooks slimmer and slimmer. This may well be the trend of agriculture today. How can the trend best be arrested? That is the question that I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and others should be concerning themselves with.


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, the Minister is busy making speeches and trying to be the farmers' friend, but rarely if ever visualizing the farmers' plight as the farmer sees it. Some time ago the Minister referred to himself as the food minister or the grocery minister. I saw him on television one night about six months ago when he said that we have a meat problem in Canada. What is he doing about it? I looked for something in the Speech from the Throne. Where is it? Where is the great aid for the basic problems confronting agriculture? It is not a question of giving handouts to farmers or more money to small farmers to drive out their neighbours.
I should like to direct the Government's thinking today to the other side of the coin. People are continually saying that we must drive out the inefficient farmer and force him out of business by one method or another. Editorials in newspapers say: Do not subsidize

the inefficient. Let us look at the other side of the coin. Is there not inefficiency in the marketing of the farmers' products? Surely we all know that the lower the price the farmer gets for his product, the more he must produce of that product; and the more he produces of the product, the greater the surplus and the lower the price he gets. The farmer finds himself on a terrible treadmill.
Let us have a look at the selling methods so far as the farmers' products are concerned. As cities grow and expand we see suburbia springing up here, here and here, and the establishment of great shopping plazas with food stores. Today these shopping centres do something like 75 per cent of the retail food business. The Price Spreads Commission, which dealt with the matter up until 1958, said that by that time shopping centres had gobbled up 64 per cent of the retail business and the small independent grocers had only 36 per cent. I would venture to say that today the shopping centres have close to 75 per cent, if not more than that.
I know there is a general concept today that these large, well lighted food stores with their big buildings must be efficient because of their size. This is not the case. The Price Spreads Commission of 1960 found the very opposite to be the case. They found that the supermarkets are not necessarily efficient. As I mentioned, the farmer is concerned about his share of the consumer dollar. In the report of the Price Spreads Commission of 1960 I notice that in 1949 the farmers' share of the retail dollar in the case of a loaf of bread was 23 per cent, while in 1958 it was 12 per cent. I would think that today it would be close to 9 per cent. That is found on page 312, volume 3, of the Price Spreads Commission report.
The same thing is true of beef, eggs and every agricultural product that the farmer markets today. Taking 1949 as the base year and representing 100, the retail price of beef today is 140. Yet there is only 2 cents a pound difference in the price the farmer receives. In 1949 the average price of beef on the hoof at the stockyards was 20 cents a pound. Today it is 22 cents. Yet there is a difference of 40 index points in the retail price of beef over the same period of time. Where has the inefficiency been in the marketing of that product?
Over the week end I visited the shopping centres of Ottawa and watched consumers buying in Loblaws, A & P and Dominion
April 12, 1965

Stores. I would say that the grocery chains in Ottawa are a prime example of what the Commission pointed out, the inefficiency in the marketing of the farmers' products. I have here a flyer from a Calgary newspaper and I will refer to it as an example. In Calgary there is keen competition in the meat industry right through the packing plant and shopping centres down to the consumer. I dare anybody in Ottawa to tell me where weiners can be bought in this city for three pounds for a dollar. I use weiners as an example because they are a typical food, and similar in Western and Eastern Canada. You can buy the best steak in Calgary for 75 cents a pound, but at Loblaws in Ottawa on Saturday steak was $1.05 a pound. Where has the 30 cents gone? That is what the farmers want to know. In the old days when grocery stores were owned by individuals and the grocers had a guild they would take the owners of Loblaws, tar and feather them and drag them through the streets to convince customers that they were a firm with which they should not do business.


