1965-04-06

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the text, in French and in English, of the report of February 27 from the international commission for supervision and control in Viet Nam, dealing with the withdrawal of the commission's fixed teams from North Viet Nam at the instance of the government of North Viet Nam.


VIET NAM-SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER IN U.S.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, but first I want to congratulate him on the honour bestowed upon him on Friday evening by the presentation of the peace award at Temple University.
I wish to ask him whether the enunciation of his views regarding the Viet Nam crisis represented a cabinet decision. I ask this because of the fact that on Friday afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his version of the situation and Canada's views, expressed a somewhat dissimilar attitude to that of the Prime Minister in his extramural speech.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: When I spoke, Mr. Speaker, I was of course speaking as the leader of the government, with the knowledge and approval of my colleagues. What I said did not in my view contradict in any way what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but may have gone a little further than he went on Friday afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether the reaction of the President of the United States indicated that the suggestion of a pause, measured or otherwise, was refreshing to him?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He was very interested in it, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the Prime Minister made his speech had he discussed the matter in any way with the officials of the Department of External Affairs, and had there been any exchange of views in this respect with the United States administration before the speech was delivered?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, statements on external affairs are normally discussed with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who takes the responsibility for discussions in his department. The particular statement on Friday night was not taken up with the United States government or any United States authority before it was delivered, although our views in general in regard to Viet Nam were well known to them.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and it has to do with a press conference which he and President Johnson held at Camp David. Reports indicate that Mr. James Minifie asked the Prime Minister to express his views and those of the government, and the Prime Minister is quoted as having said that the Canadian government both supported and approved of United States policy and Viet Nam. I wish to ask the Prime Minister if this is an accurate report of his comments at that press conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to send the text of what I said to the hon. gentleman. I do not have that text with me, as it was taken down, but subject to correction in detail I said this government had supported the policy of the United States in Viet Nam and wished to be able to continue that support.


TANZANIA-ASSISTANCE IN AIR FORCE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked me last week by the member for "Reindeer"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. MacEwan:: Santa Claus.


An hon. Member:: You have been riding
reindeer.

April G, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Just call him Rudolph.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman just said, I must have been riding reindeers. This is a consequence of suffering from the 'flu. In reply to the question asked me by the hon. member last week I should say that in -response to a request from the government of Tanzania, the Canadian government has stated its willingness to co-operate with the government of that country in an air force equipment and training program. The establishment of an air transport wing, by providing increased mobility, will complement the advisory and training assistance Canada is already extending to the Tanzanian army. The assurance of stability, which depends in part on adequately trained and equipped security forces, is a prerequisite to sound economic and social development.
A Canadian survey team will be sent in a fortnight to examine, in consultation with the Tanzanian authorities and in the light of Canadian capabilities, how Canada can best assist in this matter. The detailed program to be agreed between the two governments will be based on the team's findings. The Canadian government welcomes this further development in the friendly relations between our two commonwealth countries.
I think this was an oral question. I do not know whether that makes any difference, but it was an oral question.


Mr. Churchill:: I think you are out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it is important that at the earliest opportunity we should show our interest in this commonwealth country.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
During the long recess did the minister have any contacts with the attorney general of the province of Quebec to find out if Lucien Rivard had been seen somewhere or if he is still at large without anyone knowing his whereabouts?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: understand, Mr. Speaker, that this follows
[Mr. MacEwan.)
up a question that was asked recently by the hon. member for Villeneuve.
In reply I must say that, during what the hon. member calls the recess, I had no special contacts with the attorney general of the province of Quebec on that matter, but after the questions which were asked last week as to whether the police was continuing its searches, I inquired from my sources of information, and I wish to tell the house that the police is actively maintaining its activities.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Does the minister know, for instance, that Lucien Rivard is definitely not in the county of Villeneuve?


Mr. Bechard:: One can never tell.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question related to the answer he gave the hon. member for Villeneuve. If I understood him correctly I believe he said he had corresponded with the attorney general of the province of Quebec regarding the search for Rivard. If I did not catch the minister's answer correctly, then I would like him to repeat it.


Guy Favreau: What I said was that during the long interval referred to by the hon. member for Villeneuve I had no occasion to have any special communication with the attorney general of Quebec, but further to questions which had been put last week I had inquired from my own sources of information and ascertained that the investigation by the police is being pursued.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then the supplementary question I want to ask is, are we to assume from the minister's answer that he considers the responsibility for pressing the search for Rivard lies with the authorities in the province of Quebec?


Guy Favreau: I made no such answer, Mr. Speaker, and I think my previous answers speak for themselves in this respect. I said that all police forces in the country were pursuing a co-operative effort in this direction.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: As a
supplementary question, is the minister satisfied that every possible effort is being put forth to apprehend one Lucien Rivard?


Guy Favreau: I answered that early last week, Mr. Speaker.
April 6, 1965



MINISTERS SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR IN QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT ACTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a subpoena to appear in the superior court of Quebec today on the hearing of a petition of Autair Helicopters Limited against Atlantic Helicopters Limited as respondent and the Minister of Industry as mis-en-cause?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Transport):: Yes, sir.


Erik Nielsen: Does the minister intend to appear today to give testimony in those proceedings?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the minister and certain other members of the government are represented there by counsel, and as this is a matter before the courts I am sure we would not wish to debate it here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bell:: You don't like that subject, eh?


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the President of the Privy Council received such a subpoena to appear in the same proceedings today in Montreal?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy-Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Is it the intention of the President of the Privy Council to appear today-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -in compliance with the lawful order issued by that court?


Howard Russell MacEwan: They are above the courts; they have shown that.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I and other members of the government are represented by counsel in that case, and the matter is before the courts and should not be discussed in the house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Is it his intention or the intention of any member of the government to introduce a motion in this house to allow the three ministers concerned to appear; and if he does not wish to take this responsibility, would he prefer the opposition to introduce such a motion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to take that responsibility. If the
Inquiries of the Ministry opposition wish to do so, that is their responsibility.


Erik Nielsen: I have a further question foi the President of the Privy Council, supplementary to the one I asked of him and the Minister of Transport. Is the President of the Privy Council aware that subpoenas in the same proceedings referred to previously have been served upon George Davidson, secretary of the treasury board, Mr. Brekel-mans, director of the contracts division of the treasury board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely this question is not in order. I will not say it is not a matter of public knowledge, but it is not so pressing, and I do not see how it particularly concerns the chamber at the present time. I do not see the purpose in the hon. member asking that type of question. With regard to ministers it may be in order, but with regard to other people surely it is outside the direct concern of the house.


Erik Nielsen: The purpose is to establish whether or not the government is co-operating with the courts of Quebec in looking into this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I now understand the purpose, but it seems to me the purpose as expressed is an allegation, not a question.


Erik Nielsen: It is no allegation whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: With due deference to Your Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this matter has been discussed sufficiently this afternoon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if you are ruling my question out of order on the grounds of urgency I give notice that I wish to raise the matter at ten o'clock this evening.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Last week the minister made a statement in Edmonton with regard to the replacement of a major aircraft used by the armed forces of Canada. He indicated at that time that it would be a very few days before a decision would be reached. Has

April 6, 1965
Inquiries cf the Ministry this decision been arrived at, and is the minister able to tell the house what it is?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Can the hon. gentleman tell us how often we are going to get these "very few days"?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Often, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO RECONSTITUTION OF HOUSE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Does he intend to propose to the house that the special committee on national defence be revived this session so that it may continue its work?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would be the intention of the government to reconstitute this committee during the course of the present session.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of protests from Winnipeg concerning the continuing transfer of persons in the employ of Air Canada from Winnipeg to Montreal can the minister say whether something might be done to meet the request that these transfers be halted, at least until the report of the Thompson inquiry is made available?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I dare say the hon. gentleman received the same telegram as I did; I gather it was sent to a number of hon. members. I had some immediate inquiries made of Air Canada about this. Perhaps I might be allowed to communicate to the house the information which Air Canada gave my office. It is to the effect that Air Canada has been meeting with the chairman of lodge 714 for western Canada and the chairman of lodge 1751 for eastern Canada of the union in question in the course
IMr. Lambert.]
of the general negotiations which are taking place at the present time, and both chairmen feel that the action taken by Mr. Peterson in his telegram to the minister was neither legal or proper, and that general chairman Smith of lodge 714, who is in Montreal now, is preparing a telegram to Mr. Peterson accordingly, a copy of which is to be sent to me.
I think until I receive that communication it would be unwise for me to make any other comment apart from what I have said many times in the house, namely that Air Canada has undertaken not to make any transfers except those required by the collective agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister find out whether that undertaking has been kept to the letter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The last information I had, sir, was that it was. I am expecting a further report, and if there is any difference I will communicate it to the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister check with regard to the number of personnel who have been transferred, because the figure of 90 given in the telegram greatly exceeds the figure in the answer the minister gave to me in the house a few days ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am well aware of that, sir, and I will be very glad to check.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I wonder whether the minister's attention has been drawn to a press release of the civil service association relating to the emergency conference in Ottawa next week to protest inadequate salary revisions and classifications for the penitentiary service. What steps will the government take to solve what the association calls "the severe anomalies"; and second, will the matter of salary scales be reconsidered?


Mr. Speaker:: This surely is a question for the order paper. A detailed answer can be given there.
April 6, 1965

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the answer given by the minister of external affairs to a question asked last week in the other session of parliament, whether the Prime Minister will now arrange to have answers given to the 127 written questions which remained unanswered at the end of that session.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that according to the rules they should be put on the order paper; then they will be answered.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but as he seems to intend to be just about as assiduous during the new session as he was during the last, I will therefore, in his absence, address myself to the Prime Minister.
Considering that maple sugar producers had a poor crop last year in eastern Canada but did not get any subsidy from the federal government and considering that the situation does not seem to be better this year, does the Prime Minister intend to take immediate steps to help the farmers concerned as soon as necessary if present conditions do not improve?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into this matter, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Is it the intention of the C.B.C. to send their employees into the constituencies
Inquiries of the Ministry of members who disagree with the views of the president of this corporation over the financial arrangements inherent in the proposed ten year charter, as has occurred in my constituency?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the Secretary of State might also indicate what are the intentions of the government toward the proposal made by the chairman of the board of broadcast governors as to giving the C.B.C. specific directions as to its duties, especially in so far as finances are concerned.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the government is to present amendments to the Broadcasting Act during this session, as was announced yesterday.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the government to enable the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to receive further representations regarding rail line abandonment before the government proceeds with the proposed railway legislation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think, sir, that it would be rather difficult to take that course before the bill was introduced, but I would be quite prepared to receive any representations myself, or to arrange to have them received by my department.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is of considerable importance to a large number of people in my riding and across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Walter Groos: It is urgent because, as I understand it, the present arrangements concerned come to an end today. Can the Minister of

April 6, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry Finance tell the house the point which has been reached in negotiations with the government of the United Kingdom with respect to a new arrangement covering personal income and corporation tax arrangements between our two countries?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend did not give me notice of his question until after today's proceedings had begun.


Mr. Slarr:: You mean you gave him the question.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I had expected that some member of the opposition might be on to this, so I am ready to reply. Meetings to discuss the new agreement were held in Ottawa in September and October of 1964. At these meetings a draft for a new agreement was prepared by officials, but this draft has not yet been approved.
In negotiating tax agreements Canada has always attempted to have the agreement provide that pensions and annuities of all kinds should be liable for tax only in the country where the recipient of the pension is a resident.
It was understood that the U.K. authorities would inform Canada whether they could agree to the draft prepared in Ottawa, but shortly thereafter the situation was changed by a new government taking office in the U.K. and the new chancellor of the exchequer's announcement that the form of the tax on corporations in the U.K. would be completely changed following the 1965 budget. Canada would not want to conclude a new agreement until it has studied the new taxes to be imposed in the U.K., which were announced this morning, and it is believed that the U.K. authorities have not wanted to continue the negotiation of a new agreement until details of the new U.K. taxes could be made public.



CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS RESPECTING EXCHANGE FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the interest of numerous mining communities and other groups, and editorial comment in connection with the proposals by General Charles

de Gaulle of France for that country, and later in this house, by Sergeant Murdo Martin of Timmins, witfi the sympathy of Staff Sergeant MacLean of Charlotte, with respect to the conversion of a larger percentage of the Canadian exchange fund into gold, would the minister consider referring this very important fiscal matter to the banking and commerce committee for the hearing of evidence, study and a report to this house for the enlightenment of members so they will understand what is actually involved in this very complicated question?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of this question and I should like to give a full answer, omitting perhaps the reference to Sergeant Murdo Martin. I did not appreciate his interest in this matter.
Canada currently holds close to 40 per cent of her official reserves in the form of gold and the rest in the form of United States dollars, most of which are invested in short term obligations of the United States government. While the proportion of gold in our reserves will alter somewhat as the level of our reserves changes from time to time, the government is fully confident of the ability of the United States to protect the value of its currency in relation to gold and is a willing holder of United States dollars. Indeed, in contrast to gold holdings, which pay no interest, our U.S. dollar investments have earned more than $188 million in foreign exchange over the past five years.
The government is quite satisfied with the composition of our reserves; therefore I can see no advantage in referring the question to the banking and commerce committee, which I hope will soon be fully occupied considering revisions to the banking legislation.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice asking him whether it is a fact that the old, historic force, first known as the Royal Northwest Mounted Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is now being divested of its stetsons, spurs, riding breeches, riding boots and Sam Browne belts, except for parades; and does he not feel that this historic force which did so much to hold the
April 6, 1965

west for the British crown deserves better than this kind of treatment?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister to give us an answer to that question.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into that question and report on it later.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is taking place at the present moment, and I should like the minister to indicate the reason this force is being treated in this way. Are they going to do away with the word "royal" in the name as well?


Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Justice had advised him, prior to today, about the changes to be made in the uniforms and equipment of the R.C.M.P.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall that the Minister of Justice, among his many duties, has advised me about any possible change in the uniform of the R.C.M.P.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wanted to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Is the absence of any reference in the speech from the throne to the appointment of a committee of this house to examine any changes that may be desirable in the constitution, and to examine the proposed constitutional amending formula with which the public is concerned, an indication that the government does not intend to move for the appointment of such a committee at this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The procedure for dealing with this important matter, when it comes before this house on the assumption that it will have been approved by all the provinces, will be determined later.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question concerning the formula for the repatriation of the constitution.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I understand the minister is not very good at bluffing at poker, so I am sure to get a straight answer.
Could he tell the house whether he agrees with the premier of Quebec when the latter states that the repatriation formula will not be a strait-jacket for Quebec but only for Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Could he inform the house whether the government intends to call a conference of the municipal authorities of the national capital area, in order to consider them with the advisability of amending the National Capital Act?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we propose to call together the mayors of Ottawa and Hull with a view to improving relations between the central government and the municipalities in question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the government intend to admit the mayors of these two municipalities to the national capital commission?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the objective of the government is to reach greater co-operation and better understanding between the federal government, the municipal authorities and the national capital commission.
The question now is one of finding the best course of action to take in order to get this co-operation, and I wonder whether participation or admittance of the mayors of these two cities to the commission would be the best course.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should
like to ask the Minister of Transport if

April G, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry he can say how long shipbuilding subsidies are to be suspended, and it he can say the precise date when the program will be resumed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be difficult to do that, sir. The matter is under careful review. I think I indicated there was a large backlog of shipbuilding in the shipyards, and of course the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act is still in operation.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. Is the government considering announcing that any ships that might be built during this waiting period, if the subsidy is reintroduced, would be eligible?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.



ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Because of the urgency and importance, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to inform the house whether a government notice of motion will be placed on the order paper for consideration and, I hope, adoption by this house, accepting the procedural changes that were recommended by the special committee in its report at our most recent session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter was dealt with in the throne speech and I hope I shall be dealing with it shortly. Perhaps my hon. friend will wait until then.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the work of the industrial relations committee was not completed when the session ended, would he give consideration to immediately taking steps to reorganize this committee and set it at work again so we can complete our questioning of the maritime union trustees?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I would be glad to consider that suggestion.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a
supplementary question. In view of proceedings now before the courts in the province of Quebec by way of quo warranto, will it be the intention of the government to reintroduce the same terms of reference for that committee as in the previous session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet discussed whether the committee will be reconvened, or a motion will be put on the order paper. As soon as I get a chance I will discuss it with my colleagues.


Michael Starr: Does the Minister of Labour deem it advisable that the work of this committee should be completed in respect of the maritime trustees, as was originally anticipated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the advisability of this motion will be considered by the government.


Erik Nielsen: I have a further supplementary question arising out of the minister's reply to my first question. Is it a correct understanding of his reply that the government is considering not reconstituting that committee for the purpose of continuing its work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The matter has not yet been considered by the government. It will be considered at an early date.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether consideration was given to asking the representatives of the union concerned to participate in meetings now being held to discuss the shortage of miners and skilled workmen between the Canadian Metal Mining Association and the government departments concerned, in view of the government's policy on labour-management co-operation in manpower problems.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not aware that the union representatives have asked to present their views. If they do wish to participate and express their views, we will be delighted to co-operate with them.


David Orlikow: I did not ask if they had asked, I asked whether the government gave
April 6. 1965

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker consideration to asking them to sit in right [DOT] (3:10 P-m-)
from the start.	CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This was a delegation from the mining industry coming forward to express its views on the manpower question. It was a meeting sought by the industry and treated as an industry meeting.


David Orlikow: The reports are not of a meeting, but that joint working committees have been set up between the mining association and the government departments, an entirely different matter and one in which I think the unions should be involved.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lafulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell us what he plans to do about the sale of uranium to France?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister answered that question last week.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether a date has been set for the meeting between the federal government and the provinces relating to health care, which was forecast in the throne speech of yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is that it will be after Easter. We are negotiating a date which will be suitable to all concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister make known to the house, perhaps by tabling the correspondence, the agenda or terms of reference for that meeting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I see no reason why that should not be done if the provinces are agreeable.