Mr. Greene:: What are you waiting for?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some smart aleck who does not know the seriousness of the plight of the farmer is making some loud remark. There is talk about the inefficient farmer. Let us look at the inefficient marketing of his products. This is what the Price Spreads Commission had to say about the food industry in 1960 in their report. I quote from page 60:
The evidence we have studied has led us to the conclusion that there is an essential difference between the determination of prices at the farm level and the determination of prices in other markets between the farm and the consumer.
They then go on to say:
The general recommendations we have made are designed to bring about changes in the process of price-making in the food marketing system which would be of benefit to consumers.. .and to primary producers...
They may have made recommendations but those recommendations did not bring about a general revision of price-making in the shopping centres. One only has to go to the shopping centres in Ottawa and see the prices that A & P, Loblaws and the rest of them charge for meat, and then compare the prices in Calgary for similar meat. I used the example of three pounds of weiners for a dollar. Bologna is another product that is the same all across Canada. It is four pounds for a dollar in Calgary. You cannot get two pounds for a dollar in Ottawa.
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
No, there is just no rhyme or reason for that price differentiation. The trouble is that there is no competition in the marketing of food, particularly meat products, in the large shopping centres. They are competing in the marketing of services, as was pointed out on page 26 of the Price Spreads Commission report. They said they were convinced that the structure of the food marketing industry has contributed to the advancement of prices to consumers, although they were unable to measure the effectiveness of the structure or the amount by which added services were really widening the spread in the price to the consumer.
I point this out because I seriously believe that this part of the agriculture industry needs greater study. You can take the Hedlin and Menzies report on poverty on the farm, and on inefficient farms, but let us look at the need for competition in the area of marketing of farm products. Certainly, we all know that under a system of free enterprise you must have sharp and keen competition or things get out of line. This is exactly what has happened. Our city planners who have been planning suburbia and the shopping centres have given these shopping centres a captive market with very little competition. They have driven out the independent grocer solely because the independent grocer has not provided a parking place for his customers. This subject needs careful study, and I would recommend a royal commission to do that.
One only has to talk to people who are buying beef at the stockyard, and ask them what determines the price. They will say: We have an order-and I am a buyer for Canada Packers or for Burns-from Safeway for such and such a poundage of beef. They will tell you out and out that today the shopping centres are able to dictate the price the farmer receives for his beef. There is evidence of this in the Price Spreads Commission report. The shopping centres, the chain stores, show a greater profit when the price to the farmer is the lowest. This is understandable, if you know their system. They charge all the market will bear. If the price of cattle is high and the shopping centre has to pay dearly for beef, that narrows the spread between what the shopping centre pays and what the consumer will pay. The consumer will only pay so much. If the price to the farmer is low and the shopping centre can buy beef cheaply, that widens the spread.
286	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner This is exactly what was pointed out by the Price Spreads Commission. The final price remains what the consumer will pay, and there was ample evidence of this as I toured the shopping centres here in Ottawa on Saturday. There was ample evidence that the shopping centres and chain stores were selling meat, in particular, at the highest level and were robbing the public of dollars which the public did not realize they were losing.
Somebody says, "Oh". I ask him to study the market to see if I am not correct. We hear a great deal of talk about productivity on the farm and how the farmer must be efficient. Let us have a little efficiency in the marketing of his products. Somebody may wonder why the shopping centres are able to widen the spread. This is solely because today the average worker spends 20 per cent of his wage on food, whereas a few years ago he spent 25 per cent. In other words he has more money to spend on food today than he had a few years ago. The shopping centres, therefore, can charge more for this food and widen the margin of profit. There is evidence of this in the Price Spreads Commission report. I have a number of pages marked, but I do not believe I will have time to read them.
One only needs to look at the Financial Post of September 26 which dealt with wholesale chain stores marketing food to see that the dividend on those shares doubled in the last four years. Certainly, I believe we must take a very close look at these facts before we condemn the small farmer, before we condemn the inefficient farmer. We should take a look at the inefficient system that great society, as President Johnson calls it, has evolved. Certainly the profits of chain stores and grocery stores that handle meat are higher than any other part of the industry.
On page 28 of the Price Spreads Commission report, volume 1, there is a table which outlines the gross margins of food retailing and wholesaling outlets up until 1957. This indicates that chain meat stores have the widest margin; 20.2 per cent of their sales was profit. It rose from something like 15 per cent in 1951 to 20 per cent in 1957. I suggest that if one could find similar figures today he would find it would be practically 24 per cent or 25 per cent. This is their profit margin on the products we are asking the farmers to produce.
During the last session of this House we had a committee set up to study the prices of feed grain for farmers in Eastern Canada.

DEBATES	April 12. 1965
This committee would have been better off studying the relationship of the price a farmer receives for his product and the price the consumer has to pay for it. This would have done the farmer a lot more good, in my opinion. Perhaps the committee could have recommended an agency to watch over the shopping centres rather than recommending an agency to watch over feed grain prices. A civil servant told me this interesting story, and I was not going to tell it, but I will. He said that we were importing mutton from Australia. I asked how it happened we were importing mutton from Australia when we had such a difficult time selling our own mutton or lamb. Nobody really likes mutton. This man deals with the packing plants and the chain stores every day. He said they are taking beef blood plasma and mixing it with Australian mutton, then selling it as ground meat. This is the kind of thing that is happening to our meat industry in Canada.