TORONTO-LEASE OF UNUSED SPUR LINE FOR PARKING PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I have a question I should like to address to the Minister of Transport. Would it be possible for the parking authority of the township of York to lease any of the right of way of the spur line of the Canadian National Railways lying north of the Canada Packers plant in Toronto, which spur line is no longer in use?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this on the order paper?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Ten o'clock.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 5, 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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of congratulations to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) for the manner in which he discharged his responsibility in moving the address in reply, and to tell him that one of the things which particularly interest those of us who have long served in the House of Commons is to see young men and women coming along in the service, and the parliament of their country.
During the years I have been here I have heard many addresses, but I betray no confidence when I say that those delivered by the hon. member and the seconder were of high quality and revealed a manner of approach to the House of Commons and a delivery that did honour to them, to this chamber and to each and every one of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: As one who has tried to learn to express himself in French may I say to the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) that it is certainly most impressive when a young man is able to express himself so clearly, so cogently and so effectively as he did in both languages. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you would not expect me to add that I agreed with the arguments they advanced or with the extent of the
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker enthusiasm which they expressed for the contents of the speech from the throne.
I do not raise this by way of any objection whatsoever, but I think the course which has been followed through the years, with one exception in 1958, is one that deserves to be continued, namely that on the opening day the Governor General gives his speech on behalf of the government and on the day following the mover and seconder deliver their speeches. That enables a full and complete examination to be made of the subject matter of the speech, something which becomes very difficult when only a matter of a few hours is made available. I repeat that I am not raising any objection except to say I think it would have benefited complete and comprehensive discussion of the speech from the throne had that course been followed, even though it would have meant that the debate would not have been completed before the Easter recess.
On this occasion I do not intend to go into great detail regarding the legislative program. Other members will deal with particular subjects. However, I intend to review some portions of it and, if the Prime Minister will allow me to borrow his expression, I shall be taking a measured pause while he replies to me, so that some of the matters in connection with the speech from the throne may be more fully explained than they have been. Then I hope to have the privilege on a subamendment, if one is moved, of dealing with some of the arguments which the Prime Minister will be making.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I wish to say at once that any suggestions the government may advance for the purpose of making parliament more effective will, as always, receive my support. Parliament has suffered a great deal in reputation over the past two years. That is unfortunate, but the reason for it is clear and undoubted; it is that the government has failed to properly arrange the business of the house and has stumbled from fiasco to fiasco. Indeed, when mention is made of the auto parts agreement, there is only one part of it which would appeal to the government, namely the instrument which would provide for automatic reversing of the positions taken by hon. gentlemen opposite; because it is axiomatic that the house can always look forward with anticipation to a withdrawal, amendment or substitution with regard to each and every policy of any importance which is brought before parliament.

I realize that the government say the reason more was not done during the recent session was because of obstruction. Well, anyone who holds that view has only to read the speech from the throne in which the government places in the mouth of the Governor General its views regarding the effectiveness of the session just ended, the second session of the twenty sixth parliament. From page to page in the course of that speech the Governor General sets out in detail the large amount of legislation which was placed on the statute books and the effective action taken by parliament during that session. I think it is well to read this; I do not intend to quote it in detail. It gives its own answer. Parliament suffers, but the reason for it is the countless follies of a government which has been accident prone from the first day it took over the administration of our country.
We have taken the stand, and we shall continue to take the stand, that when legislation which is beneficial is introduced we shall support it. We shall ask for changes and amendments. We have a responsibility to discharge, as we had on Friday last when as a result of the strong stand taken by Her Majesty's loyal opposition this government was prevented from securing the passage of amendments to statutes through the subtle means of supplementary estimates. We put an end to that, and I hope it is ended for all time to come.
We shall do what we can, each of us having a great responsibility in this regard, to make sure that parliament is made as effective as it is possible to make it without private members having their rights sacrificed or subverted in any way, and without the loss of the parliamentary mission. I know there are many who think that parliament should operate as a business. That is what Hitler thought. That is what Mussolini thought.
I know there are many who feel there should not be an opposition. Mr. Speaker, where there is no opposition, there you have dictatorship. Sometimes you get dictatorship even with an opposition, when a government refuses to give information. We had an example of this today in connection with that great force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I asked a question in this regard. The responsible minister apparently has not talked to the Prime Minister about it. This is not the first time the Minister of Justice has failed to tell the Prime Minister of anything. If there is no foundation for the reports which have been appearing, then all I can
COMMONS DEBATES	21
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
April 6, 1965
say is that they receive very considerable space in the press of our country.
Strange things are taking place within the mounted police. Some kind of auxiliary force is being set up. Parliament has not heard about this auxiliary force, said to number 800. We have not been told what it is to do and where it is to do it. We have been given no information. Why should parliament not have this information? Is it true that a body of extra mounties who will operate as irregulars has been set up?
I was amazed that the minister should have refused to answer today. He said he would make a statement in due course. Well, it is either true or it is not. If this is not taking place, why did he not answer? It is just in keeping with his attitude toward parliament as a former senior civil servant. That is what it is, disrespect; and disrespect which we as an opposition intend to expose to the glare of publicity.
I should add to what I have said about the changes which may be contemplated in our procedure, that if changes are to be made- and there have always been criticisms of parliament all through the ages-they must be made after full discussion in this house. I repeat what I said earlier, in effect. This institution, which means more to me than any other institution in our land, which is the embodiment of the concept of freedom, must not in any way be hampered by rules which are archaic. But rules should not be removed simply because they have been with us for a long time; they should only be removed or altered where there is reason for doing so.
Coming now to the speech from the throne, let me say this is a remarkable document in many ways. Scattered through the speech are old familiar friends who have been in previous speeches, the ghosts of good intentions in the government's past. Railroad legislation is now promised. It was promised last year and, I think, the year before. In the new session legislation will be brought down regarding Canadian magazines and Canadian publications. It used to be Canadian periodicals; now it is Canadian publications, which includes newspapers. We are promised bank amendment legislation, another old friend. All these things are in the speech from the throne.
I intend to refer in some detail to the various programs which have been here before. Reforming the procedure of the house is a subject that has been spoken of over and over again. Then it is said:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
A measure to establish an age of retirement from the Senate will be placed before you.
I do not think anybody in the other place is going to be very frightened because, sir, last year this was on the order paper entitled "A measure to establish an age of retirement from the Senate". Then I mentioned the railways. This year it says:
You will be asked to consider comprehensive legislation to reform public regulation of the railways. . .recapitalization of the Canadian National Railways; and amendments to the Aeronautics Act.
We were told that last year. Much is made of the fact that a measure will be placed before the house to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act in order to ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born. That was there last year, too.
As far as our farmers are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Agriculture is not here, because after all he does not like parliament. He says he cannot understand this place, but he does think one of the prerequisites of a good education would be to serve in a cabinet for a while, where you would realize what it was to be "buffaloed". This was in a speech he gave the other day. With regard to agriculture it is said:
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. You will be asked to consider measures of special assistance to the family farm in both eastern and western Canada.
Last year the promise was:
A measure will be placed before you to provide for a minister responsible for rural development, in order that my government may carry further its policy of giving increased attention to the needs of agriculture in both eastern and western Canada. You will be asked to consider other measures to assist in the improvement of farms and of farm income.
It is just a little different wording but the same old promise which is placed in this compendium, which has all the earmarks of election propaganda.


Erik Nielsen: They have forgotten the $2 wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: Then with regard to election expenses, this year they are going to make proposals with regard to the limitation and payment of election expenses, provided the findings of the committee of inquiry are received. Last year the com-
22	COMMONS DEBATES	April 6, 1965
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker mittee was set up; this year there is the undertaking to bring about proposals tor reform. Last year there was the undertaking to establish a committee on the procedure and organization of parliament. Then as far as trade is concerned there are two long paragraphs:
Our country is achieving a high rate of economic growth. Trade is expanding.
All of that is true. It is true because of the fact that when the Diefenbaker government was in office-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -we acted in 1960-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Wasn't it a Conservative government?


John George Diefenbaker: -and they have added nothing in particular. All they have done is to accept and envelope our policies which they criticized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: The Pearson government has done nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I look at these panjandrums who sit in the front benches. Lest anybody think that is an unparliamentary expression, sir, it is not; it simply means-


Mr. Nowlan:: Stupid and ossified.


John George Diefenbaker: -self constituted magni-ficoes. What did these panjandrums say when we were in office? They said they were going to end the pegged dollar. They said it was wrong to trade with communist China. I could go through the whole picture of things which they criticized and which have become the cornerstone of their policies.
What have they to offer for agriculture? They were going to have two ministers of agriculture, and now we have got one who is never here. That is not quite fair; he is here on a stopover between trips. Sometimes he deigns to come. What about the position of agriculture across the country? What is being done by the government in the face of a fall in the price of wheat? What action are they taking? Where are the promises of $2 wheat, for which every one of those hon. members stood in 1963? It was repudiated in January of 1965 by the Minister of Agriculture? What has been done? What course has been followed by this government to increase the markets for agricultural products? Sir, there can be only

one answer. This is a government that has been so busy falling over its own feet that it has not been able to bring any effective measures before the house.
What about this speech from the throne? Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue. They borrowed from the United States the idea of a youth corps. That is a good idea. They also decided they would borrow an all-comprehensive plan to banish poverty in our country. I will be listening with interest as the Prime Minister reveals how this is going to be achieved, except through the ordinary principles of expanding trade and reducing costs so that Canadian manufacturers may be competitive in the world.


An hon. Member:: What about the sales tax?


John George Diefenbaker: I have looked over this program within the time I have had, Mr. Speaker. It contains a compendium of unfinished business. It reveals a catch-all of promises for the future, policies that cannot be fulfilled and programs that have been left undone. I listened this morning to the editor of the Citizen giving his nepotic views on this subject. He said there was a bombshell dropped on parliament by that speech. Instead of positive, detailed and constructive programs we have vague generalities, except in a certain particular to which I shall refer.
I ask you, sir, have you not looked in vain for anything in these far ranging so-called broad programs that will assure a million and a half new jobs in the next three years? I ask you whether you have not looked in vain for programs and policies aimed at raising the national income of all Canadians through resource development. I ask you whether you have not looked in vain for any new immigration policies designed to encourage those who have the necessary skills who would take up residence in Canada. I ask what has been done to solve the problems of economic blight and rural misery. All that is being done in this speech is to state an objective while being most careful not to indicate how these ephemeral promises can be carried into actual and effective operation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Then there is something more, and I shall deal with it particularly. Where is there anything to indicate, while maintaining the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over education, the recognition of the plight of university students hit by new increases in tuition fees? Where are the 10,000 scholarships? Where are they?
April 6, 1965	COMMONS


Erik Nielsen: Forgotten.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister said last session, "Wait till the next session". Now we are here, and nothing is said about it. What has happened to those scholarships? They were wonderful vote getters. Those who voted have not had the experience which some of the rest of us have had regarding similar promises made by the Liberal party on other occasions.


Erik Nielsen: They will put them all in the
youth corps.


John George Diefenbaker: Where are the plans to bring about new developments in Canada? Where are the policies?
Well, Mr. Speaker, for several months there was an indication that the Minister of Finance, now that he is the supreme stumbler of the cabinet, would be bringing about a reduction in taxation. This was one of the goodies which many anticipated. There is not a suggestion of that in the speech from the throne. He may well say that that matter should be dealt with in the budget, but in the past hon. members opposite have not been that careful. If they had something like that to promise they would have put it in the speech.
What about action to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery? Only recently, in so far as the steel companies are concerned, it was stated by the vice president of the Steel Company of Canada that there were two reasons for the increase in steel price, and the first of these was the 11 per cent sales tax. What is the government going to do about that? What action is going to be taken? We have always had from the minister that nonchalant laugh that those who do not understand and have no appreciation of poverty and its effects give in reply to those who do. They ridicule the idea. Yet now it is generally admitted that the 11 per cent sales tax was a serious blunder, irrespective of the fact that it brought in a tremendous amount of taxation. What are hon. gentlemen opposite going to do about this matter?
Well, Mr. Speaker, they just sat down. I can just see that cabinet sitting down and looking around. "Have you got an idea?", the Prime Minister would say. Then someone would say yes. "Well, all right, put it in". And so they went around gathering together the greatest collection and plethora of generalities ever generated and included in a speech from the throne.
DEBATES	23
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
I have the list here, extracted from one of the morning papers, the Toronto Globe and Mail. When you go through it, Mr. Speaker, you find there are three or four matters of legislation which are practical, and the rest is simply designed to fill up the speech from the throne to lead the people to believe that if this parliament does not pass all these things, the reason will be obstruction. I was particularly struck, Mr. Speaker, with the first paragraph; and I shall now deal with some of these matters paragraph by paragraph. The speech commences:
We recall with pleasure the presence... of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
All of us will join in that. The speech also reaffirms-
-in the hearts of Canadians the cherished place of the monarchy in our national development.
Why put that in? Would not the proper idea be to express that sentiment to two or three Liberal members in the house who are already on the rampage to remove the Queen? Would it not be better to make it available to the university young Liberals associations of Canada, who want to abolish the Queen in Canada; or to the young Liberals association, the national meeting of which undertook as part of their policy to have a republic set up? Or to the young Liberals association of Toronto, who also came out with a policy to abolish the monarchy? Here is the Prime Minister putting these words on the lips of the Governor General, reaffirming "in the hearts of Canadians the cherished place of the monarchy". The only Canadians who cherish the monarchy are those who do not belong to the group who would abolish the Queen, including the young Liberals association and the university young Liberals of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members opposite should cry shame at those who would abolish the Queen, and to the members who sit here and constantly advocate the abolition of Her Majesty the Queen. But as far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition are concerned, come what may we stand for the monarchy as a necessary element in the parliamentary life of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The next item deals with the international situation:
The international situation gives ground for concern.. .The United Nations is beset by conflicting political pressures which have seriously impaired its capacity for executive action.
24	COMMONS DEBATES	April 6. 1965
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
I think that was a little self admission on the part of the government, because that is what afflicts this government today-conflicting political pressures which seriously impair its capacity for executive action. Then the next paragraph goes on to say:
My government is resolved that Canada shall make the fullest contribution it can to the lessening of international tensions-
-and so forth. Then it makes reference to repairing and strengthening the United Nations.
Well now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to hear the story of what happened in the United States on Friday and Saturday. I wish the Prime Minister would tell the house and the country what kind of political one-man brinkmanship it was to bring forth a policy in the United States without having discussed the matter with the authorities in the United States. In the past he has often spoken of the necessity for the quiet diplomacy that is most effective and which has been his hallmark. But what happened? Why did he have to alter his proposal a bit after he had made it? First of all he said the time has come for a pause in bombing. Later an interpretation was given by those high in political circles in Ottawa that the Prime Minister did not mean that the pause was to take place now. He did not say when the pause was to take place, but whenever it was deemed appropriate psychologically that the pause should take place. That is another example of a government that makes statements and then backs down and goes into reverse.
The next item under international affairs is:
You will be asked to approve a resolution concerning the important agreement on the automobile industry recently concluded with the United States.
We want the fullest discussion on that matter. Canada, since the middle of January, has been operating under this agreement. Canadian industry and the small industries are being challenged here in Canada. As the hon. member for Wellington South has said, the small manufacturer in Canada is in danger. He is challenged by this competition from the United States, and when he wants to compete for markets in the United States he is up against the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We want to get the facts of this situation. This was an agreement that should have been brought before parliament instead of being entered into unilaterally, effective on Canada until such time as the United States passes

legislation. We intend to discuss this matter fully, because in our opinion it is passing strange that Canadian people should suffer as the result of an effective payment of $50 million a year to the big manufacturers of automobiles, yet no member of this house or any Canadian is going to obtain his car at a price equivalent to United States prices.
Who reaps the benefit of this agreement? The consumer in Canada loses $50 million in income, and it is the government's hope that some time in the future the automobile companies will deign to reduce the price in order to take up part of the difference between the Canadian and United States prices.
Let us now move on to the next matter, Canadian federation, and this is a large one. We heard the concept of this government as announced by the Prime Minister; two nations and two flags, and now we are to have two anthems in the interests of Canadian unity. He speaks about strength and unity of Canadian confederation through the lips of the Governor General. The ludicrous promise is made that this government will continue their policy of promoting the strength and unity of the Canadian confederation. Sir, during the period they have been in office they have done more to bring about discord, suspicion and division in this country than was ever done before since confederation, with the one exception that took place in 1917.
Except for that, never has there been anything like this. Policies have been followed that have set race against race for pure political expediency. They are going to improve the relationship, they say. I am not going into this except to repeat what I said, that if this plan is accepted they will be placing Canadian federation in a strait-jacket which will deny future amendments, however necessary they may be. They will place the Canadian constitution in a position in which each and every province will have a veto. The premier of Quebec has said there will be a veto, and he says it will be an effective one. Already the voices of reason are taking over.
Because I dared to say this was a bad arrangement, or even dared to utter such words, they said I was anti-Quebec. What are the people of Quebec saying today? What has been said in Le Devoir?