An hon. Member:: We are getting the wool pulled over our eyes.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Somebody says we are getting the wool pulled over our eyes, and that is certainly true so far as the consumer is concerned, and so far as the primary producer is concerned. These people are charging all the market will bear, and their profits are largest when the price to the primary producer is lower. It is therefore their prime purpose to keep the price of the primary producer as low as possible so their profits will be as large as possible. I am convinced that is the basic rule of thumb on which shopping centres and meat chain stores work. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. Members know about this. The housewives have heard the price of meat has gone down and that the farmers are in terrible shape because the price on the hoof has dropped. But when they go to the butcher shop they never see that reduction in the price they pay.
I am sure all housewives in Canada have asked their husbands at some time or another, "Why don't we see this reduction in the price of meat when we go the meat store?" The reduction is rarely seen there or, if it is, it is a gradual reduction, not a sharp one which could be brought about by keen competition at the retail level.
I do not believe that the packing plants are making a killing. In fact I think they are operating a very efficient type of business;
April 12. 1965
but it is the chain store, the final outlet, which is the culprit in this industry.
About two years ago the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission dealt with the merger of Canada Packers with Calgary Packers of Calgary, and Wilsil Meat Packers of Montreal. The price squeeze commission brought down their evidence, which was referred by the Minister of Justice to counsel who recommended that no prosecution be undertaken. The Throne Speech is concerned with the livelihood of farmers and we as legislators are concerned with this problem. Canada Packers today processes 30 per cent of the meat consumed and produced in Canada. This is a huge supply to put in the hands of one company, especially when one understands the principle that competition must be keen and active in order to maintain, for any length of time, the free enterprise system which we all cherish so much.
At the time the price squeeze commission reported there was great concern among farmers because nobody in government proceeded to prosecute Canada Packers. Recently we had the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) tour Australia and New Zealand and return with a terrific report. He spent a lot of money and I hope the taxpayers of Canada will get something for it. He gave us a great report to the effect that a steer could be produced in Australia for $7 while it would cost $100 for the same steer in Canada. What has happened to Australian beef production over the past two years? They have pretty nearly doubled their beef production and that increase is continuing at a rapid rate.
What do we see Canada Packers doing now? The Financial Post of April 10, 1965 gave an outline of the great profits Canada Packers are making and how much dividend they were paying on class A and B shares. I quote from that paper as follows:
Recently the company announced it had formed a partnership with Jackson's (Corio) Meat Packing Pty. Ltd., of Geelong, Australia, to operate a packing and canning plant there.
This will be interesting to farmers in Canada because we know that, in years ahead, what happened in the United States during the past two years, due to the importation of Australian beef at a tremendous rate-which caused a great deal of concern to the U.S. beef industry-will happen here. Will it matter to Canada Packers Limited if they make a dollar processing Canadian meat or processing Australian meat and selling it in Canada? It will make no difference. Canada
287
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner Packers can see what is coming and that is why that company is buying plants in Australia.
The biggest threat I can see today is Australian beef production. The Minister has admitted quit frankly that we have a meat problem in Canada. At one time or another he has called himself the minister of food and the minister of groceries. We cherish the idea that this is a free enterprise system and that we must maintain competition, but there is plenty of evidence from the Commission on Price Spreads of 1959 and 1960 to suggest shopping centres do not especially try to become efficient, so far as keeping the price spread narrow. In fact they try to keep the spread as wide as possible.
Though I do not see it mentioned in the Speech from the Throne I would like the government to follow what the United States is doing in the same industry, and in this connection I would like to read a short paragraph from the National Livestock Producer, a United States magazine, which I believe is published in Denver. It deals with the U.S. National Commission on Food Marketing and with what the U.S. expects this Commission to do. I quote as follows:
"In the study of meats and livestock," said Dr. G. E. Brandow, Commission executive director, "attention will be directed in part to the sale of meat by packers to wholesalers and large retailers. Practices of buyers and sellers will be studied from the standpoint of efficiency of distribution, fairness of competition, manner of price determination, product differentiation, and relative bargaining power of participants. A second area dealing with livestock markets and feedlot operations of packers will be similarly examined.
I quote this to show what they are doing in the United States. The U.S. combines investigation branch directed its attention to the electrical industry in the States over the past few years, and not so many days ago it prohibited the merger of a couple of breweries. Now its investigations are being directed to the shopping centres, and the problem brought about by this new system of marketing the farmers' produce. They are showing a real concern for it, and I would hope our Minister of Agriculture could take up from where the Price Spreads Commission left off, which pointed out a similar trend in the food marketing industry.
Many farmers across Canada would like to see a study made of this problem and I hope the government will meet this demand to study efficient marketing of the farmers' produce. I am convinced that here lies a large part of the answer to the problems of