Mr. Pepin:: Yes, but for opposite reasons.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the comment? Mr. Speaker, if I can get the Minister of Justice to speak on this subject I will have achieved the epitome of parliamentary per-
April 6. 1965

fection. We believe that the right of veto constitutes a negative device. The letter of March 27 from the Louis Riel committee stated that the right of veto was a negative device, a stick in the wheel of parliament which will hold back the evolution of Canada as well as that of the provinces. Another article describes it as a Trojan horse, while yet another describes the whole formula as a "camisole de force", a strait-jacket. It is stated as well that it constitutes the grave danger of the balkanization of Canada. It then states that the special status of Quebec becomes simply the isolation of Quebec and the setting of Quebec to one side. I suppose that is one of the reasons there has been some deceleration on the part of the premier of Quebec in bringing this matter before the legislature of Quebec.
They then suggest that my stand and the stand of this party is wrong, and that we always argue so in matters such as this. I will place before this house an outline of the views of various constitutional experts across Canada. Professor G. A. McAllister of the University of New Brunswick said:
The repatriation formula as presently conceived should he rejected categorically.
The present formula is an arrangement for walking backwards into the future:-
Professor R. D. Gibson of the University of Manitoba said:
I am violently opposed to the amendment proposal
Professor B. L. Strayer of the University of Saskatchewan said:
I believe the new constitutional amendment formula is unsatisfactory because it is unnecessarily rigid.
It will make future constitutional amendments virtually impossible.
And so go these statements. Dr. Alex Smith of the University of Alberta said:
A constitution must be at once sufficiently rigid to ensure stability yet sufficiently flexible to accommodate change.
Then he states that if this plan is brought into effect it will render the Canadian constitution the most rigid in the world and important amendments will be at the mercy of a single province's veto. Dean W. R. Leder-man of Queen's University said:
I strongly favour bringing the constitution home-
Then he goes on to say that the formula is very rigid and means that important amendments would be very difficult if not impossible to obtain. Professor E. R. Alexander of the University of Ottawa said:
I am unalterably opposed to the Favreau formula.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
When I was taking this stand it was said that I did so because I was anti-Quebec. If this constitutional amendment formula is accepted, then in so far as any province of Canada is concerned there will be virtually no change-there could be no serious change -in the constitution for generations to come.
What does the premier of Quebec say? He persists in enunciating a view of the amending formula which seems to be at variance with the pious assurances of the Prime Minister. Last night the premier embarked on the television program "Aujour-d'hui"-the same program which saw the Minister of Justice not long ago enunciate the theory of associated states-and said that the formula was a strait-jacket, not for Quebec but for Ottawa.
I do not care what this is a strait-jacket for -for one or for the other-but the premier of Quebec has said that if we get this through it will be a strait-jacket for Ottawa, and so it will be. When you remove section 91(1) and deny the parliament of Canada the right to amend its constitution in respect of those things which come within the jurisdiction of the federal government, then you are emasculating the strong central government, and that is what is going to happen.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I want very much to hear what the Prime Minister has to say relating to the words of Premier Lesage. He was asked a question today and Your Honour properly ruled it could not be asked on orders of the day. Therefore, sir, I have to ask it at this time. I will be very interested to know if he accepts that.
Then, what else did Mr. Lesage say on "Aujourd'hui" last night? He said:
A good bluffer always keeps a card up his sleeve.
I do not know about whom he was speaking. Earlier, he had been mentioning the Prime Minister's views and his views.
In the course of negotiations, I will have a card up my sleeve-
I can imagine how that card will be located by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), who has not been able to find Rivard. You can just imagine how that will be noted by the Minister of Justice. Who has the card? I do not care who has the card, but this matter must be examined carefully by parliament, out in the open and not in secret, or through under the table agreements or behind closed doors. We want to know what went on. It was a happy party. The Prime Minister said, I will give you this, far more than you ever
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker expected. We want to know the facts. I ask the Minister of Justice, that believer in the independence of Canada, who explains anticolonialism, are we not going to be a most colonial country when we are not going to have our own constitution enacted by the parliament of Canada? We are going to have to go to the United Kingdom to provide the basis upon which we, in Canada, can amend our constitution.
I should have liked to hear Mackenzie King on that subject before the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) became one of his trusted lieutenants. What would he have said had he known that we, in 1965, are going to the United Kingdom to say: Please, give us the right to amend our constitution in this way. It will stay over there as a statute. We want it to be a statute of the Parliament of Canada so that we can examine each and every part of it. We have tried everything to get this government to take a new look at the matter, but without result. I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the premier of Quebec for his clear statement on that program last evening which revealed who has the joker up his sleeve and which of the two jurisdictions is going to be in the inferior position. Let us make it a Canadian document. Let us make it eligible for amendment in the light of the changing needs that take place.
We in this party have consistently endeavoured to bring about the repatriation, if I can use that expression, of the constitution, but we were unable to secure the consent of two of the provinces. What is our suggestion in this connection? We remain unchanged from the view we expressed on February 4, 1963, that there should be convened a great national conference, not one meeting for a few hours or a couple of days. This conference should study in detail, for whatever period of time is necessary, the means of amending the constitution which would provide for a solution of the problem of adequate representation in the public service for both racial origins in crown corporations, and also examine biculturalism and bilingualism in a comprehensive manner.
We could have obtained votes, Mr. Speaker, by coming out in favour of a commission. They said it would be a wonderful step forward if we were to do that. The attitude then taken by this party, every member of this party in the cabinet, was that such a commission would be destructive to Canada. One has just to read the first report of the commission to know how well founded our views were.
Now, a moment ago I mentioned various professors who have been outstanding leaders in the field of political science who have spoken against the amendment. I see before me an item dated March 31 and which refers to the fact that the constitutional expert, a professor of law at the University of Toronto, Dr. Edward McWhinney says the constitution as it stands is clumsy, too wordy. Then, I quote:
In my view, anything that a reasonable national consensus desires can be made to work under the B.N.A. Act. Clumsy and full of unnecessary detail as it is, I still think it is flexible enough to be accommodating to what one wants, and that is the most important thing.
He finally ends up taking the view, as I understand his evidence, that the plan of amendment is a plan that will be a denial of the destiny of this land. It will balkanize our country and place the constitution in a position where, regardless of the changes that must be made in the years ahead, those changes cannot be made. I have no argument against the fact that some of the provinces accepted it. Naturally, when securing extra powers or extra authority, they are not going to turn down that which is given to them. But, sir, the Parliament of Canada is the one institution, and the only institution, that can stand for one Canada, for the maintenance of those things that made this nation possible and for the things that, in the years ahead, will assure the continuing strength of our country.
People say to me that taking that stand will be interpreted as being anti-Quebec. I should like to quote the words of at least two members in this house dealing with stands that were taken while I was prime minister, fully approving of those stands and pointing out that our attitude had been one of full recognition of the equal partnership of two races and also of the rights of other people in Canada who come from various racial origins, of which I am one in part, and which are not going to permit themselves to be placed in a secondary position of Canadian citizenship.
I adopt the words of Sir John A. Macdonald as quoted in "Confederation, Its Preparation and Accomplishments", a really quite remarkable work:
We are a great country and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken. God and nature have made the two Canadas one-let no factious men be allowed to put them asunder.

April 6, 1965

This is the foundation principle. I adopt the words of another statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when he said this on March 13, 1900:
If there is anything to which I have given my political life it is to try to promote unity, harmony and amity between the diverse elements of this country. My friends can desert me, they can remove their confidence from me, they can withdraw the trust they have placed in my hands; but never shall I deviate from that line of policy.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Those words I adopt as my own. They represent the consensus that must be established within our land. Then he went on to say this:
Whatever may be the consequences, whether loss of prestige, loss of popularity, or loss of power, I feel that I am in the right and I know that a time will come when every man will render me full justice on that score.
That is the attitude of statesmanship rather than of political expediency designed to obtain votes this year, regardless of the consequences to the nation in the years ahead.
I say again our position is that we will convene that conference. We had already sent out the notices, but with the defeat in the house of the non-confidence motion it became impossible to bring the matter forward.
I turn now for a moment to the question of the economy, and this will be dealt with at length. Look at the speech from the throne -wordy, verbose, redundant. Where is there anything in it to bring about the idea, the concept of the Economic Council of Canada, that we need a 10 per cent increase in the export of manufactured goods each year? Where is there anything to indicate that the government has any plan, imaginative or otherwise?
I come back to the automobile plan, that policy of $50 million to which I referred, that annual subsidy in rebated tariff paid by the Canadian taxpayer? Who is going to get soaked under that in Canada? The poor, the average Canadian and all Canadians. Who is going to be helped?
There is nothing in the throne speech to indicate the government has any recognition of the inflationary trends that are taking place. When we were in office we maintained the price level to a degree that received most favourable comment from the late President of the United States. Prices are rising today. What are the members of the government going to do about that? They are going to have a committee look into the matter. Drug prices are as high as Haman's gallows, but what are they going to do? They are going to set up a committee to look into the ques-
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker tion. There is one reason why drug prices are so high, and it is the 11 per cent sales tax. Take that off, and drugs will be a lot cheaper.
What is this padding in the throne speech- words instead of action.
My government will propose the re-establishment of a special committee of the House of Commons on food and drugs, and will facilitate its work with the aim of reducing the prices paid by the public for drugs.
Mere stuffing, but not effective.
Then we come to the next point dealing with the economy:
My government is developing new policies to enable farmers generally to achieve larger and more reliable incomes_
While the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) peregrinates back and forth, now and then he throws out policies. He said to the farmers of Quebec, "The trouble with you people is that you don't know how to look after things." I heard him make a speech in which he said we should go back to the days of the Renaissance and we should go in for more poetry and philosophy. He told the farmers of Quebec the solution was, "six cows, two sows, and you will be on easy street." That was the serious policy of the Minister of Agriculture in respect of that matter.
So far as the dairy farmers are concerned the government says it is going to set up a Canadian Dairy Commission. The announcement the other day in connection with dairy prices does not at all meet the situation and will leave the dairy industry in almost as serious a condition as it is today.
What about our veterans? The government gave a 10 per cent increase in disability pensions. We increased them twice in our period of office, by 20 per cent on each occasion. What about the veterans? Nothing is going to be done for them in that connection except that the Veterans Land Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Army Benevolent Fund Act are going to be amended. Padding and stuffing.
We were ready for the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission. We had the legislation ready at the time we were defeated. The Indians have been waiting. Promises were made that action would be taken and now we find we "will be asked to enact legislation to establish an Indian Claims Commission." That would not take any time. Bring it in. It could have been brought in last session. Now it is overdue.
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
Sir, I am not going to go back over the last session of parliament. There were a number of things buried under the debris. Now we have mention again of the Quebec Savings Banks Act and our old friend, a Canada Development Corporation. It was put in a state of suspended animation that was generally regarded as death itself, and now it does not even get a separate paragraph. It is put in among other things and the throne speech says it will:
-assist in financing major new industrial development and in increasing Canadian ownership of business corporations.
What has happened? With all the tinkering the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) has done, the amount of U.S. investment in Canada increased in the last year. While he raises his hand, Canute fashion, and says no, the other member of the family, the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), says yes.
Finally mention is made that there is going to be legislation on pension plans, and there are some further items, again buried together in an omnibus section. There is nothing in the whole picture to assure economic growth.
I read with interest what the Prime Minister said in Weekend magazine in that "no holds barred" interview on April 3.
X think it is the responsibility of government to assist this process-*
That is the process of Canadian ownership, as I understand it.
-by making it attractive for Canadians to own their own country by giving them certain tax and other incentives. This is a better way of doing it than penalizing those foreigners who have established themselves here.
Why didn't the Prime Minister tell the Minister of Finance that two years ago?


George Clyde Nowlan: A year ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Have they both learned since? Sir, that is what we have been arguing, and in the no holds barred interview the Prime Minister admits this is the way. Then he said:
A carrot is better than a kick in this respect.
Apparently the doctrine of the kicker, the Minister of Finance, is now to be supplanted by the doctrine of the carrot, by the Minister of Industry.
There are many other matters to be dealt with in connection with the subject of the economy but I intend to leave them for other speakers. I am simply pointing out that when one looks at this speech from the throne and sees the lineup of matters to be dealt with, it has the impressiveness of length,

volume and diversity of legislative enactments to be, but when analysed it is, as I feel you will agree, simply a document to act as a guide, compass or chart in an election campaign as to what would have been:
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: "It might have been!" [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
That is what they will say-"If only we had had the opportunity". The constitution is important. Unity is important. Economic development in all its phases from industry to agriculture, is important. But, sir, we will not have a great Canada if our nation in its parliament does not stand for high principles in high places and in all places. I look this over. While wars on poverty are essential-I assume the government borrowed that expression from the late President of the United States; look at the legislative program which followed in that country; very little was actually brought about-while wars on poverty are essential, they will be won when we raise economic standards in our nation, when the humblest in the land is not forgotten but has a voice in parliament. Fifty million dollars is going to the big manufacturers of automobiles and parts. But when anybody suggested that $75 was too little for the old age pensioners, the government said wait. Fifty million dollars for the manufacturers but no addition for the old age pensioners.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: What is conspicuously absent from this speech? Mr. Speaker, the moral things of a nation are greater than the material ones. It defies nature to think that a pure stream can run from a tarnished spring. The most conspicuous absence from the speech from the throne is this-a war on wrongdoing in high places.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not doubt that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would have taken his sword Excalibur and gone forth. Instead, there has been silence on an issue which has shaken the fabric of this nation. I had expected that even though this government has been fumbling and careless and inept there would have been in clear and definite terms a declaration by the Prime Minister as custodian of the national conscience that they would purge the unfit, the incompetent; that they would raise the standard of high ethics in this land. Nothing of the kind is to be found in this speech. How-
April 6, 1965	COMMONS
ever, when moral principles are undermined, when moral principles are disobeyed, a nation undermines its greatness. I do not say that wrongdoing is confined to any one individual or one party. But I do say that where there have been the revelations which have taken place in this nation it is not in keeping with the greatness of our country to give no attention to a war on wrongdoing with ail the strength of parliament behind such a course. I do not want to see Rivard become the new folk hero of the young men and women of this nation. I think it is a wonderful thing to set up this corps of Canadians, this youth corps. But who is going to lead them? Are you sure they will not be led by such as those with respect to whom evidence has been given during the last few weeks? The Prime Minister cannot say to me that I am dealing with something which is before a commission, because he dealt with the same question in the course of an interview.
This is not an academic question. Where is this declaration in the speech from the throne that the administration of justice in Canada within the federal jurisdiction shall be beyond reproach?


An hon. Member:: Better get a justice minister, first.


John George Diefenbaker: Where is the declaration in this regard? I do not intend to go into the record but I will point out those facts-that one former Liberal member who became a judge is now awaiting an appeal after conviction; that a cabinet minister is before the court; that two cabinet ministers bought furniture in circumstances which demand that this House of Commons find out what is in the record of the Sefkind bankruptcy. We have a right to know. We asked the other day but we were told we could not have this information. Why should it be denied us?
I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) did not tell the Prime Minister that his own parliamentary secretary was allegedly involved. Why? The other day when we asked to look at the Sefkind file we were told: You cannot see that. We want to see it. We will not be brushed aside by the Minister of Justice or by the government in this regard. Let that be clear.
It has been a record unequalled in Canada. This is an administration which has earned a reputation of being friendly and considerate to unpalatable characters such as Hal Banks, an administration which has had connected with it in responsible places men who were 22620-3
DEBATES	29
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker concerned about the welfare of narcotics king Rivard-narcotics, the cruelest and most despicable form of crime which can be committed against the souls of men. What were they interested in? What did they want? What happens to a nation when things like that occur? The Prime Minister mentioned innuendo and insinuation. Was there any innuendo involved in the fact that the parliamentary secretary was forced to resign? Surely he was not asked to resign because of an innuendo or an insinuation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Then the chairman of the Liberal caucus in parliament resigned because his name cropped up in the investigation of influence peddling, and the accommodation of people allegedly connected with the world-wide crime syndicate of the Mafia-the chairman of a committee resigning from his position because of the condemnation of a provincial commission.
What is the reaction of the government? The Minister of Labour (Mr. McEachen) is not here, so I will not make any observations on the statement he made when speaking the other day before a Liberal gathering at Richmond Hill. He said that unemployment problems no longer dominated parliament's discussions. Then he said that we now indulge in the luxury of talking about the latest prisoner's escape from jail. What a statement of government policy that is, to say that we now indulge in that luxury. How can any plan, any policy or any great concept of national importance succeed in its purpose unless we have re-established in this nation, by parliament, the concept of morality in high places? Profumo was not pushed out because of his activities; Profumo went out because he deceived parliament.
That is how serious this matter is. They were never so busy looking under beds for communists. I would like to have heard a statement such as this, and as a matter of fact I ventured the opinion that it would be a statement that in all parts of Canada "my ministers will take all steps necessary to stamp out corruption or influence peddling in government". If that had been there, it would have been a great declaration. I know the difficulties under which the Prime Minister operates. I occupied that position and I know the difficulties. But I also know this, that I never failed to make clear one thing, harsh as they thought it was, "If there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, you will be-


An hon. Member:: In the Senate.
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: -"punished", period.
Again I refer to Profumo. He was not driven out of public life because of his extracurricular activities. Parliament in the last session was not given the truth.


Mr. Mandziuk:: From the Prime Minister, up and down.