2g8	COMMONS
The Address

Mr. Brewin the small farmer. I am sure most people realize that if a man wants to remain a small farmer he should be allowed to do so. As I see it, it is the Government's duty to create a climate in which the large and the small can work side by side, not a climate in which the large can strangle the small.
In many cases in farming, the small farmer is the most efficient. This was pointed out also by the Royal Commission on Price Spreads because the small and independent grocer is the most efficient in many cases in price setting and maintaining price competition. The large chain stores are more concerned with offering services, and I believe this whole problem needs a thorough investigation in order that the farmer may maintain his rightful share of the retailer's dollar.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, this debate is usually noted for its variety, both in style and subject matter. I would like my opening words to be traditional; that is, I would like to join in the congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply on their very well delivered speeches at the opening of the debate. I think they deserve congratulations.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
My colleagues in the New Democratic Party have presented in this debate a series of policy statements as an alternative to the policies outlined in the Speech from the Throne. They have proposed immediate action to implement the report of the Hall Commission for universal Government financed medicare. They have dealt with the steps required to achieve the goals set up by the Economic Council of Canada. They have dealt with manpower and employment policies and with steps at the federal level needed to protect the consumer. They have indicated the vitally important role of the Federal authority in the field of education, if Canada is to meet the challenge of the age of automation.
But all of this will be difficult if not impossible without a new sense of national purpose and unless we solve the crisis of Canadian unity. This sense of national purpose, this solution to the crisis of Confederation, will have to be embodied in a new Constitution. I urge that the most important task confronting this Parliament is the task of developing and framing a new Constitution for Canada.
It is for this reason that I find the Speech from the Throne a bitterly disappointing document. Not only is there no suggestion that the Parliament of Canada will be allowed to take a serious look at a new Constitution
XMr. Homer (Acadia).]
DEBATES	April 12. 1965
for Canada by means of a special Committee set up for the purpose but, on the contrary, the Speech from the Throne promises to bring into effect the constitutional amending formula which will-for reasons I will speak about later-sound a death-knell to any hope of a dynamic re-thinking and revision of our constitutional structure.
There are both negative and positive reasons why a new Constitution for Canada is required. One of the negative reasons is expressed by two distinguished Canadians in a book called "Ten to One". One of the authors, Mr. Fowler, is a Liberal of English or Scots background; the other, Mr. Faribault, a Conservative of French background. Both are distinguished businessmen. Although I would hesitate to endorse all that they say in "Ten to One", I think Canadians will be much indebted to them for their tackling boldly the problems that face Canada. They say:
The present Canadian Constitution as set out in the British North America Act and subsequent amendments, is inadequate to meet the needs of Canada in 1965.
And again.
In any event the kind of constitution we envisage for Canada-a document that will be a resounding declaration of our present national agreement and a point of departure for our future unity-will not be achieved by tinkering with clauses of the British North America Act. We must find some way to make a bold fresh start. We think that the new Constitution Canada needs, is a much more comprehensive undertaking.
I could not agree more. Canada and Canada's Parliament should now be embarking on the preparatory work for such a bold and comprehensive undertaking. Instead, the Government by urging on us a too rigid and inflexible formula, is asking us to foreclose forever such a possibility and to condemn ourselves to a static-not a dynamic-conception of Canada's future.
I am sure that many people, including perhaps a few in this House, think of constitutions as dull, legal documents fit only for the discussion of constitutional lawyers, political scientists and other self-appointed experts. There may be times when this is true, but not, I venture to assert, in Canada today. I prophesy that there will be an increasing and intense public concern amongst Canadians about the Constitution for the next few years. The Constitution is the framework within which Governments can act or can be prevented from acting to meet human needs. Constitutions, if they are inflexible, can prevent governments in the future from
April 12, 1965