John George Diefenbaker: It may be said that I have overstated the position, Mr. Speaker, but I have extracts from the press of Canada which are particularly appropriate at this time of the year, spring cleaning. The Winnipeg Tribune says this:
Mr. Pearson is fortunate that for some mysterious reason he has managed to appear personally aloof from the bumblings, mishaps and even wrongheaded decisions of his government. In his case the traditional principles of cabinet and ministerial responsibility do not seem to apply automatically. His ministers, executive assistants and parliamentary assistants may become involved in almost incredible situations but comparatively few seem ready to blame him personally.
Then it says:
Time will tell whether this attitude is softheaded as well as soft-hearted.
Then there is the Winnipeg Free Press, certainly not an enemy of this government. The Winnipeg Tribune from which I quoted was dated March 30. The Winnipeg Free Press says:
Cabinet changes needed.
One of the tragedies of the situation is that most of Mr. Pearson's ministers are honest, conscientious, dedicated men.
Then it says this:
As a result of these shortcomings in the higher echelons the whole government has given the impression of being accident-prone, of being unable to see ahead or to circumvent the pitfalls that strew the way of any administration. And as if this were not enough, there have been instances of a much more serious lack in higher government circles-a lack of honesty and integrity.
Then it says this:
But until, by one means or another, there is a stronger ministry at the head of the country, a ministry capable of giving firm and vigorous leadership and of commanding the confidence of the nation as a whole, the prospects for an improved parliament and for an effective handling of the nation's affairs seem bleak indeed.
Those are the words of the Winnipeg Free Press. If you disagree with them, as I so often do, at least they follow the course that throughout the years has earned for them the thanks of this nation. Then Charles Lynch of the Southam News Services wrote an article headed:
An ugly state of affairs.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.!
He is not talking about China. He said:
After Thursday's events in the House of Commons, it seems clear that a showdown on the question of morality in government must come quickly and that it cannot await the completion of the Dorion inquiry.
Then the Victoria Daily Colonist, to the same effect. The Winnipeg Tribune deals with the explanations given on this matter regarding the information as to whether or not an alleged bribe had been offered which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) advised the Prime Minister of in September and which the Prime Minister forgot until the middle of November and says:
Mr. Pearson's statement of explanation to the Commons after the memo had been read into the record of the inquiry was quite inadequate.
Then the Peterborough Examiner:
Thus, like Mr. Favreau before him, Mr. Pearson has been less than frank. Again, there is no suggestion that a man of Mr. Pearson's stature was a party to the bribery attempt. But once more the Liberal government has been guilty of a lack of candour that will be most distressing to the Canadian people.
These are not Conservative papers. Then in the Montreal Star there is an article headed, "What A Muddle." and it says:
Prime Minister Pearson's humiliating loss of memory, for which he apologized to the House of Commons last Thursday will have more than one consequence. It will reinforce the already widely held conclusion that his administration is one of the most politically inept in the history of Canada. Immediately it will have the effect of going some way to restore the reputation of Justice Minister Favreau.
Then it says:
It must be left to others to explain why, when this crisis burst upon parliament, Mr. Pearson pursued his plan to do some prairie politicking.
These are not Conservative papers that I am quoting from. The Ottawa Journal said this on December 18:
His government drags its feet about allowing a judge to inquire freely into the Rivard case.
Then it says:
These dark evasions may not be dark but they seem dark; they invite the ordinary man to wonder what he is trying to hide.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Then the Toronto Daily Star of December 18 was to the same effect:
There is no doubt that this business coming on top of the earlier revelations has damaged the government heavily.
Even so, Mr. Speaker, it has been omitted from the speech from the throne, where it should have been underlined. No matter what one's political views may be, this house, this
April 6. 1965

parliament and this government will not condone, conceal or hide such matters. I say through you, sir, to the Minister of Justice that we want to know about the Sefkind bankruptcy. We do not want that matter put into cold storage, because there is something which the country is concerned about. You do not elevate the minds of Canadians when you see concealment of that kind. What about the Sefkinds? They are abroad, out of the country, having robbed the Canadian people of $2 million, the extent of their bankruptcy. They sold furniture on time.


Michael Starr: Pay as you like.


John George Diefenbaker: Then they forgot about asking for payment, and no payment was made until after they went into bankruptcy. These are the kind of things that cause me to believe that more was expected, much more, in the speech from the throne, and that the highest priority should have been given to a declaration on the subject of public men and their integrity. Because unless this is accepted, parliament suffers and the Canadian people suffer. It does not matter what happens to us; but it does matter when all across this nation people are asking themselves what has happened.
Therefore, sir, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):
That the following be added to the address:
"We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers, because of confusion and indecision in dealing with national problems, and the careless indifference and neglect of the Prime Minister in refusing to take action to eradicate wrongdoing in high and low places under federal responsibility and to restore public confidence in the honesty and integrity of government, no longer enjoy the confidence of this house and of the Canadian people".
Bight Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by agreeing with the right hon. gentleman in one respect, and I think it will be the only respect in which I will be able to agree with him this afternoon and this evening, and that is in the tribute which he paid to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne the hon. members for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien). Knowing these two members, Mr. Speaker, I expected a high standard of performance from them in the discharge of a responsible duty, and I was not disappointed and I am sure the house was not disappointed. They did great credit to themselves and to their provinces in the statements that they made.
31
The Address-MY. Pearson
Now, Mr. Speaker, what about this amendment and the two and a half hours speech which introduced it? Or am I exaggerating? As I listened to the right hon. gentleman wander from subject to subject, from place to place and from document to document, I could not help but think of words which I have already quoted in this house on previous occasions:
Cold upon the dead volcano,
Sleeps the gleam of dying day.
The volcano, Mr. Speaker, however, did erupt on occasion with great vigour, and while I do not want to spend too much time on the eruptions, there are a few things that cannot be left to go unchallenged; and believe me, Mr. Speaker, most of them are very easy indeed to refute.
Perhaps I should begin, Mr. Speaker, where the right hon. gentleman ended. He made an attack upon the government, which is reflected in the amendment, for its failure in refusing to take action to eradicate wrongdoing in high and low places under federal responsibility. He saw fit, Mr. Speaker, to make a strong attack on immorality-"unmorality", as he has been calling it outside the house-in government, though not mentioning details, which should be taken up and referred to the appropriate committee and the charges investigated. He took upon himself to do this, Mr. Speaker.
I would remind him that when there was what I considered to be conduct by a member of the government which did not reflect credit on that member, and which required his withdrawal from the cabinet, that action was taken at once. When my parliamentary assistant took action which I considered to be indiscreet, especially because of the position which he held as my assistant, within hours of learning of his action and intervention that parliamentary secretary resigned his position. When charges were made in this house which required an inquiry, that inquiry was initiated at once, Mr. Speaker.
While agreeing entirely with the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, in the necessity for maintaining the highest standards of morality and good conduct in government and in parliament, I deny with all the vigour I can the charge made by the right hon. gentleman that we are indifferent to this, and that we have not taken action in this matter. And if necessary we will take action in this matter in the future.
The right hon. gentleman took a good deal of pleasure, and his followers took even greater pleasure, at his new role of "Mr. April 6, 1365

The Address-Mr. Pearson Clean". His credentials for this role, Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest are not above reproach.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Who used a document which had the front page, marked "confidential", torn off it? Who was the man who praised his right-hand man in the front benches for introducing into this house and in Hansard a forged document which was designed to get us into trouble with our neighbours?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister has not proved that it was a forged document. What he is doing now is smear by innuendo.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend tells me that it is not a forged document or that he did not know that it was a forged document at the time, I will be glad to apologize to him. He has not taken the opportunity to do so, Mr. Speaker.
The right hon. gentleman shows a moral indignation now which was strangely absent in those years from 1958 to 1962. It was strangely absent when a member of his cabinet got into difficulty and was made a senator.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not mind statements like that, Mr. Speaker, but that statement is untrue. The man to whom the right hon. Prime Minister refers was appointed to the Senate, following which a royal commission said that he had taken improper gains, at which time I brought it to his attention and he resigned. The same advice might be given to the Prime Minister in respect of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Asse-lin).


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the then secretary of state was appointed to the Senate and shortly after resigned from the Senate. I might ask the right hon. gentleman, as he has asked more than once this afternoon, what was under the carpet which required his appointment to the Senate?
I mention these things because when the right hon. gentleman takes the line he took this afternoon as the defender of morality in this chamber and attacks us on this side for our indifference to morality he should be very careful about his own record.
He also accused the government this afternoon of contempt of parliament because we were not giving the kind of information to which parliament is entitled. He posed, as an example, the question asked this afternoon about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and took advantage of the fact that it could not be answered at once this after-
{Mr. Pearson.]
noon, to suggest that something wrong was happening to that police force, or that something bad is going on in the Department of Justice. He suggested the police were losing their spurs. Let me remind him that the police lost their horses many years ago, perhaps under the regime of my right hon. friend, although I do not know that, and I do not recall anybody in the House of Commons making an issue of that loss of horses by the R.C.M.P.


An hon. Member:: What about the one on the payroll?


Lester Bowles Pearson: An hon. member asks about a horse being on the payroll. Hon. gentlemen opposite are some of those who tried to win an election on that issue and they may try again on a similar issue.
It was more serious when the right hon. gentleman suggested that somehow an auxiliary force to police was being set up without even the knowledge of the House of Commons, and contrary to the law, and that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) refused to give information to the house regarding this matter. That is a serious charge.
If my right hon. friend will look at the statutes as revised in 1959 and the R.C.M.P. Act, chapter 54, he will find that in this statute provision is made for the establishment of an R.C.M.P. reserve by the governor in council. This statute, which gives the governor in council that authority, Mr. Speaker, was passed by the government of my right hon. friend. Action was taken in this regard by regulation, under that statute, by the minister of justice of that day, Mr. Davie Fulton, whom I will be mentioning again a little later. These regulations, which were never discussed in parliament and never brought to the attention of parliament, were made again by the government of my right hon. friend. This was the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, which is destroying parliament and our constitution. We deplored the fact that the right hon. gentleman should have done that kind of thing without informing the House of Commons, but we forgave him.
Before I move on to more important questions, there were some other matters raised by the right hon. gentleman. He was very worried indeed about a paragraph in the speech from the throne, which pays what I believe is deserved tribute to Her Majesty and indicated our loyalty and affection for Her Majesty. He claimed that we had very dubious title to put that in the speech from the throne because, as he said, the young Liberals of Canada passed a resolution to
April 6, 1965

the effect that Canada should become a republic. He must have been referring to a provincial conference of some university Liberals who, this being a free country and the Liberal party being a free party, passed such a resolution by a vote of I believe 42 to 38.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the national meeting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was no national meeting that passed-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, there was.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend should not take these university resolutions too seriously, because university Conservatives not long ago passed a resolution advocating the abolition, not of the monarchy, but of my right hon. friend. I do not think they are going to find it so easy to abolish him.
Then the right hon. gentleman complained that we had not included in the speech from the throne some taxation proposals. This is a new interpretation of what should be included in a speech from the throne. He also, as an indication of the sins of commission on the part of this government, gave an illustration of how last Friday, from nine o'clock on, the country was saved from the tyranny of this government trying to slip through six $1 items in the estimates at the last minute. My right hon. friend must know that in one year of his regime 31 $1 items appeared in the estimates of his government -31 items.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any legislative items at all appeared. First of all, I should note that the Prime Minister was not here but was down in the United States telling them what they should do about announcing policy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there were some legislative items; but the difference is that when my right hon. friend does this it is all right, but when we do it it is all wrong; and that is what is known as party government.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The right hon. gentleman had a good deal to say also about the constitutional question and the formula now being considered for amending our constitution in Canada rather than in Great Britain. I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this matter at any length but it certainly will be dealt with during the course of this debate and subse-
The Address-Mr. Pearson quently. I would remind my right hon. friend of something he has tried awfully hard to forget, that he and his minister of justice, Mr. Davie Fulton, tried for years to get agreement with the provinces on the basis of the formula which is, in all essentials,, exactly the formula that is now produced..


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Fisher:: But that does not make it right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, that does not make it right: But that does not make it wrong, either. My authority for making that statement is the former minister of justice himself, Mr. Davie Fulton. The formula is now known as the Fulton-Favreau formula. My hon. friend was not even generous enough to his former minister of justice, who is coming back into federal politics, to link his name with this formula.
My right hon. friend should also make up his mind from what flank he is going to attack this formula. He has shot at us from both flanks this afternoon. At one time it was going to balkanize Canada, and at another time it was so inflexible and rigid there could be no change made. He had better decide upon what flank he is going to attack. Let me remind my right hon. friend, when he is so bitterly critical of this formula-that is his right and no doubt he will be able to thresh it out in this House of Commons- that every province in this country except one, including the province of Ontario, has approved of this formula. It has been submitted, in every case except Newfoundland, to the legislatures. Surely it cannot be all bad when the premier of Ontario and the premier of Manitoba think it is good. However, as I say, we will be able to argue this later, and it is a very important matter which deserves the detailed consideration of this house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the right hon. gentleman any further into his peregrinations, but I do not believe we should take them too seriously. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman thinks anything is grist to his somewhat dilapidated political mill, of which he is now in control of 52 per cent.
I think, Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at the speech from the throne we should look at it not exactly from the point of view of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition but
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Pearson from the point of view of the leader of the .government. There are measures in this throne speech which I believe will contribute to the strength and the unity of this great country. A good many of them were not dealt with by my right hon. friend-and I do not complain about that because I will not be able to deal with all of them myself. There is so much in this throne speech it is going to take seven or eight days for those of us on this side who believe in it to put it to the house and to the people, but we propose to do that.
The measures in the throne speech will be brought forward as quickly as the house is ready to deal with them. For this purpose, planning will be essential, planning for the orderly and efficient conduct of the business of this session. This planning, of course, is the primary obligation of the government. It is an obligation, also, on all parties represented in the house. I think there can be that kind of all party planning of the business through the meetings of the house leaders of the various parties. I think this planning can be effective and it will help in getting the business of the house completed.
Planning, of course, cannot exclude changes which may be required as circumstances change or emergencies develop. I think that is understood on all sides of the house. There must, of course, be priorities in legislation. They should be brought before the house from time to time by our house leader or by myself. But they, too, for obvious reasons will have to be flexible. Then, additional measures may be required later to meet new developments. This, I think, is understood in connection with every throne speech that has been put before the House of Commons. I will be prepared myself, from time to time, to indicate the order in which we expect to do our business, having regard to the circumstances of the day. These qualifications, "circumstances of the day", do not affect the essentials of the program placed before you and the desirability, Mr. Speaker, of allparty co-operation in planning their consideration.
The measures before us now for 1965 are ones that the government believes will serve well the interests of all of Canada. They offer to all of us, as parliamentarians, plenty of constructive work. I believe the program in this speech from the throne is a balanced and workmanlike program. It includes all that we can reasonably expect to do in one session; but I believe it is within the competence of a session of this parliament if it carries out its duty to discharge the people's business

with care, with efficiency and with reasonable dispatch.
The Leader of the Opposition, by his amendment and even more by his speech, has asked from this House of Commons a vote of non-confidence in the government. He asks for the defeat of the government and the dissolution of this house.


John George Diefenbaker: From what is the right hon. gentleman reading?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am reading from my notes, just as the right hon. gentleman did for the better part of his speech.


John George Diefenbaker: I suppose in anticipation of what was going to be said?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was quite obvious what the hon. gentleman was going to say. The government did not need any intelligence service to draw that conclusion.
The right hon. gentleman has asked for this vote of non-confidence from a house in which the government is in a minority and in which the government can be defeated at any time by a combination of the votes of the opposition parties. The right hon. gentleman has challenged the right of the government to proceed with the program outlined in the speech from the throne. The government, Mr. Speaker, is quite happy to accept this challenge and submit its fate to the house on this amendment. So, we will see what we will see, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated a few moments ago, I will not be able to deal with all the proposals in the speech from the throne, at least at this time. The right hon. gentleman had something to say about foreign affairs. Perhaps I should just mention that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) will deal with that in greater length later in the debate.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
He was very anxious, and I can understand his curiosity, to get this story of what happened last Friday and Saturday. I would remind him in the first place, Mr. Speaker, that I was invited-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was invited by the President of the United States to fly over to see him at Camp David, when he heard that I was to speak in Philadelphia on Friday night, to discuss with him some aspects of our bilateral relations and of world affairs. I was delighted to do that. It was a very interesting and, for me, a very useful couple of hours.
April 6, 1965

The right hon. gentleman seems a little worried about what went on. I find it very difficult to please him in these and in other matters. Perhaps that is an objective which I would never be able to achieve; but if I do not talk about these things in public, in the House of Commons or outside the house, about these matters of immediate international danger and concern-if the government does not express itself on these matters-we are criticized as being a satellite, a mouthpiece of the United States of America.
But if we do speak out publicly, as we should on occasion, and only when the occasion seems to require it, then, Mr. Speaker, we should do that with responsibility and restraint and we should not, I suggest, be accused of interference in the affairs of another country; because what is going on in Viet Nam at this time is the concern and the affair of every country in the world, and particularly of the neighbours and allies of the United States of America.
So that there may not be any misunderstanding of what I did actually say, I will put on the record just a few paragraphs, and I do not think they need any interpretation. I said on Friday night, and I discussed this matter with the President on Saturday:
The dilemma-
And this is an acute and agonizing dilemma in Viet Nam.
-is acute and seems intractable. On the one hand, no nation-and particularly no newly-in-dependent nation-could ever feel secure if capitulation in Viet Nam led to the sanctification of aggression through subversion and spurious "wars of national liberation."
On the other hand, the progressive application of military sanctions can encourage stubborn resistance, rather than a willingness to negotiate. Continued intensification of hostilities in Viet Nam could lead to uncontrollable escalation.
I discussed the conditions, what I thought to be the conditions for a settlement, a discussion which is going on throughout the world at the present time, and in my speech on Friday night I asked the question:
What are the conditions for such a settlement. First, a cease fire, then negotiation.
Aggressive action by North Viet Nam to bring about a communist "liberation," (which means communist rule) of the south, must end.
Only then can there be negotiation. I went on to say this:
There are many factors which I am not in a position to weigh. But there does appear to be at least a possibility that a suspension of such air strikes against North Viet Nam at the right time-
I put those words in my first statement and they did not represent a change in anything
The Address-Mr. Pearson I said on Saturday to anybody, to the President or to the press. I said:
-a suspension of such air strikes against North Viet Nam at the right time might provide the Hanoi authorities with an opportunity, if they wish to take it, to inject some flexibility into their policy without appearing to do so as the direct result of military pressure.
If such a suspension took place for a limited time, that the rate of incidents in South Viet Nam would provide a fairly accurate way of measuring its usefulness and the desirability of continuing it. I am not, of course, proposing any compromise on points of principle, or any weakening of resistance to aggression in South Viet Nam. I merely suggest that a measured pause-
A phrase which seems to give the right hon. gentleman a certain amount of amusement.
-a measured pause in one field of military action at the right time might facilitate the development of diplomatic resources which cannot easily be applied to the problem under existing circumstances.
It would at the least expose the intransigence of the North Viet Nam government.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I spent some time developing what I considered to be a positive approach to this whole problem of southeast Asia-what could be done through the United Nations to raise the standard of living of the people, the poor people in that part of the world, what could be done even while the fighting, while the conflict was going on. I reminded my listeners that for some years now the United Nations has had a project in that part of the world, called the Me Kong basin project, which is being very helpful to the people of that area within the limit of its resources, and which has not been interfered with by any government in that area.
I added that if this program could be dramatically increased at this time-and the 21 countries that are involved in it could do more-and it could be pushed forward by a conference in which all the countries of that area would meet under the auspices of the United Nations, and for which the Secretary General could at once make the preparations-if that could be done it might be the best way to create an atmosphere which would make peace possible in that part of the world. Why, Mr. Speaker, the amount of money being spent within a week on military action in Indochina at the present time would be enough for the project for years.
Now, this is not going to be easy, and it may not be possible in present circumstances, but I thought it was worth mentioning and I hoped the authorities at the United Nations
3S
April 6. 1SS5