dealing effectively with basic practical needs, for example for full employment, for economic growth, for minimal labour standards, for adequate marketing of farm products, for Canada's full international stature, and many other vital requirements of a dynamic changing society.
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism has in its preliminary report given us a solemn warning that we must make adjustments if we are to meet "the greatest crisis in our history". Can anyone doubt that the richer, more dynamic Canada whose rebirth is called for by the Commission will require new constitutional forms to be evolved? This in turn will require much effort, examination, travail and "dialogue", to use a term now so much in favour.
It is for this reason that the insistence of the Government that we should accept a rigid amending formula would be funny if it were not tragic. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) speaking in Montreal on February 27 said:
I have no doubt that the population of Quebec will understand that the formula, even if certain intransigent ideologists find it less than ideal, represents an indispensable step in our constitutional evolution. Obviously it is only a preliminary step to a formal revision of the Constitution.
Thank God the people of Quebec have more intelligence than the hon. gentleman credits them with. At the risk of being called an intransigent ideologist-and I would be in good company-let me state as clearly as I can that this so-called indispensable step may yet turn out to be the last step, because in the guise of taking the first preliminary step Canada would be hobbling herself for all time. What is the core of the amending formula and why are we in this party fighting it with all the force we can muster? It is contained in section 2 which makes subject to the unanimity rule, as it is called, that is, the veto of each one of the Provinces, all substantial amendments affecting in any way the powers of the Provinces to make laws. This would have a threefold effect.
But I see it is now ten o'clock and I will leave the denouement of the threefold effect until tomorrow, if I may.


George James McIlraith: I would like to ask that we continue for a few minutes, if that is agreeable, in order to deal with the two resolutions I mentioned today at 2.30. The first is No. 5 on today's Order Paper.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Introduction oj Legislation EXCISE TAX ACT



PROVISION FOR TAX REFUND ON DESIGNATED GOODS

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution::
That it is expedient to introduce a measure-to amend an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act,, chapter 12 of the statutes of 1963, to permit a refund of or deduction from tax or a payment of am amount equal to tax to be made in respect oit designated goods described in section 10 of that Act that are sold and delivered, or applied to a use resulting in the property in the goods passing, after December 31, 1964.
Motion agreed to and the house went into Committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-96, to amend an act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second times, considered in Committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


George James McIlraith: that the house go into Committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend certain acts respecting the superannuation of persons employed in the public service, members of the Canadian forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to give effect to the provisions set out in Finance votes 18d, 21d and 23d of the supplementary estimates (D) tabled in the House of Commons on March 19, 1965.
Motion agreed to and the house went into Committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllrailh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-97, to amend certain acts respecting the superannuation of persons employed in the public service, members of the Canadian forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said Bill be read the second time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 12. 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


George James McIlraith: the second reading of the Bill.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a question on second reading. Are these changes going to cover Messrs. Belec and Poitras, the men who are now no longer on the staff of the R.C.M.P.?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.
May I suggest that these questions may be asked during our consideration in the Committee of the Whole.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: All right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon -Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair.
On clause 1-
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question. If these changes do not establish payments to Messrs. Belec and Poitras, recently connected with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I am in favour of passing them tonight; but if they do place these men in a preferred position, enabling them to receive some type of superannuation, I wish to discuss the matter at another time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, this bill does not in any way affect the rights of Messrs. Belec and Poitras.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and ipassed.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the House for its co-operation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Provisional Standing Order No. 39A deemed to have been moved.

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question this evening about something of which I have personal experience, having been a practising orchard-

ist for nearly 50 years. In discussing this at the present time let me say that I have grown fruit even earlier than the somewhat junior graduate. At one time I even ran poultry. In fact, I come from a family which I think is the only family in British Columbia I know of that operated a travelling rooster.
Let me say that we paid $100 an acre for forest land which we were told would grow apples and grow us rich. We grew apples but we did not grow rich.
I am well acquainted with the problems that I wish to present to the Parliamentary Secretary this evening. I know these problems which face the tree fruit growers in British Columbia both in respect of production and marketing. I represent a part of the country which is ideal for the growing of tree fruit. Unfortunately, owing to the flooding that will be occasioned by the building of the High Arrow dam many thousands of acres of some of the best land in my constituency for growing peaches, cherries, apples and pears will be destroyed.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I want to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary a resolution that was adopted at the last annual convention of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association. That organization has been in existence since 1889 and represents the tree fruit growers of the Okanagan and Kootenay districts in the southeastern part of British Columbia. This organization has had long experience in respect of the problems which face the fruit industry. This question was raised at their convention which was held between January 19 and 21 of this year and it was the subject of considerable discussion because it is a problem that faces tree fruit growers in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. I am sure the same problem will be found in Ontario and Quebec, and no doubt in the Maritimes. As the result of this discussion the following resolution headed "Financial Assistance Program" was adopted:
Whereas there is no act or arrangement at present under which fruit growers may borrow long term, low interest funds to renovate their orchards by cutting out trees of low marketable varieties or on low volume rootstocks and replacing the removed trees with varieties acceptable to the consuming public and on high volume type rootstocks, and
Whereas many orchards were planted 30 to 40 years ago and the production has fallen to 500 to 700 bushels per acre of average to low quality fruit and are therefore uneconomical, and
Whereas it is estimated in the United States that production of 1,500 bushels of high quality apples
April 12, 1965