John George Diefenbaker: The United States has the same trend.
April 6, 1965


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right, though I should like to think we are a little ahead of them in this trend toward prosperity and stability. I am merely suggesting this is a desirable state of affairs and that we should do our best to continue it and improve on it. The Economic Council, which is the important agency set up on the initiative of this government, has in its first report concluded that it is realistically possible for the standard of living of the average Canadian to improve by more than 20 per cent in seven years. This can be done but only if we face and overcome certain serious problems and obstacles. So there is no occasion for complacency or smugness and there should be none; I assure you, Mr. Speaker, there is none in the ranks of the government.
Among the problems we have to face is the problem of maintaining and increasing our trade. Even while it is mounting-and it is mounting-our prosperity in the field of international trade often depends on forces outside this country which we can never control though, at times, we may influence them. There is the problem of the balance of payments which remains a worrying one. There is the problem of the best utilization and conservation of our national resources which is becoming increasingly important. There is the development of research and technology- a paragraph on this appears in the speech from the throne. There are measures to increase the competitiveness and efficiency of industry in this country; I am glad the right hon. gentleman had something to say about this, because it is from the continued increase in our industrial exports that we have to find the jobs required in the years ahead. The magnitude of this problem is shown by the fact that in 1964 the average employment in this country was 6.6 millions. In 1970 the report of the Economic Council says, with the growth of the labour force-and the growth of the labour force in this country is greater than it is across the line in the United States-and providing for a level of unemployment down to 3 per cent, employment will amount to 7.9 millions. This means that in six years we have to find jobs for one and one-third million Canadians. This is a vitally important factor as we face the economic problems ahead.
The most important factor in our economy, in our economic progress is full employment, and not only full employment, vital though that is, but the full employment of our human resources, which is something additional and which is referred to at some
37
The Address-MY. Pearson length in the speech from the throne. We must have the scope and the opportunities which are required in this age of technological change-and we in this country are very backward in this field compared with the United States. One quarter of the Canadian labour force is now engaged in work of a skilled nature. This may seem a satisfactory percentage but it is only half as many as are employed in the United States in skilled occupations, and this means we are not making the most of our most important resource, which is people. This is shown not only by the figures I have given but by pockets of poverty and idleness amidst general affluence and activity. There is a persistent minority now lacking the mobility or suitable training to enable them to share in the expanding opportunities of our age. The growth of our gross national product does not automatically cure this situation. Indeed, its growth can underline and expose this particular problem because economic growth as well as economic stagnation has its casualties, and the casualties in our country can be whole regions as was pointed out eloquently yesterday by the seconder of the address (Mr. Chretien).
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The economic foundations of whole communities can be knocked away almost overnight by new industrial processes, by automation, by what we call progress. Wide areas of farmland can become derelict and decaying; urban slum islands can develop in the richest of cities. The affluent society has given a new meaning and a new dimension to poverty; because as technology advances and business and the economy become more complex, the individual finds it harder to get a second chance. It used to be much easier 50, 75, 100 years ago when society was less complex and more mobile, but now he finds it hard to get a second chance when things go wrong or have never gone right for him, for reasons over which he may have no control and of which he might not even have any understanding. Once trapped outside the affluent society, it is hard to get back in without the new skills required, and the worker often has no chance to get these.
It is here that the state must move in more vigorously than we have done in the past few years, in the name of both social justice and economic progress; because economic progress must include the fullest possible utilization of human resources. Poverty now prevents this, and the proof that there is poverty in this affluent country is shown by the statistics of family income. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker,
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Pearson I may quote from a statement made a few months ago by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) in a speech in Hamilton, in which he said:
According to the latest available official figures the average income of the Canadian non-farm family is $5,000 a year. Taken as an average this is pretty good. But averages are often misleading. Once you start to analyse the figures behind this average you find that out of some 3,600,000 nonfarm families in Canada almost 850,000 have cash incomes of less than $3,000 a year. More than 160,000 families have incomes of less than $1,000. That, you will agree, is real poverty.
In a paper presented to the British Columbia Conference on Social Welfare last year by Professor Dixon of the School of Social Work, the University of British Columbia, this paragraph was included:
When income is related to size of family the following approximate estimates are obtained. In 23 per cent of Canadian families with two or more children the head of the family earns less than $3,000. In 45 per cent of the families he earns less than $4,000.
There is no more direct and important move toward economic expansion than transforming an unemployed slum dweller or a sub-marginal farmer into a skilled worker, a full time producer, a normal spender who thereby creates more work for other people. Economic policies, then, and social policies should move forward together, and they are too often treated as separate and even conflicting. To enlarge opportunities, to improve the ability of people to take advantage of these opportunities is not only to attack poverty; it is to strengthen our whole economy, to increase the prosperity and raise the standards of the whole community.
For a country such as Canada, it also strengthens our unity. The problem of geography has always meant that there have been in Canada great regional differences in economic opportunity and economic interest. This is the main economic factor behind our problems of unity, and sound national policies have always been aimed at lessening them in one way or another. So, Mr. Speaker, to attack today's pockets of poverty is to make a major contribution, in the economic and social field, to national unity. These are the motives for the plan which this government has been developing, with the aim of eliminating poverty and fully utilizing our human resources. It is a plan for greater opportunities. It is not hard to talk about it, Mr. Speaker; the idea behind it is clear enough. But the application is going to be complex and very difficult indeed. Many existing programs will have to be broadened and intensified. New programs

will have to be developed. They involve many departments of government and therefore pose problems of federal co-ordination. So there must be, and there will be, set up machinery for this co-ordinating purpose. The responsibility is also federal and provincial, so there is an equal requirement, perhaps an even greater requirement, for co-operation and coordination between the two levels of government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I propose a special federal-provincial conference to examine these problems which I have been outlining, which will, I hope, agree on the lines on which action can be concerted in a common cause. We realize our obligation as a government to make specific proposals to that conference. A program of this kind must be developed in stages. I would like to refer briefly to the early stages for which plans have already been prepared, because the right hon. gentleman-and I do not quarrel with him for this-says we are just talking in vague generalities and asks what are we going to do concretely. It is difficult to put these proposals forward in detail at this particular moment, but I would like to say something about the concrete proposals.
First, there is the area development program. It will be extended to other areas which, although not having heavy unemployment as defined for the existing designated areas, do have generally low levels of income. We will be proposing new methods of assisting industrial development in these areas.
Second, we are developing a series of improved measures to help people to qualify for and secure new jobs, to move when they need to, and to get the training they need.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister allow a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A good deal has been done already in this field.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the Prime Minister in a position to say, in reference to point No. 1, how many cities or urban communities will be included in this plan; because he says the plan is under way?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say is that the existing designated areas, as my right hon. friend knows, include a good many urban communities. The existing number will be extended to include other areas which do not fall under that particular definition but where over the years in large regions there
April 6, 1965

has been persistent underemployment and economic stagnation.
Third, because much of our worst poverty and waste of human resources is rural, the government proposes to extend the work of ARDA by creating a special fund to be available for development projects. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this has been referred to: We propose an organization through which young Cana-dans will have the opportunity to put their idealism and their talents to work for projects of economic and social development both in Canada and abroad. This Company of Young Canadians-which I suspect, sir, will soon be designated as the eager beavers-will be organized to work closely with, but not to replace, the many excellent voluntary undertakings which are now going forward and which can back up and support it if they wish to continue as voluntary agencies. Therefore I propose to appoint, without delay, an organizing committee to report what most needs to be done so that we can submit proposals to parliament at an early date.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say how many are envisaged as the initial number?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know why all the hooting. The plan has been made and I am asking for information. I thought hon. members would be interested.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When we have canvassed the work being done-and there is some very good work being done in this field-and the resources which these voluntary organizations have and what they need to supplement their work, and when they are in a position to decide what can usefully be done by a significant number of Canadians who are not in any voluntary organizations but who might wish to join the company of Canadian youth, then we will be in a position to decide how far we can go. But I do give the right hon. gentleman that assurance, and I hope that these resources will be available to include in this kind of undertaking all the young people who desire to take part in it.
The fifth item in the immediate program is the Canadian assistance plan, which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) will be presenting this Thursday at a conference with the provincial ministers of welfare. Because that meeting is taking place this week I propose now to give the house a 22620-4J
The Address-Mr. Pearson comparatively detailed outline of what we have in mind for submission to the provinces.
The Canada assistance plan is, I believe, an important further step in the development of Canada's social security system. It is a companion measure to the Canada pension plan. The origin of this new plan goes back to the discussions with the provincial governments concerning the Canada pension plan which were held in September of 1963. The need! was recognized at that time for an improved public assistance program, and since that time a number of discussions have been carried forward with the provinces.
In developing the new plan the government has taken into consideration the views of the public accounts committee, which in its fourth report to the present parliament recommended the amendment or replacement of the Unemployment Assistance Act and the closer co-ordination of all measures in the field of public assistance. The government has taken note also of the wide support for a comprehensive program of public assistance that has been expressed by welfare organizations and authorities, including the Canadian Welfare Council.
The plan now being proposed will provide a framework for federal-provincial co-operation in helping those who need help the most. The plan will encourage a co-ordinated approach to public assistance, in place of the present patchwork of support under four federal statutes-the Old Age Assistance Act of 1951, the Blind Persons Act of 1951, the Disabled Persons Act of 1954 and the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1956.
A number of provinces, Mr. Speaker, have already expressed their wish to develop a comprehensive general assistance measure which, while recognizing the varying requirements of different groups, would meet these requirements within one program and within one administrative framework. It may be possible that some provinces will want to continue to assist the aged, the blind and the disabled under the existing programs. This is a matter for decision by the provinces, and federal support for those programs will continue at the option of the province. If, however, provinces accept the new plan-and their interest leads us to think that many of them will-then there will be no longer an income limitation on the assistance available to people now covered by old age assistance. As hon. members know, federal sharing under the present program is now limited to half of the $75 a month. Under the proposed Can-
40	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Pearson ada assistance plan payments can be based on an assessment of the recipient's needs.
This important change, Mr. Speaker, will be of special benefit to those older people who have had no opportunity to benefit from the Canada pension plan. In cases of need, additional assistance will be available. This applies not only to those aged 65 to 69 but also to the people over 70, who in many provinces have not had access to assistance up to now.
In addition to this major change in the scope of assistance for elderly people, the proposals provide for three major extensions of the federal sharing of assistance costs. These are: assistance to needy mothers; health care services for assistance recipients; and the costs of sharing in the strengthening and expansion of welfare services for assistance recipients.
First of all, a needy mother: It is estimated that the proposed plan will cover close to 200,000 needy mothers and their dependant children who are excluded from the sharing provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act. The cost of this to the federal government will be more than $25 million a year.
Second, in accordance with the principle that assistance should be adapted to the needs of the individual, the Canada assistance plan will provide that the federal government will pay half the cost of health care needed by people receiving assistance. This, Mr. Speaker, is obviously essential to a truly comprehensive ^assistance program. It would be illogical to -help to meet people's needs for food, clothing and shelter but to exclude health care for people for whom it is equally essential and who cannot afford it on an assistance budget. To what extent, and how, health costs are covered will depend, of course, on provincial programs, but it is estimated that federal sharing will cost us something between $15 million and $20 million a year.
I should make it clear that the assistance proposals do not include federal sharing in the costs of hospital care, because this is already shared under the hospital insurance program. Similarly-and I think that on this point it is important to avoid misunderstanding-the plan will provide for discontinuing the federal share in other health costs, as such costs come to be covered by future federal-provincial medicare programs.
I emphasize this point in order to make it clear that this government does not regard assistance with the medical costs of the needy as in any way a substitute for the development of comprehensive medicare programs.

DEBATES	April 6, 1965
This, Mr. Speaker, is an interim measure, a step which is needed, as part of our assistance policy, where and as long as medicare is not available, but which will fortunately become unnecessary as we develop comprehensive health services.
The third new element in the assistance plan is the support it will provide to the provinces for strengthening public assistance administration and for improving and extending social welfare services for public assistance recipients. This will help provincial and municipal welfare departments to recruit additional trained staff and to provide for more effective service to assistance recipients. In this way, we intend that assistance should be much more effectively linked to other programs, including vocational training, rehabilitation and job placement. The aim is to enable assistance recipients to move on to achieve the greatest possible measure of selfsupport. This is one of the sound and constructive weapons to be used in combating both rural and urban poverty.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The effect of these proposals, to summarize them, is that the provinces will be receiving new federal contributions to mothers allowances and health care services. Over the next few years they will also realize large savings in assistance costs as old age security becomes available from age 65. These changes will be of substantial help in making it possible for provinces to provide more adequate levels of assistance to persons in need and also to strengthen social welfare services with the advantage of federal sharing of the costs. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that during the discussions of these proposals we will be having with the provinces this week it will be possible to arrive at mutually acceptable standards to be applied in developing adequate levels of assistance.
The Canada pension plan provides retirement pensions, disability pensions and benefits for widows and orphans. The effect of the Canada assistance plan is that assistance will be available in all of these same cases-as a supplement where it is needed, or as an alternative for people who have not been covered by the pension plan. In this way, Mr. Speaker, social insurance and social assistance measures are being co-ordinated. This aspect of the plan will be particularly important in the next few years. When the Canada pension plan has passed its transition period, its contributory benefits will become the main source of protection, and the role of assistance will steadily decline in importance. That,
April 6, 1965
of course, is the proper aim for a well integrated social security system, as we hope and believe the Canadian system will be.
We hope, as I have already said, that at these forthcoming meetings we will be able to achieve a broad measure of agreement between the federal and provincial authorities on this Canada assistance plan. In that case, legislation will be introduced at this session of parliament, so that the plan can have effect at the start of the new fiscal year, 12 months from now.
I have outlined in some detail this Canada assistance plan not only because of the meetings which will take place this week, but because of the great interest hon. members have already shown in this matter. It is of great importance in the social welfare programs, and I would remind you that it is one of five measures which are being developed as the first phase of the general program for combatting poverty and improving opportunities. This first phase is, of course, no more than a first phase. A great many other measures will require to be taken under this comprehensive program. They will be taken step by step after co-ordinated preparation and after appropriate consultation with the provinces.
Perhaps I might return for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to medicare. The speech from the throne, and this paragraph has disappointed one or two of my hon. friends, makes clear this government's commitment to the principle that health services should be available comprehensively, irrespective of the financial position of the person needing care. This is a principle of public policy. Its implementation in our confederation involves both federal and provincial governments. There are, therefore, three main questions which arise and which have to be solved. One is the scale and quality of the services to be provided. The second is the timetable on which they can be made available. The third concerns the respective roles of federal and provincial governments and, intimately related to that, the form in which the services are to be organized and paid for.
We recognize that, under our constitution, the main responsibility for the organization of health services lies with the provinces. The federal government, therefore, is informing itself as fully as possible of all the views and approaches to this matter that have been developed in the various provinces. On that basis we will be ready for full discussion at the federal-provincial conference which we had hoped to have before the end of April
The Address-Mr. Pearson but which will not now be possible until toward the end of May.
There are, however, certain aspects of the general problems of health care for which the federal government has direct responsibility, and one of the most important of these concerns the quality and availability of drugs and the prices that have to be paid for them. The speech from the throne indicates that the government will set up a special committee to go _ into this matter, the work of which committee will be facilitated by the government, with a view to arriving at proposals as to how the prices paid by the public can be reduced.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this evening are the following: the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Canadian National Railways-Toronto-lease of unused spur line for parking purposes; the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), Administration of Justice-ministers subpoenaed to appear in Quebec Superior Court action.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in dealing with the speech from the throne, that fruitcake as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was good enough to call it, I was particularly concerned with explaining the economic and social welfare proposals of

April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr'. Pearson the government, and what they would do,
I hope, for national welfare, as well as what they would do to strengthen national unity. But I am very much aware, as I am sure hon. members are, that the solution of all these problems of welfare, of unity, central to the solution of these problems and indeed of national survival, is the relationship between the federal and provincial governments. This is one aspect, though a very important aspect, of the unity and the strength of the confederation of our country.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must strengthen and improve the federal-provincial relationship in our country so that all Canadians may feel that they are equally served and equally benefited by confederation. I believe that the policies and practices to this end must be based on the principle of what we call co-operative federalism, which is the only kind of federalism which will insure progress and maintain unity. In our confederation, by the very nature of federalism itself, the powers and responsibilities of the state are divided between two sets, two levels of authority. In the earlier days of small and relatively uncomplicated government, this division of jurisdiction was reasonably simple and clear-cut. The total role of government in those days was relatively unimportant, unimportant enough at least for its two major parts to be separated and to operate without treading too much on each other's toes or getting into each other's way or even into each other's hair too much. Therefore, this kind of nineteenth century live and let live federalism with which we in Canada began our great national venture, as difficult a one as ever faced a free people. I believe that our federalism was wisely designed for the time and that it has served Canada well. But it has been apparent surely for many years that the growing scope and scale of government was making the old federalism more and more difficult to operate at both levels of government, provincial and federal. As the demands of the electorate, became more and more concerned with and responsible for measures designed to insure the welfare of the individual, toe-treading became inevitably more common, at times accompanied by a little head shaking and even arm twisting.
Depression and war, of course, have obscured the picture for so many years and made it appear-depression and war made it appear-that the natural and perhaps widest adaptation to big government was greater and greater at the centre, where vastly greater revenues had to be raised and much more im-

portant decisions had to be taken which involved the very existence of the nation. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, during and after the war, the federal government was, again with some misgivings in certain quarters, given more financial and political responsibility for the new services that the public wanted in areas of overlapping jurisdiction and of mutual concern.
This trend was not one that could or should continue indefinitely. It could not go very far in normal times, under normal conditions, without producing a strong reaction for the very good reason that excessive centralization would cut across the basis of the political consent on which our confederation rests. It is true that economies of large scale operation and mass communication today exercise strong pressures toward unity. But it is equally true that in a country so large as ours, dual in its origin and in its partnership, multiple and diverse in its composition and its development, its interests and in its traditions, governmental authority and responsibility should in large measure be dispersed. A system which would ignore or reject this need for dispersion would destroy and not strengthen confederation. Those, in my view, who preach the overcentralizing doctrine in the interests of unity or in some other interests weaken unity and might even destroy it.


John George Diefenbaker: You did not hold that view in 1950.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I find it difficult, Mr. Speaker, to recall everything I said in 1950. I have held this view all my life, that in the interests of unity there must be the recognition of the need for avoiding overcentralization. But the resistance to undesirable centralization cannot, in my view, mean a return to the "live and let live" federalism to which I have referred earlier. Federal-provincial responsibilities cannot any longer be divided into two neat and separated compartments so that the people responsible for one can go about their business with little thought for what is being done by people on the other side of the wall. Contemporary government at all levels is now far more concerned with positive measures than before, and in these positive measures, problems are shared and responsibilities for them become mingled and, indeed, overlap. What one level of government does, even if strictly within its own jurisdiction, often has an intimate bearing on the problems with which the other has
IMr. Pearson.]
April 6, 1965

to deal in its jurisdiction, and which are often parallel to the federal.
[DOT] (8.10 p.m.)
A healthy federalism, a co-operative federalism is one in which the two levels of government both fulfil their own responsibilities; and respect each other's, but they do so taking into account their mutual concerns. Where they are responsible for parallel action it should be concerted action and therefore must be built on consultation and cooperation, I believe, Mr. Speaker, to a greater extent than previously, and that is the policy of this government. That is what we mean by co-operative federalism.
It is the policy expressed in, among other things, the formula for making our constitution wholly Canadian by removing the necessity to go to the United Kingdom for amendments. The formula we are proposing- I referred to it this afternoon and am just going to mention it tonight-brings to a culmination many years of patient negotiation on the basis, which all practical Canadians have recognized, that we in Ottawa must have the agreement of all ten provinces on any amending formula. If we cannot get that agreement, and I believe we can-I believe we are getting it now-the alternative is to go back to Westminster and ask the British parliament to take on the responsibility of amending our constitution.


John George Diefenbaker: You are still going to have a British statute for a constitution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This policy involves no abandonment nor weakening of the powers given the federal parliament and the government by the constitution, to act on behalf of all the Canadian people who are represented in this parliament. There are certain powers in the constitution that are reserved to the federal parliament and government, and no government that believes in Canadian strength, progress and unity, and in its duty to all the people of Canada, can give these up.
The point, Mr. Speaker, is that we must exercise these powers effectively, and to do this we must recognize the realities of our history, our geography and our confederation, and the conditions on which our country's unity and progress depend. We must bring the federal-provincial relationship into line with these conditions. That is the basis of co-operation with the provinces which enables us to exercise effectively those powers of national leadership which we must have at the centre, and which it is this government's intention to use, firmly and as wisely as we
The Address-Mr. Pearson can, for the benefit of all of Canada, and only in this parliament is all of Canada represented.
Good federal relations are an important part, an essential part of national unity. Equally important, and in a sense connected with them, is a clear understanding of the nature of our confederation, of our country, dual in its origin, with a basic English speaking-Erench speaking partnership, multicultural and multiracial in its development. We are the stronger and the richer because of the nature of our origin and of our development, although the extremists and the indifferent do not seem to realize it.
It is my view, contrary to what the right hon. gentleman said this afternoon in a very pessimistic statement, that extremism and disunity are weakening, that moderation and good sense, the moderation and good sense of all the Canadian people, are growing, and that difficulties and problems are being faced and that they will be overcome.
Much of our difficulty in strengthening national unity, as I understand it, is due to the ignorance of the character of our confederation, and indeed due in some part at least to confusion and misunderstanding over words. There is no doubt we are one confederation. We are one state, one country before the world. Are we one nation or two? Are we one race, or two, or many? Are we one culture, or two, or many?
There is a special difficulty-and I think we must face up to it and, if we do and solve it, it will remove some of our problems of semantics-over the word "nation"; and this difficulty, which leads to confusion, comes from the identification of nation and state.
France, for instance, is one nation and one state; but not Switzerland, or Belgium, or India, or Malaysia, and a number of other states in the modern world. In this sense many nations do not have, nor do they desire, political sovereignty. The term "nation" as I understand it, belongs to sociology, to history and tradition. It indicates the way of life of a group of human beings, a group with common language, traditions, culture, customs, feelings and, above all, the will to live together as a group. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this justifies and explains the validity of the concept of a French-Canadian nationality.
As the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, said on July 22, 1963, in this house, as recorded at page 2442 of Hansard:
When confederation took place, a new nation was created in the partnership of two basic nationalities.
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Pearson
And as Dr. Eugene Forsey put it, I think very well, in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, some time ago:
Canada is both two nations and one; two nations in the ethnic cultural sociological sense; one nation in the political legal constitutional sense.
I believe we should recognize that in the historical and linguistic and cultural sense our country is basically composed of two nations which must have equal rights and equal opportunity in our land. But that is not enough, Mr. Speaker. May I quote from the brief of McGill University to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, some words which I think are very pertinent on this point, and very wise:
The future of Canadian federalism depends upon a series of new relationships in which minority and majority perspectives from the older period become refashioned. This means particularly not only that French speaking Canadians shall feel at home in Quebec, but also that they shall have opportunities for fulfilment without minority feelings in Canada as a whole.
The same applies to the English speaking majority, and this is the basis of partnership. But partnership itself is not enough in this country. The brief goes on to say this:
Whatever the character of the Canadian future, any suggestion that a two-culture society means a two-race outlook would be totally incompatible with the multi-ethnic character of the present Canadian population. While a partnership between the two founding peoples and cultures may have some historical validity-
I believe it has.
-such a partnership concept has no meaning today except for the partnership between cultures. There are no second-class Canadians, and the future of a socially healthy Canada depends not merely upon a recognition of the vitality and relevance of both cultures but equally on the vitality and relevance of all the non-French, non-Anglo-Celtic minority groups that comprise the Canadian montage of today.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I believe these words to be profoundly true and the concept embodied in them is the only concept on which we can grow as a united, progressive Canada. But above all-and I should like to end with these words-we must also recognize that a single Canadian state, a federation, also exists which unites as Canadians the two founding groups and those of other races who have joined us. So there is a Canada above its parts to which we owe loyalty and service. This need not conflict with any other loyalty to province or race.
When we no longer talk about Canada and Canadian unity in this country, Canada is on the way to disappearing, and who will gain

by that among all the people who have settled and developed this great country? None of us wants this to happen, and it will not happen.
I know, and I have emphasized, that regional, provincial or racial feeling is legitimate and important in itself. As Lord Acton put it in a famous essay, the combination of different nations in one state may be as necessary a condition of civilized life as the combination of men in society. That is true. But Canadian unity cannot be maintained nor the federation whose centennial we shall soon be celebrating survive, if provincial or racial feeling is carried to the point of reducing to a weak abstraction loyalty and love for Canada as a country. There is no more important task before us in this parliament as representatives of all the Canadian people from every province and from every part of Canada than to see that this does not happen. And I believe that in this session of parliament we can make a useful contribution to seeing that it does not happen.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the house has listened attentively to the far-ranging and interesting speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has just delivered. Many of the things he said this afternoon and this evening will, I am sure, be concurred in by members of this party. I could not help but feel, however, when I was listening to the right hon. gentleman, that in his recent trip to Camp David to visit with President Johnson he must have made a deal by which in return for supporting United States policy in Viet Nam, President Johnson allowed him to use some of the left-over slogans from the recent election campaign down there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Cheap.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure I will be pardoned if I have become somewhat sceptical about the sudden enthusiasm for social and economic reform which the Liberal party always displays when it is in trouble. When the Prime Minister was outlining some of the facts regarding poverty and suffering in this country-facts which some of us have been drawing to the attention of successive governments for more than a quarter of a century- I could not help but recall that we have had a Liberal government in Ottawa for 33 years out of the last 45.
We now find that after 33 years of Liberal administration we have to mobilize a war
April 6, 1965

on poverty. I may be pardoned for being sceptical when I recall that in 1945 the Liberal government brought down the so-called green book proposals which went much further than anything the Prime Minister has suggested today and much further than anything outlined in the speech from the throne. I attended that conference. Probably it was my naivete, but I went home convinced that we were entering a new era in federal-provincial relations and building a new Canada. Well, every member of this house knows that those green book proposals are still gathering dust. Virtually nothing was done to implement them.
Since my time is limited I intend to devote most of it to a discussion of what is contained in the speech from the throne, and what is not contained, in the speech from the throne. I may say at once that the weakness of the speech does not lie so much in what it says as in what it fails to say; not so much in what it contains as in what it omits. We in this party do not quarrel with the bits and pieces of legislation proposed but rather with the failure to provide a comprehensive program designed to meet the challenging times in which we are living. We don't want slogans: We want programs. We want more than words: We want action.
The major failure of the speech from the throne is its failure to recognize that we have entered a new era in world history- the scientific revolution. Over a century and a half ago the steam engine launched mankind into the industrial revolution. That era brought with it great blessings with the result that the human race has made more technological progress in the last 150 years than it had made in all the thousands of years during which man inhabited this planet. But it should not be forgotten that the industrial revolution also brought with it economic dislocation and human suffering. As Santayana once said, "those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat its mistakes." We have the responsibility, as members of this house, to remember that the scientific revolution upon which we are now embarked will have an even more dislocating effect upon our economy.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The industrial revolution replaced man's muscle with a machine: the scientific revolution is replacing man as a minder of the machine. Automatic factories operated by electronic computers are already here. The industrial revolution affected unskilled labour: The scientific revolution is going to dis-
The Address-Mr. Douglas place skilled workers. The industrial revolution affected manual workers: The scientific revolution is going to have an adverse effect upon whitecollar workers, bookkeepers, estimators, statisticians, clerks, stenographers. The anomaly of our time is that in a period when our society is capable of producing more of the good things of life than ever before in human history, people have a greater sense of insecurity. There is hardly any form of economic activity that will not be affected by automation and cybernation.
The scientific revolution can be either a curse or a blessing. I want to advance the thesis that it can be a blessing; that it can do three things for our society. First, that it can raise living standards far beyond our fondest dreams. A United States study has just shown that since 1960 productivity per man-hour has risen on an average of 3.5 per cent per year, a rate which is well above the immediate post-war period from 1945 to 1960. It is now estimated that with this increased productivity the United States can increase its gross national product by anywhere from $60 billion to $75 billion a year. The era of scarcity has ended. We in the western industrialized civilization have an almost unlimited capacity to produce all the things we need for our creature comforts. It is now possible to have the two great freedoms that Roosevelt talked about, freedom from fear and freedom from want.
Second, the scientific revolution can improve the quality of life for millions of people in our society. Cybernation will release man from drudgery and set him free to develop the things of the mind and the spirit without which man is little better than the beast of the field. The scientific revolution will allow man to concentrate on providing equality of educational opportunity, of promoting good health, creative leisure, and on a new flowering of the human spirit.
The third thing which the scientific revolution can do is enable Canadians to play their part in waging relentless war against poverty, ignorance and disease in the underdeveloped countries of the world. As Adlai Stevenson pointed out, there is another revolution going on in the world: It is the revolution of rising expectations. Two thirds of the world are not going to live in povertj' and misery while we enjoy all the benefits of affluence. World peace depends upon our ability to help the newly emerging nations to enjoy some of the benefits of modern technology, not only in terms of goods but in terms of making personnel available, such
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Douglas as teachers, doctors, nurses, scientists, agronomists, and technicians.
I was glad to hear the Prime Minister speak this afternoon of the Company of Young Canadians that is to be formed. I have great faith in the young people of this country. I believe they will respond to the challenge, and I believe they will make a great contribution toward raising the standard of living and the quality of life in some of the underdeveloped countries of the world.
Mr. Speaker, the scientific revolution can be a blessing, but I point out that it will not come about automatically. Left to itself, cybernation will cause widespread unemployment and economic dislocation. It is no longer sufficient for society to change with the times. The future belongs to the society which anticipates change and plans to meet the adjustments that the scientific revolution demands. A new force is in our hands; we have to channel it and direct it for constructive purposes.
We in the New Democratic party believe that Canada must set goals for the abundant society. It is strange that, despite the fact that we have a higher standard of living than our forefathers, there is a growing feeling of uneasiness in this country. People speak of crisis without defining it. I think they sense that the real crisis in Canada is the lack of leadership; that the government has so far lacked any clear sense of direction, any sense of national purpose; the government has failed to set goals that will challenge the Canadian people to put forth every effort for their attainment. The tragedy of the speech from the throne is that it is aimed at the ideal of the stable government rather than the dynamic government.
In this debate, sir, the members of the New Democratic party will deal with several aspects of the most important goal that we think Canada should be moving toward. That goal was set forth by the Economic Council of Canada. In their first report they suggested that Canada must create one and a half million jobs in the next five years; that our gross national product must grow at the rate of 5J per cent per year in constant dollars; and that we must reduce unemployment by 1970 to at least 3 per cent; that we must in this five-year period, if we are to get even close to full employment, increase our gross national product by $20 billion. We do not suggest that this is the only goal for Canada -there are many goals-but this is the goal upon which the success of all the other goals will depend. If we fail to attain this

goal, then it will be extremely difficult to achieve any of the other goals.
In the course of this debate, sir, we propose to suggest seven programs for the attainment of this objective of creating one and one half million jobs, increasing our G.N.P. by 5J per cent, in constant dollars, and increasing our total productivity by $20 billion.
First, we propose a program of economic planning, and I intend to deal with that in the course of my remarks this evening.
Second, we shall propose a manpower policy, because we believe that economic growth is meaningless for those who are out of work due to automation or lack of training. These are the men and women who have been thrown on the slag heap of our society. We need a manpower policy which will give them a meaningful role in our society, e (8:40 p.m.)
Third, we shall make proposals for maintaining the stability of price levels. The Economic Council of Canada says that we must keep price increases down to at least 2 per cent per year or inflation will rob us of all our gains. This is important. There is little value in giving a few more dollars a month in pensions if the increase in the cost of living takes it all back again. We suggest that the government must have something more positive to grapple with this problem than they had when the steel companies increased the price of steel, when the best the government could do was to suggest that the Economic Council of Canada look into the matter. The consumer is defenceless. The government has a responsibility to do something about increased prices and to see whether or not they are justified and warranted. The government cannot afford to hide behind the constitution. The government has the responsibility to work out with the provinces where the responsibility lies, and we shall discuss this in the course of this debate.
Fourth, we will discuss the monetary and fiscal policies which will promote economic growth and direct investment into channels which will develop Canadian resources under Canadian ownership. We support the proposal of the Economic Council of Canada that we must use Canadian savings to give Canadians a greater voice in making the economic decisions that will determine our future economic destiny.
Fifth, one of our members will discuss the social goals which we must establish in this next five-year period by the setting up of social security measures and comprehensive medicare because increased productivity now
April 6, 1965

makes it possible to provide these services in a modem and abundant society.
Sixth, we shall deal with a federal aid to education program which will set out the kind of assistance the federal government can give to the provinces so that they can develop citizens capable of meeting the demands of a modern, technological society.
Seventh, a member of this party in the course of this debate will discuss the constitutional framework within which a dynamic program can live and move and have its being without being restricted by the dead hand of the past.
I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in the Prime Minister's comments this afternoon and this evening to the effect that the matter of the constitution and its amending formula must be decided by parliament. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have never yet been able to get a satisfactory answer as to whether or not this amendment procedure is going to be sent to a committee of parliament, where we may call in constitutional experts and where members from all parties will have an opportunity to familiarize themselves fully with the effect of this amending formula. We are in great danger of having constitutional amendments by federal-provincial conferences. Now, federal-provincial conferences have a place, but it is rather strange that, at a time when the B and B commission are telling us that this country faces a crisis, the one group which is not going to have any real opportunity to discuss and analyse the constitutional amendment are the members of parliament. We are going to be presented with a fait accompli which has been worked out at a federal-provincial conference and approved by ten provincial legislatures. We want to discuss this matter, Mr. Speaker. We are in favour of the repatriation of the constitution. We are not in favour of putting the Canadian constitution in a strait-jacket.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we believe that this country can and should plan for abundance. We start with the positive conviction that change must be managed; it cannot be left to happen automatically. For this economic planning the initiative and responsibility lie primarily with the federal government. Private planning by individuals and corporations for their own welfare does not automatically contribute to the improvement of the general welfare. We cannot leave the adjustments which cybernation demands to the private sector of the economy. Man's destiny cannot be settled in the marketplace.