per acre must be produced in the years to come to meet competition.
Therefore be it resolved that the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association approach the Canadian Government and request that the Farm Credit Corporation or other Government plan be amended to the extent that loans be made available to fruit farmers to enable them to cut out all or a part of their trees, if thought necessary, or plant or replant with acceptable market varieties on quick bearing high volume rootstocks, said loans to cover not only the removing of old trees and replanting of new ones, but the continued care and maintenance of the new trees until they have grown to an economic size, and moreover funds be loaned to take care of the livelihood of the farmer to enable him to carry out the above renovations.
This very important resolution was passed by this convention as the result of considerable study of this question. Our foreign markets are changing. We are losing the market in Britain and Europe for certain varieties. We used to have a very large market for Cox's Orange in Britain. There have been very heavy plantings there since the second world war and there are large imports from Italy and other parts of Europe and from Australia and New Zealand. The competition there is keener.
The Canadian consumer now has a different taste and requires a different type of apple. More and more the Canadian consumer has changed from the green and high quality apple to red apples like the McIntosh, Red Delicious, Rome Beauty and apples of that type. This has caused the growers to realize that they have got to change some of their varieties, if they are going to compete in the foreign and domestic markets, and they have also got to change to varieties, particularly dwarf specimens, that produce on quick bearing, high volume root stocks at a much higher rate than at the present time.
It is because of the problem that faces the growers that they gave it such consideration at the convention, and I was asked to raise the matter here. I always like raising matters and asking questions of the Parliamentary Secretary because I take great delight in the fact that I attended Ontario Agriculutral College in 1909 and he was born the following year. So it is a question of an aging man talking to a juvenile-but a very wise one, I trust, in these circumstances. My question is: Has the Department heard of these representations from the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association? Are they giving them serious study and what is the intention of the Government with respect to this request?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express appreciation to the hon. Member for Kootenay West for bringing this important matter before the House. I also want to express appreciation for the fact that he has completed his autobiography so far as I am concerned. I always knew he was a tree farmer but I did not know his experience extended to orcharding and, of course, I am particularly happy about that.
In the absence of the Minister I am unable to confirm or deny whether or not representations have been received by the Minister on behalf of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association, but I would assume that representations have been made. I am conscious, of course, of the changes that have taken place in recent years and that tastes have changed as indicated by the hon. Member. I realize that orcharding is a business that has gone through various stages of specialization and that orchardists no longer grow 10 or 20 varieties as they used to do in years gone by. I realize they are now concentrating on the more desirable varieties in order to meet consumer demand. I can only assure the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that this matter will be brought to the attention of the Minister. I am confident that very careful consideration will be given to it. Of course, the hon. Member will appreciate that I am unable to give him any firm commitment, since his question involves a matter of Government policy, which would be announced by the Minister in due course. I wish to assure him, however, a question so pressing will be brought to the Minister's attention.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-PREPARATION OF PAMPHLET ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) was speaking in the Throne Speech debate and he made an announcement that was new to the Members of the House. He indicated that he had given instructions to his departmental officials to prepare, for the information of hon. Members and the general public, not a white paper, because it will not involve a matter of Government policy, but an information pamphlet bearing on capital punishment. This pamphlet will be made available to all Members, and will contain statistics, along with the pros and cons of the problem involved. Finally, there will be a historical record and the result of facts observed in various
April 12, 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion countries which, to a varying degree, have retained or abolished capital punishment. This was the announcement made by the Minister.
As one who favours the retention of capital punishment, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice if he will see that this information pamphlet is as fair as it is possible to be in presenting both sides of the matter, because this is an information pamphlet which is going to be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. Since it is not a Government white paper, it should be impartial when discussing a matter that affects the hearts and consciences of Canadians as does this question of capital punishment. I am not one to argue that the Cabinet is the repository of all the virtues. I do not believe that it is impossible for them to commit an error. This is particularly so when I can show you a copy of the April 1 issue of the United Church Observer, the official publication of the United Church, where on page 14 of this edition, in discussing the question of capital punishment, this publication makes the flat-footed statement that the British Parliament has voted capital punishment out, while public opinion favoured its retention.
This is a definite misstatement of fact because the British House of Commons did vote against capital punishment, but the question has yet to go up to the House of Lords. It has since been stymied in the House of Commons. If an official organ of the United Church of Canada cannot present the facts accurately, then I am asking you, can an information pamphlet be prepared accurately presenting both sides of the case, when you bear in mind that this Cabinet has commuted every death sentence which has been imposed since they came into office two years ago this month? This certainly gives an indication of their way of thinking.
When the Minister of Justice was speaking on Friday afternoon he stated that we are no longer in an era of punishment for vengeful purposes. The only people I hear making such statements are those who are in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. The Minister of Justice not only made that comment on Friday afternoon, but the day he announced the commutation of the death sentence of the Santa Claus murderer Marcotte, he announced this free vote on capital punishment. Later, when speaking in Montreal, he said he was against capital punishment except in three specific instances, which he mentioned. Marcotte fitted into all three. He had murdered a policeman, he had
[Mr. Cowan.1
been convicted and he is now being tried on a second charge of murdering a policeman.
0	(10:20 pjm.)
Could I suggest to the Minister of Justice or the Department, in order that this pamphlet may be as fair as possible, before it is published, and certainly before it is printed, that it be shown to and considered by one or two, or three representatives of that school of thought who still believe in the moral law.
We do not think it is a good policy to appoint cats as guardians of goldfish bowls, and since the United Church Observer states that those who favour the retention of capital punishment are fundamentalists or policemen,
1	would suggest the Department of Justice might ask Mr. George A. Shea, secretary of the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police, of Montreal, to consider the pamphlet before giving it to the printers; or the Rev. Perry Roclswood, of Halifax, Nova Scotia; or Hon. Claude Wagner, Attorney General of Quebec, the man who prosecuted the Santa Claus murderer in the first case; and I would suggest with all respect Mr. Heath Macquarrie, the hon. Member for Queens, P.E.I. I would even suggest the name of Mr. Cassidy of Ottawa, President of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans Association. Another man I would name is the Attorney General of Newfoundland, Hon. L. R. Curtis, and Elmer L. Steeves of Moncton, New Brunswick -and in passing may 1 say one of the Steeves was a Father of Confederation.
They are men of the utmost probity and integrity who favour the retention of capital punishment in this country. I believe this information pamphlet will be open to criticism on the grounds that it is biased, unless it is considered by the representatives of the school of thought that I represent before it is sent to the printers.
Two weeks ago today the House of Commons Debates carried a statement as to the 38 states in the world which have abolished capital punishment. The list is accurate enough, but no emphasis is placed on the fact that it contains such tremendously self-governing states as the Dominican Republic, Greenland, the Netherlands Antilles, which are two islands off South America, the great republic of San Marino, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg-


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the start I would like to re-emphasize that
April 12, 1965	COMMONS
the proposed debate on the abolition of capital punishment is not one in which the Government intends to take a position which would make the vote one of confidence. On this question it is expected that there will be diverse points of view taken by people in all parties, and therefore the debate will not be along party lines.
But the Government is prepared to assist the debate, as the hon. Member pointed out and as the Minister pointed out last Friday, by presenting an information pamphlet in order to put into the hands of all interested persons, both inside and outside the House, such of the relevant material as will permit an informed consideration of this important question.
Perhaps I should emphasize the word "information" in this regard. It is not intended in this particular document to set out the arguments pro and con. It is felt the various protagonists will be able to do this most effectively. But in setting forth the facts we must remember there is no absolute of objectivity. Inevitably everyone approaches any problem with a certain number of preconceptions. Subject to that limitation the information pamphlet will seek to be, as was said of Thomas Paine, "As impartial as sun and rain", and in its preparation the Government will seek to demonstrate, in the words of Burke, "The cold neutrality of an impartial judge." The hon. Member has made a useful suggestion which I will bring to the attention of the Minister and the officers of the Department.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- VANCOUVER-POSSIBLE USE OF FORMER R.C.A.F. BASE

Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I was told on Orders of the Day this morning that no decision has yet been reached by the Government in its consideration of the latest resolution passed by the City Council of Vancouver with regard to the disposition of the former R.C.A.F. base located at Kitsilano Beach in Vancouver.
In 1942, when this property was acquired by the Department of National Defence as an R.C.A.F. supply depot, there was, as far as I can determine, a clear and unmistakable understanding on the part of the then council that the use of this property by the R.C.A.F. would be for the duration of the war, that any buildings erected on the property would be of a temporary nature, and that after the war the property would be
DEBATES	293
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion surrendered to the City of Vancouver for park purposes, as has been recommended by every planning report prepared for, or by, the City of Vancouver.
After the defence reorganization by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) last year, this supply depot was closed, and I was hopeful that 30 years of public controversy in Vancouver would come to an end and that this property would be granted to the city for park purposes as is desired, I am firmly convinced, by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of Vancouver.
At that time proposals were put forward to use part of the base for new C.B.C. radio and television headquarters. Due to decisions made by the previous Government, Vancouver is fourth in line after Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, for new C.B.C. facilities. Our C.B.C. facilities are a disgrace to Canada's third largest city and are a discredit to a national broadcasting corporation. Over the last year negotiations went on to determine whether there was a compromise arrangement which would be acceptable to most people, by which the C.B.C. could locate on part of the base and the balance be given to the City of Vancouver for park purposes. It has become obvious that permanent location of the C.B.C. at Kitsilano is unacceptable.
City council's latest resolution calls for the city to acquire the whole of the base on a 99-year lease for $1 a year, but will permit the C.B.C. to lease approximately 11 acres of it for 15 years, with a possible right to renegotiate a further extension of ten years. I am inclined to believe that when this resolution was passed unanimously by Council, the aldermen must not have thought out the matter to its logical conclusion.
This resolution, this proposal now being considered by the Government, falls between two stools. It represents a second best settlement; a second best park of 11 acres, rather than 26 acres, and a second best C.B.C. centre, because how can the Corporation be expected or allowed, with any logic or economic sense, to spend the large amounts of money required to build the type of C.B.C. centre worthy of Vancouver, when they only have the property for 15 years?
If City Council is prepared to allow the C.B.C. to locate on part of Kitsilano, surely they should want the C.B.C. to be in a position to make the sort of capital expenditures necessary to make it a first class headquarters. We do not want some gerrybuilt structure down there on the beach for the next 15 years. Jf
April 12, 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion City Council's latest resolution is accepted by the Government, I am sure it will result in a freeze on C.B.C. developments in Vancouver for the next 15 years. Within five or ten years, we will, for example, undoubtedly be going into colour television. How can the C.B.C. be expected to spend large sums of money developing a colour studio on property which they may have for only another five or ten years?
If City Council is not prepared to allow the C.B.C. to locate on the Kitsilano base for a sufficiently long time to warrant a large capital expenditure, I strongly urge them to say so. I ask the Council to reconsider its position. If they are not prepared to make a logical and economically sound proposal with regard to the C.B.C. at Kitsilano they should indicate that they want it for park purposes as an integral part of Vancouver's beautiful waterfront development, as recently urged by the Vancouver parks board. Let not Vancouver make the mistakes of Toronto where
millions are now being spent trying to reclaim the waterfront for the benefit of the citizens.
I urge City Council to indicate their position to the Government quickly, because we have been dealing with this for 18 months and time is running out, if any of this potential parkland is to be used this summer. I assure Council that, armed with the sort of resolution I have indicated, I am hopeful we can obtain the desired end.


John B. Stewart: I think we have all come to know that the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) holds very strong views on this subject. Tonight I can only tell him that the Board of Directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is even now considering the merits of the offer contained in the resolution passed unanimously by the City Council of Vancouver.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Tuesday, April 13, 1965