The Address-Mr. Douglas This has been illustrated by the fact that in the United States over one half of the new jobs which were created in that country between 1957 and 1962 were in the public sector, predominantly in the teaching profession. Of the 4,300,000 jobs created during that period, only about 200,000 were provided by private industry through its own efforts; the balance was in the services or in the public sector. This demonstrates that only government planning and government direction can create jobs, promote economic growth, retrain displaced workers and regain control of the Canadian economy.
We must plan for abundance. We must set goals and mobilize our resources to reach those goals. In this day and generation laissez-faire is dead. We cannot sit back and expect that somehow or other economic forces left to themselves will work out the solutions. Change must be managed. New Democrats believe that our economic, social and political institutions exist for the benefit of man, and that man does not exist for the maintenance of a particular economic system. Our belief is based on the conviction that governments are instituted among men for the purpose of making possible life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that democratic government is a positive and a creative instrument for attaining those ends. As we see it, democracy means a community of men and women who are able to understand, express and determine their own lives as dignified human beings. Democracy can only have meaning in a political and economic system in which wealth is distributed by and for the people and is used for the benefit of society as a whole.
It is true that economic planning is not as simple in a federal system as it is in a unitary form of government. However, the fact that we are a federation is a gain rather than a hindrance. It means that planning must be decentralized and tackled at all three levels of government, which is all to the good if we are to get more people involved in the planning process. But the responsibility for establishing goals and setting forth the priorities for their attainment lies with the federal government, and so far it has lamentably failed to do so.
The government of Canada is only playing at economic planning. Two years ago it set up the Economic Council of Canada. They have competent staff. But to date they have been used for two purposes-to gather data which will assess potential growth and describe desirable objectives. This is not indicative
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Douglas planning. This is the basis upon which indicative planning may be built, but there are two other steps which need to be taken but which have not been taken. The first is to set out priorities for reaching these desirable objectives, and the second is the establishment of a program of action so that the goals will become realized.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The government in its speech from the throne seems to have completely forgotten about the Economic Council of Canada and the role which it can and should play under indicative planning for this country. I should like to say a few words about the federal government's role in planning for abundance. The Economic Council has pointed out the need for effective demand. Cybernation has solved the problem of production and the government must now pay attention to the problem of consumption in a society where fewer people are required to produce the goods and services which we need. The real question is, how are people going to buy the abundance of things which modem technology has made possible.
It is quite conceivable that at some time in the future every citizen will have to be guaranteed an income in order to enable him to buy the products of our farms and factories. To my mind that day is some time off because there is a tremendous backlog of social capital needs such as housing, schools, hospitals, urban renewal, parks and recreational facilities. These can occupy our surplus resources for a good many years to come. After all, there is little value in living in a scientific era if we have not got water that is fit to drink, air that is fit to breathe, streets in which there is room to drive your car, hospitals into which you can get a member of your family when he is sick, and schools into which you can get your children who want an education.
The federal government has the fiscal and monetary powers to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Its first task is to increase the purchasing power of those whose present incomes do not permit them to buy the things which we can now produce in such abundance. Over the past five years the Economic Council of Canada has estimated that we have lost $2.8 billion each year in potential production. That is roughly $140 annually for every man, woman and child in Canada. This represents about $700, for a family of five, which has been lost in goods and services that we might have enjoyed, had we mobilized our physical 
and economic policies to achieve full production.
I would like very briefly to outline some of the things we think the government should do if it is going to increase the buying power in the pockets of the 40 per cent of the population of this country which lives either in a state of poverty or in a state of deprivation.
1.	It must step up our programs of social capital projects, particularly in low-cost housing, urban renewal and construction grants to educational institutions at all levels, and have the unemployed put to work on these projects.
I was pleased with what the Prime Minister said about the Canada Assistance Plan in so far as it applies to the disabled, the aged and the blind, but let us never think for a moment that unemployment assistance legislation is the answer to the problem of how to take care of those who are out of work. This answer lies in employment in the economy, and employment in industry and, where that is not possible, employment at regular wages on social capital projects.
2.	The government must mobilize all Canadian savings so as to promote industrial development and to enable Canadians to regain control of the Canadian economy. I notice in the speech from the throne the government has once more talked about the Canada Development Corporation. Once before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) introduced it, and then lost his nerve. I hope he will not lose it this time. We believe he must go much farther than this. We think the day is coming when this government, or some other government, will have to set up a national investment board to direct investment into the development of those resources and those industries which will best create employment and increase Canadian productivity.
3.	We advocate cuts in income tax for those in the lower income groups. When the Prime Minister was speaking today about the large number of people who earn less than $2,000 a year and $3,000 a year, it occurred to me that one of the immediate ways the government could help those in the lower income groups is to raise the exemption on personal income tax to at least $1,500 for single persons and at least $3,000 for married persons. This would give them a little more purchasing power to buy the goods and services we want to dispose of.
4.	We think the government ought to tackle the cost-price squeeze which is wreak-
April 6, 1965

ing such havoc on the agricultural economy. The decline in wheat prices presents the government with an excellent opportunity to implement the wheat policy which it was argued into announcing in March of 1963. The two price system and the guarantee of $2 a bushel would maintain the purchasing power of the prairie farmer and would boost his ability to buy the goods of eastern industry. Farmers, other than wheat farmers, need better deficiency payments and assistance in collection, storage, processing and marketing of their products. From 1949 to 1963 net farm income dropped by 9 per cent at the same time that the cost of food to the consumer went up by 12 per cent, and at a time when the food processing and beverage companies of this country more than doubled their profits.
I notice that the speech from the throne says that the government-
-is developing new policies to enable farmers generally to achieve larger and more reliable incomes-
They do not need to develop new programs; all they need to do is use some of the programs they advocated in the election campaign. They do not need new planks; they can use the planks left over from the 1963 election campaign. They are as good as new -they have never been used.
5.	We advocate an increase in pensions. During the previous session we argued very strongly for raising old age security pensions to $100 a month payable at age 65, not only on humanitarian grounds, because we believe that these people who have spent their lives in the service of this country, are entitled to comfort in their declining years, but also because this would be one of the quickest ways of stimulating the purchase of consumer goods. The government has a chance in this way to make a virtue out of necessity.
6.	We believe that comprehensive, universal medicare for all Canadians under a government sponsored and government operated health insurance program would not only raise the health standards of the people of this country, but would also help to redistribute income and thereby increase the purchasing power of those in the lower income brackets.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I am going to move an amendment on this, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to make some remarks about it if I still have the time. I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher):
The Address-Mr. Douglas
That the amendment be amended by Inserting therein, immediately after the words "because of confusion and indecision in dealing with national problems," the following words:
"including their failure to present specific proposals for a universal and comprehensive medicare program for all the people of Canada."
The government has no longer any excuse for not providing a comprehensive medicare program. They have had excuses in the past. The Liberal party have been talking about medicare since 1919. We have had the report from a royal commission, a report which in my opinion is probably the most extensive and exhaustive report on this subject that has been printed in the English language. This report says, first, that Canada needs medicare; second, it says that Canada can afford medicare; and third, it says the government should take action immediately within six months of receiving the report to call a federal-provincial conference in order to begin laying plans for its implementation.
Well, this report was tabled last June and nothing has happened. Now, the government says in the speech from the throne that it is going to call the first meeting of the governments of the provinces in order to discuss this matter. In several of the provinces phony medicare plans are being proposed with a view to forestalling a comprehensive national health insurance plan. If the federal government fails to act, and to act promptly, these plans will become established and we will set the clock back 25 years in our march toward national, comprehensive medicare. Action is needed at this session, not just to meet and discuss with the provinces.
The federal government knew for months before the Hall commission reported the views of the provinces because the provinces had submitted briefs to the Hall commission. They could have been ready with proposals. Instead of that they have allowed some nine or ten months to elapse without doing anything. Now, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) tells us he is going to meet the provinces some time about the end of May. We say the federal government, in the light of the Hall commission report, in the light of the abundance of data and material which they have supplied, should be in a position to put legislation before parliament and place draft legislation before a federal-provincial conference, setting out the respective stages by which a province may move toward a comprehensive, complete health insurance program. We ought not to slow the provinces down to the pace of the slowest province. Provinces should be
April 6, 1965

The Address~Mr. Douglas able to qualify at whatever rate they are willing to move.
There are some provinces who have an adequate number of doctors in ratio to their population and who, very quickly, could qualify for medical care. Then, they could move on to dental care and other health services. Some provinces would take longer to qualify. However, the fastest way in which comprehensive, universal medicare could be established in this country would be for the government to bring legislation before this house to give the provinces a series of objectives toward which they could move. If some provinces move more quickly than others, they will get the benefits more quickly. If other provinces are tardy, then it will take them a greater length of time before they get the full benefit.
This question of health insurance, Mr. Speaker, has been bandied around by the Liberal party for some 46 years. I want to say how disappointed we are that the very best they could tell us now is, if I may quote:
My government believes that public policy should be directed to improving the quality of health services and to ensuring that all Canadians can obtain needed health care, irrespective of their ability to pay.
There is no commitment here for a universal, comprehensive, all-embracing medicare program; no commitment here for health insurance that will be government sponsored and government operated. The phrases which have been used in the Speech from the Throne could apply equally well to an insurance company operated plan or to a plan which the Hall commission-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, I have to interrupt the hon. member to inform him his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to thank hon. members and I will only take two or three minutes to finish.
Within the terms used in the speech from the throne, it would be quite possible to have a medicare system in which the people of this country would be divided into two categories, those who are able to pay the premiums for an insurance company sponsored plan and those who, under a means test, would have their premiums paid in whole or in part by the government. This kind of plan was examined and rejected, rejected outright, by the Hall commission. However, nowhere in this speech from the

throne does the government say it is determined to proceed with the kind of medicare program which the Hall commission outlined for the people of this country.
I should like to conclude by saying that a new era in human history has been ushered in. It brings with it rich benefits for those nations who know how to use it. The failure to make the necessary adjustments is fraught with danger. The tempo of technological change is being speeded up. We have only a few years left in which to meet the challenge of a scientific age. There is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that the government is alive either to the opportunity or to the dangers that confront us. If the government fails to create the desirable goals and lead the Canadian people in a crusade for their realization, then we shall be plunged into unemployment, economic stagnation and human misery. This is the time for decision. To use the Prime Minister's own words, when I read the speech from the throne I could find nothing in it that would either excite the daring or test the strong.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to take part in this debate in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like first to congratulate the Mover (Mr. Cashin) and the Seconder (Mr. Chretien). As young men, capable and dedicated to the work of the House of Commons, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), are certainly worthy of the honour the government bestowed upon them. However, I think it might have been more befitting if both of them had been present today to listen to the contributions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the leaders of the other parties. * (9:10 p.m.)
In the first place I believe the government is to be commended on the throne speech, for picking up the diligent and constructive work carried on during the last session by the special committee on procedure and organization. As we move farther away from the last session I believe the work that was accomplished during it will come into more clearly defined perspective, and it will be recognized that one of the most constructive pieces of work was that accomplished by the special committee on procedure.
I am sure that during the dying days of the last session all of us were concerned that the results of the committee's work might be lost.
April 6. 1965

Therefore I am pleased to see the government is picking up that work and I hope we can expect action in this regard very soon this session. Considering the amount of work outlined in the throne speech, unless we reform the rules under which we operate, it will not take 14 months to get through the program; it will take two years. I suggest that the government move quickly to introduce, at least on a trial basis, some of the recommendations placed before the house by that special committee on procedure. It is imperative that the house rules be modernized if we are to cope with the load of work presented to us.
I am also grateful to see the government has seen fit to mention the need for a parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman, but I fail to understand its trying to evade the issue by saying a royal commission is necessary to give further study to the proposal. The committee which studied the role of an ombudsman, and which presented a report to the house, did a very thorough job. I had hoped the government would take that opportunity when the report was presented to indicate it intended setting up the institution of a protector of individual civil rights, which is the role of an ombudsman.
I also commend the government on the stand it has taken with regard to Viet Nam. It is essential that we face facts. I do not think any amount of appeasement will ever bring peace in the world, a peace which must come because the futility of war has been demonstrated in every corner of the earth as something that will not settle arguments but which destroys nations. The submission of an idea or a country into slavery by another idea or other country, is certainly no way to bring about the peaceful settlement of our problems and permit the development of our resources, both human and material, as they must be developed.
I found it interesting to note that just yesterday the Prime Minister of Australia said that "the United States intervention in Viet Nam was the greatest act of moral courage since Britain stood alone during the second world war." He described the United States action on behalf of the free world "as one of the greatest manifestations ever of justice and principle."
This does not mean we must always follow the pattern or echo the words of our great neighbour to the south, but let us understand very clearly that compromise is not necessarily the answer to the problems we face in that part of the world.
The Address-Mr. Thompson
As one listens morning by morning and evening by evening to news reports, particularly those of the C.B.C., he wonders whether or not the policy makers of this continent are Walter Lippmann and James M. Minifie, with a few echoes being carried on this side of the border by the leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas).
Why do we not hear complaints about the persecution of the Jews in Russia? Why do not the peace marchers protest the murder of tens of thousands of Viet Nam villagers by the Viet Cong? Why have we not heard protests through the news media about the tens of thousands of Congolese villagers who have been murdered by rebel forces which receive the encouragement of communist nations?
Through the confusion of the problems which beset us we seem to have lost sight of many of the things which really count. What is our concept of a world? Is it a place where mankind can live in peace, with nations as neighbours, where we respect the divisions that divide us and yet give each of us the dignity which a human being should have? Too many of our leaders are not convinced sufficiently of the things in which they should believe, and because they are not, we have to pick an uneasy way out of the dilemmas in which we find ourselves.
In this regard the suggestion by the government to set up a Company of Young Canadians is a good idea. It can be a tremendous thing for the youth of the country, not only from the point of view of developing some of the finer things of life but also developing a sense of responsibility and discipline. One of the greatest needs today, in an age which is characterized by loose morals, is a secure sense of responsibility, and those things which strengthen discipline on the one hand and provide the opportunity for a responsible effort on the other, will help build our nation. But even beyond that, such a project if it were properly conceived and based on the highest principles which are essential to a free way of life, would help us shoulder our responsibilities to the other parts of the world and give our young people the opportunity to go out and help others less fortunate than themselves.
This has a double barreled effect, as I have observed in many underdeveloped countries. Not only does it accomplish what is necessary in helping those people help themselves, but it is a tremendous help to the country from which the young people set out, particularly when they later return to take up places of responsibility in their own country.
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Thompson
Though we have no idea how the government intends to set up this project, I believe it is one of the greatest things that could ever happen to our young people.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It is also good that mention has been made of the need to bring in new regulations relating to broadcasting, and that finally something will be done to introduce legislation that will assist our publications. What I have often been concerned about is the fact that we seem to have lost our sense of Canadian identity. I have no time for those who say a Canadian does not have any identity. I have lived too long outside this country, working shoulder to shoulder with fellow Canadians, not to know the impact which has been made on the people in the areas in which we have served-not to know that we have a national identity and character which, unfortunately, is recognized more often by foreigners than it is by our own countrymen at home. We hear it said that to a Britisher a Canadian is someone who is not an American, while to an American a Canadian is someone who is not a Britisher. These are platitudes which no longer apply. What we need is a greater sense of purpose and a greater understanding of that identity within Canada itself.
I believe that in the area of broadcasting there is a tremendous need for change. It is essential in this regard that our national broadcasting system-and we need the C.B.C. -must be made responsible to someone and that the set-up should be adjusted accordingly. Power is dangerous whether it lies in the hands of a man, a party or an organization, and absolute power corrupts. In this regard unless a public organization like the C.B.C. has the same sense of responsibility as elected members of this house have toward those who elected them, nothing but mismanagement, shall I say, can be expected in terms of the responsibility which rests upon the shoulders of the corporation. I would hope, therefore, that when the government considers the changes necessary in the broadcasting field the organization of the C.B.C. will be strengthened so that it may better be able to respond to this challenge.
I realize that the Board of Broadcast Governors is making an effort to encourage the inclusion of a larger Canadian content in broadcasting. Many of our radio and television stations would respond if the material were available. Unfortunately many of them do not have the financial resources to produce material, other than that which corresponds to strumming a guitar and the "pop"

music we hear all too often from our radio stations. There are tremendous possibilities here if only leadership were given. Perhaps this is an area in which the Canada Council might be the best organization to do this particular job, provided the funds were available.
It is essential, too, that something should be done with regard to publications. Not only the present government but the previous government failed to meet this need. It is now many years since the O'Leary report was given to us, and ever since then it has been gathering dust in a pigeonhole. It may be that not all the recommendations of that royal commission are applicable, but certainly the principles on which they based their recommendations are valid. If we are to have a Canadian publication industry, as is necessary to the Canadian identity of which I have spoken, something must be done to give Canadian publications a chance to survive.
I should like to mention at this point one of the best English language publications, I think, which has come on the market this year. It is a magazine entitled the Canadian Boy, published by the Boy Scouts Association of Canada. This fills one of the big gaps which exists as far as our younger boys are concerned, and I am pleased that a publication of this type should have come on the scene in Canada. We need more like it to reach the other levels of the Canadian people.
It adds up to this: There is an imperative and urgent need to do more about developing a Canadian identity and give us the sense of purpose we must have. If we fail to do this I do not think we can have too much to complain about if we lose the struggle presently being carried on for the minds and hearts of men across the world. What does it matter if we solve all the problems which relate to the material life? Suppose we do find a way of using automation so as to profit by all it can mean in this age of plenty, if we lose the finer things in life and those things which go to give us an assurance that this civilization and the world will continue for a while longer. Sooner or later we shall have to realize that this involves the needs of the entire world. We cannot have an organized world with disorganized men any more than we can have an organized Canada with disorganized Canadians.
There is much to be encouraged about. There is no need for a pessimistic attitude.
April 6, 1S65

We cannot continue to shout the cry of the pessimist. I was interested in an editorial which appeared in the April 3 issue of Maclean's magazine. My attention was drawn to this editorial in this magazine which appeared under the title: "Give those crepe-hangers a holiday". I will not put it all on the record although I think it is all worth doing so, but there are a few thoughts which I think are important enough to mention. It says:
Canada is a big rich country, with an eventful past, a prosperous present, and a promising future. Its people are among the most fortunate in the world. Almost everyone in the world seems to know this-except a few of us.
We are getting tired of Canadians who are getting tired of their country. We are weary of citizens who worry so much. We have become impatient with the panicky and the pessimistic, with Canadians who are so preoccupied with our problems, so overwhelmed by our crises, and so upset by our scandals that they want to give up, or run away, or join the United States.
Of course Canada has its problems: We have always had them. We've had scandals before, and unfortunately will likely have them again. They are serious, but Canadians are a serious people possessed of great strength. Our past failures were not fatal ones; basically sound government did not end. Our institutions remain strong and democratic freedom is still cherished, corruption is the exception in our public life and honesty the rule.
Canadians are troubled over the apparent ineffectiveness of parliament and obstructionism in the Commons.
The article then proceeds to elaborate on that point. These are words we should think about because we should be proud that we are part of the Canadian scene today shouldering the tremendous challenge we have toward improving it and strengthening it.
I find that the speech from the throne is repetitious, ambiguous and vague in what it says or does not say about the basic economic needs of this country. I do not think it is good enough to say complacently that these are good times and all is well. For the moment things may appear on the surface to be in good shape. But the estimates point in another direction. To say what should be our goals is one thing; we need to define our goals. How to get there is another matter, and the important thing is to point out the path which will lead us to these goals. We must recognize that we have solved the problems of production but that all the economic planning in the world will be of no avail unless it includes the adjustments in our financial system necessary to bring about the just distribution of this potential plenty without driving us further into the controlling arms of the state. When I consider the estimates presented to us, I say this: If in pros-
The Address-Mr. Thompson perity we cannot balance the budget, what will be the situation in adversity or in times which are less affluent? In fact, in the estimates passed last Friday night there was one item of some $396 million which represented the deficit in the superannuation account that was passed over into the national debt with hardly a murmur or word spoken at all. When more than $1,100 million is required in this next fiscal year to pay the interest on the national debt alone, then something is wrong. That is an increase of more than 10 per cent over last year. Out of every tax dollar collected, nearly 14 cents of it is going to be used to pay off the interest on this debt.
* (9:30 p.m.)
No one can disagree with a declaration of war on poverty. There is no need for poverty in this rich land of Canada. There is no reason except our own inadequacy and our own inability to face up to a few simple facts that we should be able to see clearly. If the affairs of this nation, both private and public, were properly managed there would be no need for anyone living in any other than adequate conditions with a good standard of living. Our own good judgment and willingness to work and develop our national resources should be the only limitation to the good life we should be able to enjoy in Canada; and that includes everyone. I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas) when he says that we are in a new era and the age of scarcity is past. We now live in an age of abundance; but the real problem in this age of abundance is not just planning; it is a problem of distribution where we will be able to distribute the production they themselves as producers are able to produce. Therefore there are some very fundamental things that we must not pass over.
The throne speech refers to the farmers of Canada and new policies which will result in larger and more reliable incomes to bring the agricultural industry up to the level of other parts of the economy. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) has already enunciated a new dairy policy. I believe that in his recent trip "down under" he must have received a good many ideas for his dairy policy from New Zealand, because I recognize most of them. The only difference is that he will subsidize dairy products with money he must first collect from the taxpayers, instead of using the Bank of Canada as the New Zealand government today is using the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to make sure that the two-price system operates not only
54	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Thompson to the benefit of the farmers but also meets the competition in the world. There is mention in the speech from the throne of an economic development fund for rural Canada, of a general declaration of war on poverty and the establishment of a Canada Development Corporation to assist in the development of Canadian industry. These in themselves are good, but how are they going to reach their objective?
I think the most important issue facing us this session in the immediate weeks ahead is the revisions that must be brought into the Back Act. Fortunately there is a built-in time limit in this particular matter because, if by July 1 those amendments are not made, every bank in the country will close. This brings me to just a few remarks about the services of the Bank of Canada and what they should be. At the present time the Bank of Canada holds approximately 15 per cent of the national debt. This is something that many of us do not realize, but I quote from Hansard of August 7 last when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), as reported at page 6552, said this:
These holdings-
That is, that part of the national debt held by the Bank of Canada:
-comprise 14.6 per cent of the total government securities outstanding at June 30, 1964.
A little further on he says:
The total Income of the bank was $127,851,000, and the net Income paid to the consolidated revenue fund was $116,386,000.
So we see that this is true. The proposal I want to put forward here is simply this.
If the Bank of Canada can hold 15 per cent of the debt of Canada, why can it not hold all of the debt of Canada except that which is held directly by Canadian citizens themselves? If we did this, we would be eliminating at least $1 billion of this $1,100 million that we are paying in interest on the national debt at the present time. There is no reason at all why the Bank of Canada cannot be used for the benefit of the nation and for the benefit of the Canadian people.
It is true that such a program would have to be brought about gradually, but here is the key to one of the most important reforms that must be brought in if we are going in any way to meet the challenge of distribution which is now our basic responsibility.
The function of the Bank of Canada is basic to an effective and sound economy. It can be the tool which can strengthen and stabilize our national economy. It can be

DEBATES	April 6, 1965
the means of solving most of the economic and financial problems that we now face. It is imperative that the Bank of Canada be responsible for the maintenance of an equilibrium between the purchasing power in the hands of the population and the turnover of retail trade and services. The amount of money and credit in circulation must be maintained at a level required to assure a normal turnover and distribution, because our economy is growing and must increase year by year. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would say there is an urgent need for bringing in those necessary adjustments to the Bank Act that will permit this to be done.
I think one of the most urgent needs as far as the farmers of Canada are concerned is a two-price system for the agricultural production of the country, and other primary production. The Canadian agricultural industry cannot now, or in the future, compete with other subsidized agricultural programs such as they have in the United States. Neither can it, because of the high cost of production and operations, compete with agricultural production in countries like Australia, the Argentine or France, where the cost of operation is much less. The agricultural industry in Canada must be insulated from these outside pressures over which it has no control. The only way it can be done is by setting up a two-price system, even though the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) said the other day that he did not think it was the answer. This can be done by making effective use of the Bank of Canada. I would suggest, therefore, the setting up of an import-export branch of that bank in order that the export of our surplus primary products can be financed in such a way that we can maintain a two-price system. As long as there are hungry people in the world we must do our share in meeting their needs. That is why I say there is an imperative need for an upgrading of the whole price structure for the producer of primary goods.
Closely allied in such an arrangement is the necessity for a new basis of international settlements. The gold standard as it now operates on the international scene is just as inadequate and unable to function as was the gold standard on the national scene 30 years ago. I think this is one of the areas in which we must take the lead in convincing the rest of the world that it is only as we set up a new arrangement for international settlements that we are ever going to accom-
April 6, 1965	COMMONS
plish what we should in the realm of trade; because it is only through the trading of goods which we have for export that we will meet our international obligations.
I believe this is very important. In this regard we must develop the programs of ARDA. Farm improvement, housing renewal and building up the run-down areas of the country, the building of our schools, hospitals, harbours, our roads-all these things could be financed if we were to make use of our own assets and credit through the proper use of the Bank of Canada.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We have heard a great deal said about welfare today. It is essential that we take care of our welfare needs; but right now we have welfare running out of our ears. I think in this regard it is important that we take a long, hard look at welfare and our obligations in the realm of welfare to make sure we can properly meet the costs which are involved. It is easy to say yes, we can afford it; of course we can. As long as our hospitals train young people to give the services necessary in the health field, we can afford it. But how will it be achieved? What will be the machinery?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is essential to set up areas of nriority. I know as a parent that my responsibility to my children, I believe, is first of all in the field of education. Second, it is essential that we make sure our children are cared for in the eventuality of sickness. Third, we have the responsibility to provide pensions which will take care of those unable to work and for those of us who are past the age of opportunity of being able to earn our own living.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member whose time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent to continue beyond his allotted time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I am grateful for this permission.
May I say that I think it was a good thing for the government to say it will consult with the provincial governments, because the responsibility of setting up any health plan first rests with them. They must determine the areas of priority as far as our welfare needs are concerned.
The Economic Council of Canada has much to say about this in its first report. I agree with the report when it says that we must fill in the gaps which remain at the present time before we project ourselves into new
DEBATES	55
The Address-Mr. Thompson fields. Therefore, in this first responsibility we should carefully define in their proper order of priority the areas for which we will have responsibility. Then I feel that the next step should be to set out the complex problems, such as costs, deciding on priorities, and caring for those who are entirely omitted by the Canada pension plan. This must be worked out through continuing consultation with each other in order to find the correct answer.
We have heard much talk about an amendment to the constitution in order to repatriate it, and it must be repatriated. But we must remember that we in this confederation in Canada first came together as a group of provinces, and there is no body more qualified than the provincial governments to have the first say as to what the amending formula or any changes in the constitution must be. To deprive those provinces of any share in making this decision is to knock one's head against a stone wall, because such a suggestion will not be acceptable. Ten premiers and ten attorneys general, after spending a great many months and weeks in determining what would be the highest common denominator of agreement as far as making a formula for amending the constitution is concerned, could not all have been mistaken. While we in this house are representative of the national needs and realize the need for a strong national government, we must understand that unless we come to agreement with the provinces we can never repatriate the constitution, let alone bring in the changes which may be necessary, or write a new one.
Third in the order of priority I think there must be provision made for the integration of our private pension plans with the Canada pension plan. We must also provide for the portability of private plans which are now in existence. It is not a question of just working on the basis of one year or two years or five years; we must project all of this into the future and step by step move forward to attain those goals which we know are right. Otherwise we will continue to talk about those goals but will not be providing the means or the method of reaching them. It is like attempting to reach the top of a high wall with one jump; it cannot be done. Put a ladder against it and step by step you get there.
I believe that in the speech from the throne there is a great and tragic gap left in the government's program, represented by what was not said. In this world today a battle is raging for the hearts and minds of men.
April 6, 1965

The Address-Mr. Thompson While we give some material aid to other areas of the world, certainly it is not much in comparison to the wealth which we have. The Communist world today is giving the emerging areas of the world ideas and concepts and a program which they say will work for them, even though we in the free world know that it is a wrong one. Russia and China are spending millions, even billions, in their determined and relentless propaganda war designed to place the universe under their kind of tyranny. I have seen this at work, Mr. Speaker, in Africa. I have seen it in Asia and in Central America, and I have seen the emphasis which is placed on this struggle. I have in my hand here tonight one of their typical magazines which you can And printed in almost any language in any part of the world. It is beautifully done and available at a lower cost than our magazines are priced. You can buy them for seven cents here. The equivalent magazine published by a Canadian firm would cost us $1. In the emerging areas it is given away free. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, simply because they know what they want, and they have a program to get them where they think they want to go.
What is Canada doing today to give the men in the developing nations ideas with meaning which will work? What are we doing to give ourselves those same ideas? I greatly fear that Canada has done little in this regard. We are in danger of losing the world to communism by default, because of our lack of a positive approach. Too many of our businessmen who through the private enterprise way of life have been able to reach the position of power and affluence which they have today, are backing off and saying that socialism is inevitable. Just the other day a university student in this city came home and told her father that one of her professors had said in class that communism was inevitable, and that because it was we may as well begin preparing for it now. Have we no hope? Have we no faith in those things in which we believe and stand for? That is the question which we should be asking ourselves.
Likewise, what are we telling the world? Have we become so confused with those things which have gone wrong in our society, characterized by the cynicism of some segments of the press, the playing up of the seamy side of life in our entertainment both on T.V. and on the stage, to the point that we have lost faith in what we have? If the democratic way of life is to be preserved in Canada, we must not only hold fast to

those truths which we cherish but step boldly out to make our voice heard around the world. This is our hour, if we use it. As the poet said, "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune." What happens if this is denied? "The voyage of their lives is bound in shallows and in misery." What use is there in believing in a great society and losing the world to communism? To me Canada must clarify her own convictions. During the months of this year it has been my privilege to travel almost from coast to coast across the country. As I speak to Canadians who are concerned and to Canadians who care I find that in their thinking there are some very fundamental convictions. I should just like to mention them very briefly in closing.
Underlying our freedom in Canada is a belief in the dignity of man as a creature made in the image of God with inalienable rights and responsibilities. If one does not believe this he can scarcely object to tyranny, or for that matter slavery. We believe in the rule of people by the democratic process. Power can never be wholly given to a man or to a party or to a civil servant, because history has taught us that men can and do misuse power, and has shown us how. We may quarrel among ourselves, we may become confused at times. There will be instances when even freedom may be found hard to manage, or would seem to fall short of complete efficiency. The alternative of giving absolute power to a state or to a party or to a person is infinitely worse. That is why I am convinced that in this House of Commons we are going to have to become accustomed for quite a long time yet to working with the minority situation which we have, making it an instrument and a tool for achieving greater things than if it were otherwise. I believe that the basic needs of all men must be met, and I think all Canadians agree with that. It is our duty and our responsibility to work toward this end. At the present time we have much social legislation. We must co-ordinate our policies, establish priorities and work out a sensible plan for meeting these responsibilities.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
There are good and honest people in this country who, through no fault of their own, are struggling to pay rent, buy the bare necessities of food and clothing on $75 per month. There are people in these circumstances right here in Ottawa, not to mention all across Canada. We ought to be ashamed to have this situation exist in this land of
April 6, 1SG5
prosperity and plenty. Without simple honesty in our dealings in these matters society collapses. Without compassion the lettout person is forgotten. Without concern for the needs of others and respect for ourselves the whole nation's cohesiveness and unity are finished. Perhaps this is one of the greatest contributing factors to the lack of unity which now exists.
We want all nations to have great and good societies where food, clothing and shelter is the common lot of man and where tyranny is dead. Let us stand shoulder to shoulder and give ideas to the new nations which will not only match but far outweigh those promoted by the communists.
But first we have to be convinced of these things ourselves, and convinced of the importance and value of them. If we do that I am sure our work here will be more beneficial than it is now.
We must use every means at our disposal to get across to the people of Russia-yes, even to the people of China-the thought that we have no ill will toward them, but that we only wish to help them build a workable world, a world without fear of war, where hunger, poverty and tyranny have no part. Of course, we must also make it clear to those nations that we cannot countenance any attempt to subvert another nation, and we shall have to fight and resist any attempt to advance ideas which lead to slavery.
It is our very serious duty to make men the world over know that it is our desire to see that all men walk in dignity. If we fail to do this we fail Canada, we fail our children, we fail ourselves and we fail the world. Tyranny could triumph again in this world because you and I in this parliament of Canada do too little too late.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would again refer to this editorial from Maclean's magazine, the issue of April 3, where this is stated:
This is a great time to be alive in Canada.
I agree with that statement. The article then states:
We have prosperity: let's enjoy it. We have wealth; let's spread it around. We have two languages. two cultures, and strong traditions; let's preserve them. We have an old and honoured flag; let's continue to honour it. We also have a new flag and our children have begun to wave it; let's wave it too.
We are having our crises but we can face and overcome them. We have our problems but we can handle them.
I think it is in that spirit that we should face into this session of parliament in order
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to accomplish what this country needs to have done.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances and considering the time I have left to give a thirty minute speech, could we have unanimous consent to call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I addressed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pick-ersgill) regarding a problem in the riding of York-Humber. There are many who refer to three levels of government as though the second and third levels were much further away from the voter than the municipal level. I prefer to call it three spheres of government, as the taxpayer has voting rights in all three divisions.
In this case regarding York-Humber there is a problem in the area northwest of St. Clair avenue and Runnymede road where the homes were built before the first war at a time when individual driveways were not thought of and mutual driveways were an unheard of thing in the future. It comes about that today, in 1965, we have scores upon scores of homes in this district that have no garage entrances or garages, nor is there any room in the subdivision for rear lanes. However, running to the north of the Gaffney subdivision, as it is called, is a right-of-way belonging to the Canadian National Railways which used to serve industrial sites such as the Canada Cement yards and the sand and gravel pit of Connie Smythe, of whom many of you may have heard, in respect of other fields of endeavour.
Within the past year the industrial activities along this spur line on Jane street have ceased to exist, as the property has been converted into apartment house sites. I ask the Minister of Transport whether it would

April 6, 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion not be possible tor the Canadian National Railways to lease this unused spur line property, which extends west of the Canada Packers plant to the Jane street area, so that the people in the Gaffney subdivision could use the abandoned spur line property for parking purposes. It is approximately a 66-foot right of way and no train has run over it in the past five years. Grass is growing between the ties and between the rails. The people living right beside the tracks are being ticketed every night by the metropolitan Toronto police force for leaving their cars on a public highway.
A slight move on the part of the Canadian National Railways in offering to lease about three quarters of a mile of the right of way to the parking authority of the township of York would indicate to the federal taxpayers in my riding that the Canadian National Railways and the federal government are not miles removed from them, but understand the situation with which they are faced. I would earnestly ask the Minister of Transport to urge the Canadian National Railways to consider leasing this abandoned spur line west of the Canada Packers plant to the parking authority of the township of York.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has asked me to say that he is sure the Canadian National Railways would be pleased to receive a direct approach in this regard from the parking authority of the township of York.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-MINISTERS SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR IN QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT ACTION

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not see either the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in the house tonight, and in view of the fact that the matter I wish to raise involves the two ministers, personally, I do not intend to discuss it this evening. I only regret that the two ministers have seen fit to absent themselves from the house at a time when I wish-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I heard an hon. member say "order", from the opposite side of the house. There is nothing disorderly about my remarks. I have expressed regret that the two ministers concerned have not seen fit to be in the house tonight to answer the questions I put to them today, which
they dodged so evasively. That is not an unusual attitude on the part of ministers in respect of questions asked by hon. members on this side of the house.
The questions I asked concern, not proceedings which are before the court but subpoenas, which are more than mere allegations, as the Chair suggested this afternoon, and which have been served on the three ministers concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I gathered from what he said a moment ago that he did not propose to take up his seven minutes. I am wondering now whether, under these circumstances, it would not be better if the hon. member were given the opportunity to pose his questions again or to have the matters listed again for an adjournment proceeding. I hold no brief at this time for the ministers, but obviously we adjourned earlier than usual and perhaps that is an explanation for their absence. Perhaps I am out of order in advancing an explanation in respect of why they are not here, but my suggestion to the hon. member is that we simply adjourn the matter, in view of the fact they are not here to reply, unless there is someone here who is prepared to reply.


Mr. J. B. Stewari (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: On the point of order raised by Your Honour, I may say this matter was put down as a subject to be considered on the motion for adjournment this evening, and I should think, that having been done, the hon. member should proceed in the normal way.


Erik Nielsen: I accept your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I received a note from the President of the Privy Council this afternoon informing me that he was not going to be in the house after nine o'clock. I fully intend to raise the matter again, which I understand is within the rules, tomorrow on the orders of the day. Since the two ministers concerned are not here to answer now, I do not intend to proceed.


John B. Stewart: The government is prepared to proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is nothing to prevent the hon. member from raising the matter again another day, if that is what he wishes to do.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10 p.m.

Wednesday, April 7, 1985